1425

King Henry VI (1422-1461) was the third and last Lancastrian king of England. There is no systematic, chronological analysis of the sources for Henry’s reign. Four of the principal sources, the Proceedings of the Privy Council, the Foedera, the chronicles covering Henry’s reign, and Letters and Papers Illustrative of the Wars of the English in France are brought together here with references to other authorities, primary and secondary. King Henry’s regnal year dates from 1 September to 31 August.

See Introduction.

Money

A pound sterling (£) was worth twenty shillings.  A shilling (s) was worth 12 pence (d). A mark was the most common money of account in England. It was worth 13s 4d or two thirds of a pound sterling. The livre tournois was the most common money of account in France. Nine livres tournois equalled approximately £1.

Contents

The Minority Council

Seventeen Council meetings are recorded in the Proceedings for 1425.

Council Proceedings

Chancellors Beaufort’s wages. Archbishopric of York remained vacant. Henry VI’s household was enlarged.  Henry V’s will. Royal grants: the Mortimer inheritance and the Powis estates. The Wardens of the March. A dispute between Lord Poynings and John Leventhorpe.

Parliament

Parliament assembled on 30 April and sat until 14 July 1425. It was prorogued for five days from 25 to 31 May for Whitsuntide.

 Petitions in Parliament

Sir John Radcliffe. John Holand, Earl of Huntingdon. John Mowbray Earl of Norfolk and Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick.

Taxation

Wool subsidy. The Commons made the renewal of tunnage and poundage conditional on the ‘hosting of aliens’ to control the trading activities of foreign merchants.

Scotland

 King James’s ransom. Scottish Hostage. Truce violations. William, Lord Douglas

 Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester

The Duke of Gloucester and the Duke of Burgundy

The Duke of Burgundy declared war on the Duke of Gloucester.. An exchange of letters led to Burgundy challenging Gloucester to settle their differences by single combat.

The Duke of Gloucester’s Return to England

The Duke of Gloucester abandoned Jacqueline of Hainault and returned to England.  Gloucester concentrated on re-establishing his authority as Protector. 

Protector and Chancellor: The Duke of Gloucester and Henry Beaufort

The Duke of Gloucester’s quarrel with Chancellor Henry Beaufort, was the major event of the year.

 Jacqueline of Hainault

Jacqueline was captured by the Duke of Burgundy, but she managed to escape. At the end of the year the Duke of Gloucester sent a token force to ‘rescue’ her. It was soundly defeated by Burgundy at the Battle of Brouwershaven.

 The War in France

An Army for France

Loans were raised to send an army of about 1500 men to France. The siege of Le Mans and the conquest of the county of Maine. The Fortress of Mont Aimé in Champagne.

Maine

The Siege of Le Mans. The Earl of Salisbury and the Conquest of Maine.

The Fortress of Mont Aimé 

The Duke of Brittany

The Duke of Brittany signed the Treaty of Saumur with the Dauphin Charles. 

The Count of Penthièvre

The Duke of Bedford threatened to recognise the Penthièvre claim to the Duchy of Brittany.

The Administration of Lancastrian France

The Duke of Bedford left France at the end of 1425. He arranged for the smooth administration of Lancastrian France, and for the continuation of the war by his three principal commanders, the Earls of Salisbury, Suffolk, and Warwick.  

 

The Minority Council

Seventeen Council meetings are recorded for 1425. Four in February, five in March, four in May and one in June while Parliament was in session, one in October at the Duke of Gloucester’s house in London, and two in November, one of them at the Dominican Friars in Guildford.

 

 

 

Council Proceedings

Henry Beaufort

Henry Beaufort became Chancellor of England in 1424.

See 1424: Henry Beaufort, Chancellor

In February 1425 a core of Council members agreed that he should receive an additional 2,000 marks a year until either the Duke of Bedford returned from France  or the Duke of Gloucester came back from Hainault in consideration of his consanguinity to the king ‘and the great labour which he sustained’ as Chancellor. But that this was not to set a precedent (1, 2). Beaufort was rich, but he had no objection to becoming richer at the crown’s expense.

*******************************************

(1) PPC III, pp. 165-166 (Beaufort’s wages).

(2) Issues of the Exchequer, p. 395 (Beaufort’s wages).

*********************************************

 The Archbishopric of York

The Council’s quarrel with Pope Martin V over the appointment of an Archbishop of York dragged on.

See Year 1424: The Council and the Papacy.

At the end of February 1425 the Council agreed to farm the temporalties to Lord Cromwell,  Lord Scope and Sir Walter Beauchamp for an annual rent of 2,000 marks until a new archbishop could be consecrated (1).

            (1) PPC III, p. 166 (temporalities of archbishopric).

King Henry VI’s Household

The Council enlarged the king’s household and supplied him with companions. Heirs of magnates who were minors and the king’s wards would join the royal household, bringing with them one master each, to be maintained at the king’s costs. (1).

(1) PPC III, p. 170 (minors to join the king’s household).

King Henry V’s Will

The Council continued to honour the bequests in Henry V’s will. In May John Stafford, as Treasurer, Lords Cromwell and John Scrope confirmed that John Burnham, keeper of Henry V’s books had delivered certain volumes to John Dependen, warden of the free chapel and leper hospital of St Giles, Little Maldon (1, 2).

In June the Council issued a quittance for Robert Gilbert, a former dean of the royal chapel for vestments and other church accessories delivered to the Abbey of St Denis in Paris and to the cathedral of Saint Julien in Le Mans as bequests from Henry V (3).

*************************************

(1) PPC III, p. 168 (Henry V’s books).

(2) CPR 1422-1429, p. 256 (Dependen).

(3) Foedera X, p 346 (bequests to churches in France).

***************************************

Royal Grants

The Council granted custody of the Mortimer estates to the Dukes of Exeter and Glouester, and the Powis estates to the Duke of Bedford

The Mortimer Inheritance

Edmund Mortimer, Earl of March, died of plague at Trim in Ireland on 25 January 1425.

“And that yere dyde the Erle of Marche in Irlonde, the xviij day of Janyver, in the castelle of Trynne.”  Gregory’s Chronicle, p. 158 

Mortimer’s heir, Richard, Duke of York, was still a minor, and most of the Mortimer estates passed into the king’s hands.

The Council granted Thomas Beaufort, Duke of Exeter custody of the Mortimer estates in East Anglia and Hertfordshire and the rest of the Mortimer lands in the king’s hands to Duke of Gloucester (1, 2, 3).

In February Queen Katherine was granted a house in London that had belonged to Mortimer (4).

 The Powys Inheritance

Joan, Lady of Powys, the widow of Sir John Grey of Heton, whom King Henry V had created Count of Tancarville died on 17 September 1425. Her son Henry was a still minor.

The Council granted custody of the Powys lands, together with the marriage of the heir to The Duke of Bedford. No reason for the grant is given, presumably Bedford requested it (5).  

********************************************

(1) CFR 1422-1430 p. 85 (Thomas Beaufort custodian of Mortimer estates).

(2) PPC III, p 169 (grant to Gloucester).

(3) CFR 1422-1430, p. 103 (grant Gloucester).

(4) Foedera X, p. 342 (grant to Katherine).

(5) PPC III, pp. 177–178 (Powis lands to Bedford).

******************************************

Wardens of the March

Henry Percy, Earl of Northumberland had been granted £3,000 as wages and arrears as Warden of the East March in May 1423 (1). In May 1425 Council agreed that the same amount should be assigned to Sir Richard Neville for his wages and arrears as Warden of the West March (2).

See Year 1423: Wardens of the March

*****************************************

(1) PPC III, pp. 69 and 100 (Northumberland).

(2) PPC III, p.170 (Wardens of the March).

***********************************

Robert Lord Poynings and John Leventhorpe

A dispute between Robert, Lord Poynings and John Leventhorpe came before the Council at the end of February. Henry Beaufort, the Chancellor, Thomas Langley, the ex-Chancellor, Philip Morgan, Bishop of Worcester, and John, Scrope, acted as arbitrators (1).

Lord Poynings claimed that John Leventhorpe had unjustly, or unfairly, acquired (or held on to) the inheritance of John Waleys (2). Wayley, his wife Joan and their eldest son, John the younger, had died in quick succession.  Wayley was a tenant in chief and his lands escheated to the crown under King Henry V.

Wayley’s younger son Robert and his four daughters survived. Beatrice and Joan were of full age, Agnes and another Joan who were minors.

John Leventhorpe was an influential official of the Duchy of Lancaster under Henry IV and Henry V and an executor of Henry V’s will (3). It is probable that the wardship of Waley’s children was granted to Leventhorpe by Henry V.

The synopsis in Chronological Abstracts (p. xxvi) in the Proceedings is misleading.  Lord Poynings was not disputing the ‘detention’ of John Waleys, who was dead, but the retention of his inheritance by John Leventhorpe.

The reason for Poynings’s challenge is not recorded; presumably he had some claim on the Wayley estates or possibly on the marriage of one of the daughters. He apparently lost his case.

In March 1425 Robert Leventhorpe, John Leventhorpe’s son, and one William Holgrave were awarded the keeping of the Wayley lands together with the marriages of Agnes and Joan. The fee was £100 unless the value of the lands exceeded £54 annually when additional payment would be expected (4).

********************************************

(1) PPC III, pp. 165–166 (dispute arbitrators).

(2) ‘John Leventhorpe’ in www.historyofparliamentonline.org (Only one sentence in the lengthy entry refers to the dispute: “Thomas (sic) Lord Poynings challenged [John] Leventhorpe’s right to the custody of a royal ward.”

(3) Somerville, Duchy of Lancaster, p. 397

(4) CFR 1422-1429, p. 97 (settlement dated 1 March 1425).

**********************************************

Parliament

Parliament assembled on 30 April and sat until 14 July 1425. It was prorogued for five days from 25 to 31 May for Whitsuntide.

“And in that Parlyment the Erle Marchalle was made Duke of Northefolke.”  Gregory’s Chronicle, p. 157

 The Earl of Norfolk and the Earl of Warwick

An inordinate amount of time was taken up in the early sessions of Parliament by a precedence dispute between John Mowbray, Earl of Norfolk, and Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick (1). Precedence was a status symbol, more important even than money, and jealously guarded. Precedence disputes were usually settled by the Lords in Parliament, but in 1425 the Lords could not make up their minds, and the justices and sergeants-at-law declined to break the impasse. Every conceivable argument was examined at excruciating length.

John Mowbray, Earl of Norfolk, and hereditary Earl Marshal of England claimed precedence as a direct descendant of Thomas of Brotherton, half-brother of King Edward II.

Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick claimed precedence by right of usage and custom. The Earls of Warwick were the premier earls in England and had been named before the Earls of Norfolk in summonses to parliament under King Richard II.  

Roger Hunt the member for Huntingdonshire and an experienced attorney, presented Mowbray’s case: the Norfolk title had been held by Margaret, a daughter of Thomas of Brotherton, but she, as a woman, could not be summoned to Parliament. The title passed to her son, Thomas, whom Richard II created Duke of Norfolk. He was subsequently stripped of the title and exiled, so that he, too, could not attend Parliament. His son Thomas, Earl of Norfolk, was executed for treason by Henry IV in 1405 but he not attainted, so the earldom passed to his younger brother, the present earl. 

Sir Walter Beauchamp put the case for his kinsman, the Earl of Warwick. The Duke of Gloucester testified that Warwick had been given precedence in the summons to Parliament of 1414. Roger Hunt replied that this had been on King Henry V’s orders, not those of Parliament.

In the end, to avoid wasting more time and risk an escalation of the dispute, a clever lawyer (or lawyers) in the Commons came up with a solution: 

Richard II had created the dukedom of Norfolk for Thomas Mowbray. Henry IV had Thomas Mowbray stripped of the dukedom by Parliament, but this did not affect the title created by Richard II, and John Mowbray was commonly recognised as ‘born to the style.’ The Commons sensibly suggested therefore that John Mowbray should be acknowledged as Duke of Norfolk by Parliament. This decision was accepted, and Chancellor Beaufort pronounced the judgement on 14 July 1425 the day Parliament was dissolved (2, 3). For once both parties were satisfied: Mowbray got his dukedom and the Earl of Warwick was once again the premier earl in England.

It has been suggested that Gloucester influenced the judgement in Norfolk’s favour because Norfolk had accompanied him to Hainault in 1424. But Norfolk’s part in the Hainault expedition was anything but heroic and Gloucester was quite capable of holding him responsible for the military debacle.

See Year 1424: The Duke of Gloucester in Hainault.

Richard Beauchamp on the other hand, had been a close friend of the Lancastrian family, and especially of Henry V and Gloucester spoke in favour of Warwick. 

The recognition of John Mowbray as Duke of Norfolk confused the compilers of The Brut Continuations

“And in this same tyme the Kynge of two Erles made two Dukes: þe Erle of Cambrige he made the Duke of Yorke, & þe Erle Marshall Henaud, þe Duke of Northefolke.”  Brut D Appendix,  p. 441

“And in that same parlement  the kynge made two Dukis: my Lord Sir Richardis sone of Caumbrigge, Duke of Yorke, and Sir Iohn of Mombray, Erle Marchall, Duke of Northeffolke,” Brut Continuation D,  p. 433

Richard, Duke of York never became Earl of Cambridge. His father Richard, Earl of Cambridge, was executed for treason in 1415 and the title was forfeited.  He became Duke of York on the death of the childless Edward, Duke of York at the Battle of Agincourt in 1415.

*******************************************************

(1) PROME X, pp. 216-232 (the dispute in exhaustive detail).

(2) J. Enoch Powell & K. Wallis, The House of Lords in the Middle Ages, (1968) pp. 453–454.

(3) R. E. Archer, ‘Parliamentary restoration: John Mowbray and the dukedom of Norfolk in 1425, ed. R.E. Archer & S. Walker Ruler and Ruled in Late medieval England (1995), pp. 99-116.

*********************************************************************

 Petitions in Parliament

Sir John Radcliffe 

Sir John Radcliffe had been appointed Seneschal of Gascony in 1423. He came home in 1425 and appeared in Parliament on 23 May to petition for a discharge from his duties.

Radcliffe had recovered most of the castles and fortified towns in Gascony by his own efforts between 1420 and 1425, but he had no faith in the Minority Council’s ability to sustain them.  He asked to be excused from all responsibility as seneschal for their custody and said that ‘if it happened that God allowed any mischance’ to befall them he was not to blame and he should not be held responsible (1, 2). He requested to have his petition entered on the Parliament rolls, but this was not done, and no answer to his request is recorded.

See Year 1423: The Duchy of Gascony, Sir John Radcliffe.

*************************************************

(1) PPC III, p. 170 (Radcliffe’s petition).

(2) PROME X, Appendix, p. 274 for an English translation. 

***********************************************

John Holand, Earl of Huntingdon

Huntingdon was still a prisoner in France in 1425. He petitioned Parliament, as he had in 1424, to expedite his release and requested that Thomas Beaufort, Duke of Exeter should be his proxy to arrange the payment of Jean d’Estouteville and Raoul de Gaucourt’s ransoms of 5,000 marks to Sir John Cornwall for his ransom as agreed in Parliament in 1424 (1).

See Year 1424: John Holand, Earl of Huntingdon.

(1) PROME X, pp. 251-253 (three petitions to Parliament on behalf of the Earl of Huntingdon).

Elizabeth, Countess of Huntingdon died in London at the Cold Harbour in November 1425 before her son returned to England. She was King Henry IV’s sister and she had married Sir John Cornwall as her second husband, making Cornwall John Holand’s stepfather.

“Ande the same yere, the xxviij day of Novembyr, deyde the Countasse of Huntyngdon at the Colde Herborowe, in London, and she ys buryd at the Fryer Prechowrys at Ludgate.’   Gregory’s Chronicle, p. 161.

Taxation

Despite Chancellor Beaufort’s plea in his opening address, the Commons refused to grant additional taxes.

Wool Subsidy

They extended the wool subsidy for three years at the same rates as before, 33s. 4d. on every sack of export wool and every 240 wool fells (tanned skins) shipped by English merchants; and 53s. 4d for foreign merchants. At the same time, they protected English mercantile interests. Any English merchant who suffered losses through piracy or ships sinking were not to be held liable for the subsidies. If they had already paid them, they could ship uncustomed goods of equal value.

Hosting Regulations

The imposition of tunnage and poundage on alien merchants (3 shilling per tun of wine and 12 pence on other imports) enacted by Parliament in 1422, was extended to English merchants. The Commons only consented to the tax on condition that alien merchants should be ‘put to hoste’ – i.e. that they must live at known addresses so that their activities could be monitored and their transactions overseen by English merchants. If the government failed to enforce the regulations the Commons would withdraw the grant (1, 2, 3) Parliament passed the bill in July 1425.

“And in this parlement was graunted to the kyng the subsidie of xii d. of the pounde of all maner of marchandise comyng yn and passing oute of the Reaume.   And thre shelinges of the tonne during to be gynne at lammesse [1 August] and so dure to the feste of seint Martyn [10 November] the yere of oure lord M¹CCCCxxvi [1426] upon this condicion that all Marchantes straungers shall been under hooste withyn xv dayes after here comyng and or they make ony sale of here marchandises.  And wythyn xl dayes after they been under hoost they shull sellen here marchaundise.  And what leveth unsolde atte the xl dayes ende shall be forfete to the kyng. 

Also that every englyssh marchaunt shall been beleved by his othe and by his lettre. And yf only englyssh Marchaunt have more marchanundise comyng yn or goyng outeward than he maketh relacion to the Collectours of the subsidie he shall paie double custome for that ware that is not custumed.   Also yf that ony marchandise that shull be cleped by englyssh marchantz be perysshed or loste in the see or taken by enemyes it shall be leefull to the said Marchauntz afterward to ship asmoche marchandise withoute paying of ony.

Also in the same parliament was graunted to the kyng by the comons v nobles the sakke of wolle  And for CCxl felle wolle v nobles forto begynne the thrydde day after Martyn in Novembre next comyng.  Also so during forthe iij yere full to paie the said subsidie half the somme vi monthes after the date of the Coket  And that other half vi monthes after that.  

And yf only wolle or wolle felle so shipped and customed be perysshed loste or taken with enemyes that the Marchauntz that so have lost theire good shall be discharged ageyne the kyng of paying of that subsidie  And yf the subsidie be paied that thanne it shall be leefull to hem to ship asmuch such wolle or wolle felle as the somme amounteth so loste withoute paying any subsidie.

Also in the parliament was graunted a subsidie that alle Alizantz shuld paien xliij s. Iiij d. For the sak wolle and asmoche for every CCxl wolle felle to dure iij yere as before is said.   And yf so be that the condicions aforesaid be not observed ne kept upon the kynges partie that thanne the graunte of tonnage and poundage of the marchaunt englyssh be voyde and of no value.  Great Chronicle, pp. 132-133

Henry Beaufort was later blamed for failing to enforce the regulations but the Leicester Parliament of 1426 confirmed that the tax would stand whether or not the condition was met (3). By that time Beaufort had ceased to be Chancellor.

“And at that Parlymente was grauntyd that alle maner of alyentys shulde be put to hoste as Englysche men benne in othyr londys, and ovyr that condyscyon was the tonage grauntyd; the whyche condyscyon was brokyn in the same yere by the Bysschoppe of Wynchester, as the moste pepylle sayde, he beyng Chaunseler the same tyme, and there-fore there was moche hevynesse and trowbylle in thys londe.”  Gregory’s Chronicle, p. 157

**********************************************************

(1) PROME X, pp. 235-35 and 262-64 (taxation).

(2) Roskell, Speakers, p. 186 (taxation).

(3) PROME X, p. 297 (1426 taxes to stand).

*************************************************************

Scotland 

King James had sworn an oath to pay his ransom of 40,000 marks at 10,000 marks a year over four years.  

See Year 1424:  Scotland, Ransom and Truce

Payment was eagerly anticipated by the Council. At the end of 1424 they had instructed Chancellor Beaufort to be ready to issue receipts ‘from time to time, for such sums of money as should be received by the treasurer on account of the 40,000 marks’ (1).

A payment of 450 marks was received in February, and a further 2,000 marks in June 1425. The 450 marks were assigned to Richard Buckland, Treasurer of Calais (2). The 2,000 marks went to the Earl of Northumberland as part payment of his wages as Warden of the East March in accordance with the indenture signed with him in November 1424 (3, 4).

*************************************************

(1) PPC III, p. 164 (Chancellor to issue receipts).

(2) Foedera X, p. 342 (450 marks, Calais).

(3) Foedera X, pp. 344-345 (2,000 marks to Northumberland).

(4) PPC III, pp. 162-163 (Northumberland indenture).

**************************************************

Scottish Hostages

The Parliament of 1425 enacted the criteria exchanging any of the twenty-seven Scottish hostages held as guarantees for the payment of King James’s ransom. The act stipulated that the value and status of replacement hostages was to be assessed by the Council and the Wardens of the March: they must be of equal value to those being released. The exchange of two for one, i.e., two hostages for one replacement, might be permitted but only in special cases as an act of royal mercy and not as of right (1). 

Nine of the hostages were to be released: Thomas, Earl of Moray, Robert, Lord Keith marshal of Scotland, Duncan Campbell of Argyll, Walter Haliburton, Alexander Seton, Thomas Boyd, John Lindsay, Robert Lisle, and David Ogilvy.  

But the other five, David, Master of Athol, Alexander, Earl of Crawford, and Patrick Lyons of Glamis, George Campbell and David Menzies remained in custody, presumably because the Council or the Wardens of the March did not consider the replacements offered to be wealthy enough (2).

In March 1425 safe conducts were issued for the servants of twenty of the hostages to come to London (3).

Henry Lounde was to requisition horses to transfer hostages from the Tower of London and Knaresborough Castle to Durham (4). In July Lounde was ordered to escort fourteen prisoners from the Tower of London to the sheriff of York (5).

Sir Richard Hastings Constable of Knaresborough Castle was ordered to transfer Sir Robert Erskine and James Dunbar into the custody of John Langton, sheriff of York. Langton was instructed to receive them into his custody and convey them to Durham (6).               

************************************************** 

(1) PROME X, pp.  235-237 (terms for exchange).

(2) Foedera X, p. 348 (four hostages released, five not included).

(3) Foedera X, p. 342 (Scots servants to come to London).

(4) CPR 1422-1429, p. 279 (Lounde to provide horses).

(5) Foedera X, p. 345 (fourteen hostages to be transferred).

(6) Foedera X, pp. 346, 348 (sheriff of York to receive and conduct them).

*****************************************************

 Truce violations

Claim and counterclaim of truce violations on both sides of the border were a constant theme in Anglo-Scottish relations. March Days (meeting days) was an ancient custom, dating back to the thirteenth century. English and Scottish representatives met on agreed days, designated well in advance to allow both parties time to reach the usual meeting places at Reddenburn or Haddenstank close to the border during periods of truce between England and Scotland. They were held at irregular intervals and were usually attended by one of the English Wardens of the March. They thrashed out, and occasionally settled, accusations of truce violations, border raiding, and acts of piracy.

See Year 1424: Scotland, A Seven Year Truce

In June 1425 a delegation of Scottish ecclesiastics received safe conducts to travel through England on their way to visit Pope Martin at Rome (1). John Hales, Abbot of Balmerino, stopped off in London on King James’s instructions, to complain to the Council of truce violations.   

In July the Council appointed Thomas Langley, Bishop of Durham, William Alnwick, Lord Cromwell, Lord Scrope, Sir William Harrington, and Sir Robert Umfraville, to hold a March Day at Berwick on 15 August (2).

Berwick and Roxburgh

The two great fortresses of Berwick on Tweed and Roxburgh along the Anglo-Scottish border had been in English hands since the fourteenth century. Under the terms of the truce signed with King James their garrisons had forage and pasture rights within a perimeter in the surrounding countryside. 

The Scots had claimed that the English did not respect the boundaries of the land used by soldiers of the garrisons to gather hay for their horses, for fuel, and pasturage for their cattle, provided under the terms of the truce.

Umfraville carried a letter from Thomas Langley to King James setting out  the English position and raising ‘certain other materes touching the conservation of the said trewes.  Langley complained that Scottish Wardens of the March failed to meet with their counterparts as often as they should, and their deputies had not enforced the terms of the truce.

Langley dismissed the Scots’ claim as false. He offered written depositions from eight local men that the garrison at Berwick actedg within their rights, but the Scots had refused to accept their evidence. Langley accused the Scots of harassing the soldiers at Berwick and preventing their free access to the land. He requested King James to order Scots inhabiting Berwick and Roxburgh to respect English rights (3).

No agreement was reached and the talks were shelved until the following year when Sir Robert Umfraville was again sent to meet with Scottish commissioners.

See Year 1426 Scotland, Truce violations for Umfraville.

**********************************************

(1) Foedera X, p. 344 (Scottish bishops visit England).

(2) Foedera X, p. 347 (Langley and others appointed).

(3) PPC III, pp. 171-74 (Langley’s letter).

***********************************************

 William, Lord Douglas

Nicolas printed a modern transcript of a petition from William, Lord Douglas as a typical example of truce violations. He dated it to1425 (1).

Douglas claimed that immediately after the ratification of the truce at Berwick and the release of King James in 1424, Sir Robert ‘Tuyllyoll’ [Tyrell?] led a raiding party from Cumberland and Westmorland into Eskdale and rustled 1,000 oxen, cows, and other young cattle, 1,000 sheep and horses, and stole booty to the value of £20.

The Scots who rode to recover their property were ambushed by Sir Thomas Lucy (Sir William in Nicolas’s preface (p. xxvi).  Tuyllyoll and Lucy were habitual marauders, they and their men from Cumberland and Westmoreland had repeatedly ravaged Douglas’s lands in daylight and undercover of darkness. Thomas Lucy had sheltered the night raiders in Lochmaban Castle. Douglas’s people had been robbed and taken prisoner for ransom and the damage inflicted on them amounted to some £5,000. 

Douglas admitted that his people had retaliated although he personally had never led a raid into England; on the contrary, he had offered reparation for any injuries inflicted by his people, and he had even offered Tuyllyoll £20 to respect the truce, but Sir Robert had refused. Douglas’s petition is an appeal to King Henry and the Council for justice and redress.

(1) PPC III, pp. 353-354 (Douglas’s petition).

 The Countess of Douglas

A letter dated 14 May but with no year from Margaret Stewart, Countess of Douglas was seriously misdated to 1425 by Stevenson in Letters and Papers (1).  

It cannot be 1425. From internal evidence it must date to after King James I’s death in 1437. The countess refers to the king as her nephew. James I was her brother, James II was her nephew. She entrusted the letter to James’s chancellor le sire de Crychtoune. William, Lord Crichton became Chancellor of Scotland in 1439 (2).  He accompanied a Scottish embassy to King Charles VII in 1448 to arrange marriages for James II’s sisters.

Countess Margaret was the widow of Archibald, 4th Earl of Douglas, whom Charles had created Duke of Touraine and who died at the Battle of Verneuil in 1424. She claimed her dower ‘for the time past and future’ as Duchess of Touraine. The letter reminded King Charles that she was still alive and had a claim on a third of the rents and revenues of the Duchy of Touraine. Her grandson William, 6th Earl of Douglas was the last to hold the title Duke of Touraine. He was murdered in 1440. Margaret died in 1450/51. 

***************************************************

(1) L&P I, pp. 20–21. (Margaret, Countess of Douglas, letter).

(2) C. McGladdery, James II, p. 26 (Crichton, Chancellor).

(3) Beaucourt, Charles VII vol. IV, p. 369 (embassy of 1448).

***************************************************

The Duke of Gloucester and the Duke of Burgundy

The New Year 1425 opened badly for the Duke of Gloucester.  He and Countess Jacqueline had arrived in Hainault in 1424 to reclaim Jacqueline’s patrimony of Hainault, Holland and Zeeland.  

See Year 1424: The Duke of Gloucester and Hainault,

John, Duke of Bavaria- Straubing, Jacqueline’s uncle, died on 6 January 1425 (1).  He had ruled Holland and Zeeland in Jacqueline’s name, and he made the Duke of Burgundy his heir.

The Duke of Burgundy claimed to be Jacqueline’s overlord and he intended to unite the Low Countries under his rule. Early in 1425 Burgundy declared war on Gloucester who was at first bewildered and then outraged.  More in sorrow than in anger, Gloucester addressed an extraordinary letter to Burgundy, expressing his astonishment. He could not believe that the duke would actually declare war! Burgundy was England’s ally, why should he object to Gloucester governing Hainault? 

Gloucester had expected opposition from the weakling John, Duke of Brabant, Jacqueline’s estranged but still lawful first husband, he had not reckoned on the mighty Duke of Burgundy. He protested that he had been willing to come to terms with the Duke of Brabant, despite the fact that the conditions laid down by the Duke of Bedford and the Duke of Burgundy to settle their differences were not in his best interests, but Brabant had rejected them.

He reminded Burgundy that his marriage with Jacqueline made his kinship with Burgundy closer than Burgundy’s with Brabant. Jacqueline’s mother was Burgundy’s aunt. John of Brabant was only Burgundy’s cousin.

 Gloucester referred to a treaty of peace between himself and Burgundy (did he mean the Anglo-Burgundian alliance?). He pointed out that he had not infringed it; on the contrary he had taken great care when his army passed through Artois and across Burgundian territory that none of Burgundy’s subjects should be harmed. His honour would never permit him to attack an ally, and he was sure that Burgundy must feel the same.

Gloucester claimed that he had not come to Hainault to acquire any territories but those to which he was entitled as Jacqueline’s husband. As Count of Hainault he was willing to accommodate Burgundy, but if he had to, he would fight to the death to defend ‘his’ county. The fault of provoking a war would not be his. He reiterated that he could not believe the reports he had heard and he hoped Burgundy could be persuaded to change his mind. He would then do everything in his power to assist Burgundy in whatever way he could (2).

Did Gloucester believe what he said? All his life he was blinkered when it came to comprehending any position other than own, and he was not above lying to achieve his ends, but he may genuinely never have considered, or understood, Burgundy’s ambition to possess the Low Countries.

Burgundy’s reply to Gloucester refuted every accusation Gloucester had made. He called Gloucester a bare faced liar and declared that Gloucester had insulted him and impugned his honour. Unlike Gloucester, he had done nothing underhand and had spoken nothing but the truth. Burgundy challenged Gloucester settle their differences under the laws of chivalry by meeting in single combat to avoid a war and the shedding of Christian blood (3).

A challenge to single combat was a recognised move in the diplomatic game played by kings and rulers. Henry V had issued just such a challenge to the Dauphin Charles when he invaded France in 1415 (4). But such encounters were never intended to take place, and in fact they did not. It is therefore all the more surprising that Burgundy appeared to be in earnest (5).

Gloucester dispatched a bombastic reply to Burgundy at the end of March, accepting the challenge and naming St George’s Day, 23 April, as the day of combat, with the Duke of Bedford to act as judge (6).

Bedford was angry with both belligerents, but throughout the critical period from January to March 1425, he did his best to persuade them to settle their differences. He sent his councillors Raoul Roussel and Raoul Le Sage to Hainault to reason with Gloucester. The Minority Council sent Garter King of Arms to Gloucester, probably on Bedford’s instructions, ‘upon certain especial causes and matters’ (7).    

Bedford also sent Gilles de Durmont, Abbot of Fécamp as his personal envoy to the Duke of Burgundy. Durmont was a client of Burgundy as well as Bedford’s councillor and he made several fruitless journeys to Dijon, ‘for certain great matters and affairs for the appeasing of Gloucester and Brabant.’(8). Gloucester was not the only one refusing to listen to Bedford’s pleas.

***********************************************

(1) Vaughan, Philip, p. 36 (John of Bavaria’s death).

(2) Wavrin III, pp. 92-96 (Gloucester’s letter).

(3) Wavrin III, pp. 96-100 (Burgundy’s letter).

(4) Foedera IX, p. 313. (Henry V’s challenge).

(5) Vaughan, Philip, pp. 38-39 (Burgundy’s challenge).

(6) Wavrin III, pp. 100-103 (Gloucester’s second letter).

(7) Issues of the Exchequer, p. 390. (Garter King of Arms to Gloucester).

(8) L&P I, Preface, lxxxiv-lxxxv (Roussel and Le Sage) and lxxxii-lxxxiii (Fécamp).

**********************************************************

 The Duke of Gloucester’s Return to England

What little enthusiasm the Hainaulters felt for Gloucester as their count waned in March when a Burgundian army under the Philip Count of St Pol, the Duke of Brabant’s brother,  crossed the border into Hainault and laid siege to the town of Braine-le-Comte half way between Mons and Brussels.  Gloucester was at Soignies only few miles southwest of Braine but he returned to the safety of Mons and made no attempt to rescue Braine. After a siege lasting eight days Braine surrendered and was sacked and burned by St Pol’s troops (1).

Gloucester discovered that it was far easier to launch a campaign than to win it. He did not possess the military genius of Henry V or the diplomatic skills of John of Bedford, he was tired of Hainault, and of Jacqueline. His escapade had all the ingredients of a minstrel’s tale, and was of little importance, except that it angered Burgundy and infuriated Bedford.

Gloucester providentially remembered that he was Protector of England. He had neglected his duties for long enough and to no avail. The Duke of Burgundy’s challenge to single combat was a heaven-sent excuse for Gloucester to return to England, ostensibly to prepare for an encounter he never intended to face. 

In April, accompanied by Eleanor Cobham, one of Jacqueline’s ladies, who had become his mistress, Gloucester abandoned Jacqueline and Hainault and returned to England (2).  It was not a happy homecoming. He put a brave face on it, but he had been humiliated in Hainault and he discovered that while he was away his uncle Henry Beaufort as Chancellor, had usurped his dominance of the Council.

“Also in this same yere [1424] the Duke of Gloucestre with his wyfe the Duchesse of holand wente ovyr the see into Henaude forto take possession of his wyfes heritage . . . . But withyn shorte tyme after it happed so that he myght not abide there but retourned home ayen and lefte his lady beyynde hym with all the Tresoure that he brought into that lande.”   Great Chronicle, p. 136

English chronicle accounts derive from a common source. They are heavily glossed to imply that Gloucester had no choice but to return to England.

Chronicles:  Three Fifteenth Century Chronicles (Short English Chronicle), p. 59; A Chronicle of London, (Harley 565), p. 113; Chronicles of London, (Julius B II), pp. 75-76, and (Cleopatra C IV), p. 129; Brut Continuation D, p. 431.

********************************************

(1) Wavrin III, pp. 107-110 (sack of Braine-le-Conte). 

(2) Vickers, Humphrey, pp. 158-161 (Gloucester left Hainault).

**********************************************

London

The news that the Duke of Burgundy had taken up arms against the Duke of Gloucester did not go down well in England. Gloucester was popular with the Londoners, he was ‘their own duke.’ Anti-Flemish feeling had existed in the capital for years, and Burgundy was Count of Flanders. Collectively Londoners were xenophobic. They disliked foreigners in general and the Flemings in particular as their rivals in the woollen cloth trade.

Bills were posted up all over the City, on the gates of Chancellor Beaufort’s palace in Southwark and the gates of other bishop’s residences, probably members of the Council, threatening Flemings resident in London.

“And that yere, the xiij day of Feverer at nyght, were caste many byllys in the cytte and in the subbarbys agayne the Flemyngys, and sum were set in the byschoppe ys gate of Wynchester, and othyr bischoppys gatys.”          Gregory’s Chronicle, p. 158

“And that in semble wise after that my said lord of Gloucestre was goon into his said Cuntrey (eritage in J. B. II) of henaude for sedicious and (Odiouse in J. B. II)  billes and langage caste and used in the Cite of london sownyng into fongyng of Jurisdiccion (Insurreccion in J. B. II)  and rebellion ayens the kynges pees, and destruccion aswell of diverse astates of this londe (Englonde in J. B. II), as of straungers beyng undir the proteccion.”  Chronicles of London, Julius B II, pp. 79-80; and Great Chronicle, p. 140 

 Sir Richard Woodville

The unrest in the City made the Council uneasy. The Tower of London housed the royal ordnance, the mint, and the great wardrobe as well as Scottish hostages. Its security was vitally important. The Chancellor Henry Beaufort and the Council entrusted the keeping of  the Tower to the Duke of Bedford’s chamberlain, Richard Woodville. As Captain of Caen and a soldier of proven ability Woodville was an ideal choice. He was appointed on 26 February 1425 ‘on account of certain urgent causes and imminent dangers’ (1).

It is no coincidence that Woodville was in London at this time. He was there on Bedford’s orders to act as Bedford’s eyes and ears and report promptly on any indication that the Council was considering sending military aid to Gloucester in Hainault. Woodville would not have been chosen by the Council without the Duke of Bedford’s knowledge and consent (and possibly his instructions).

“And in the morowe the Byschoppe of Wynchester sent Richarde Woodevyle, squyer, to kepe the Towre of London with men of armys as thoughe hyt hadde bene in the londe of warre, and so induryd tylle the feste of Symon and Jude [28 October] nexte aftyr folowynge.”   Gregory’s Chronicle, p 158

“And for the more sure keping off the said Toure Richard Wodeville, squyer, so trust with the kyng oure soverain lord that deed ys [Henry V], as well is knowe, And also Chamberleyn and counseilling unto my lorde of Bedford with certeyn nombre of defensable persones assigned vnto him, was depute by the assente of the kynges counseill beyng that tyme at london, forto abyde theryn for sauf garde theroff, and streytely charged by the seyde Counseill that duryng that tyme off his said charge, he ne shuld ne suffre no man to be in the toure strenger thanne he, withoute especiall charge or commandement of the kyng and be the avis of his counsaill.”        Great Chronicle, p. 140

As soon as he reached London Gloucester set about reasserting himself as Protector. He started by trying to take up residence in the Tower of London, which could be construed as a threat and was certainly provocative, since he had a perfectly good house in London at Baynard’s Castle where he habitually stayed.

Richard Woodville refused to allow Gloucester to enter the Tower. He had 20 men-at-arms and 40 archers under his command (3), a considerably smaller force than Gloucester’s retinue, and his instructions were to allow no one ‘stronger than he’ to enter the Tower.  Gloucester later claimed that these instructions were issued by the Chancellor ‘ayenst the State and Worship off the kyng’ and of himself as Protector.

“ . . . he beyng Protectour and Defendour off this londe desireth the Toure off London to be opned vnto hym and to logge hym ther Inne, Rich. Wodeville, squyer, havyng that tyme the charge off the kepyng off the seyde Toure, refused hym his desire And kepte the seyde Toure ayenst hym vngoodly and ayenst Reson by the commandement off my seyde lorde off Wynchestre; and afterward in comprovyng (approving) off the seyde Refuse.”   

                    Chronicles of London (Julius B II), p. 77 ; Great Chronicle,  p. 138

“. . .  Wodevyle come unto hym [Beaufort] to aske his advys and counseill of loggeyng off my said lord of Gloucestre in the toure, to avise hym and charge him that bifore than he suffred my said lord of Gloucestre or eny other persone logge there yn strenger than he, he shuld purvey him a sufficiant warrant therof of the kyng by the advys off his counsaill.                                                     Great Chronicle, p. 141

Gloucester used the Tower incident to cast himself as the defender of the citizens of London. He proclaimed publicly that the Chancellor’s motivation in entrusting the Tower to Woodville was to threaten the City’s liberties including their right to protest against the presence of aliens in their city, and other injustices done to them. Gloucester claimed that the Londoners, who were loyal to the king, had been ‘ryght evil paid,’ during his absence, but now that he had come home he would protect them.

“ . . . upon the comyng of my said lord of Gloucestre into this lande ffrom his Cuntrey of henawde, the said lordes off the kyngeis counseill weren enfourmed that my seyde lorde off Gloustre  grucched with the seyde maner of  enforcyng of the toure, and lette say to hem of London that he hadde well understonde that they hadde ben hevely threted for the tyme off his absence, and of other wyse thanne they shuld have and he hadde be in this lande . . . . . Considering good equytall and trouthe that they hadde alwey kept unto the kyng, offering hym therupon remedie yf they wolde.”    Great Chronicle p. 140

***************************************

(1) PPC III, p. 167 (Woodville’s appointment).

(2) Griffiths, Henry VI, p. 90, n. 45 citing NA E 403/669 m 14. Woodville was allowed 30 men at arms and 50 archers for three weeks and 20 men at arms and 40 archers until the end of October 1425.  

****************************************

Friar Randolph

Thwarted by Woodville, Gloucester ordered Robert Scott, the lieutenant of the Tower  to release Friar Randolph into his custody. Randolph was in prison on a charge of necromancy, he had been in the household of Dowager Queen Joan, Gloucester’s step mother, when Henry V accused her of witchcraft and deprived her of her liberty (1).

Robert Scott protested  that he had explicit instructions not to release Randolph to anyone without a direct order from the Council, and he asked Gloucester for a copy of the Council’s order. Gloucester replied that his warrant was sufficient, and the unfortunate Scott had no option but to obey. He reported to Beaufort in some trepidation, but Beaufort reassured him that he would not be held responsible for releasing Randolf.

“. . .  Richard Scotte, lieutenaunt of the Toure, by the commaundement of my said lord of Gloucestre brought unto hym Frere Randolf the which hadde longe by fore confessed treson done by hym ayens the kynges persone that deed ys  [Henry V]. . . . . the said Scot to kepe hym streytely  And nat to lette him oute off the seyde Toure with oute commaundement of the kyng be the advys of his  Counsaill. 

The which said Frere Randolf my said lord of Gloucestre kepte thanne with hym self not wytyng the said Scotte as he declared unto my said lorde of Winchestre sone after that he hadde brought the said Frere Randolf unto my lord of Gloucestre  Seying unto my said lord of Wynchestre that he was undone but he helped hym . . . .  And seying more over that whan he desired of my said lord of Gloucestre  . . . . sufficiant warrant for his discharge, my said lord of Gloucestre answered hym that his commaundement was sufficiant warrant and discharge for hym.”   Great Chronicle, pp. 140-141

(1) A.R. Myers, ‘The captivity of a royal witch,’ in Crown, household and parliament, pp. 94-95 and 127-28.

Gloucester and King Henry

Gloucester had demonstrated that as Protector he would insist on his orders being obeyed, but to flout the Council was unwise and any dealings with a necromancer were guaranteed to cause alarm.  His next step was to establish his authority in relation to the king. Two days before Parliament assembled on 30 April Queen Katherine brought the three-year-old King Henry from Windsor to attend a thanksgiving service at St Pauls. They were met at the church door by Henry’s guardian, Thomas Beaufort, Duke of Exeter, and by Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester.

King Henry walked into the church and was carried up the steps to the altar. After the ceremony he was put astride a horse and the cortege rode through the City to display the child, and his uncle of Gloucester, to the citizens. The political manoeuvring around the king’s person had begun.

“Also this yere after Esterne the kyng hylde his parliament atte Westmynster which beganne the laste day of Aprill and the kyng come to london the xxviij day of Aprill which was upon the saturday with his moder in here Chare fro Wyndesore unto seint Powles. 

“And at the west durre he was take oute of the Chare by his uncle the Duke of Gloucestre.  And by his bele uncle the Duke of Excettre.  And he wente up on his feet fro the west durre up to the stayers up into the quere.  And than he was borne up and offered.  And after he was sette upon a Courser and rode so forthe Chepe and london unto kenyngton.” Great Chronicle. p. 132 

Gloucester and Parliament

Not surprisingly Gloucester’s meeting with the Duke of Burgundy never took place. Parliament refused to sanction it: whatever the outcome the consequences would be detrimental to the peace and stability of England.

And since King Henry was too young to exercise the royal right to prohibit it, Chancellor Beaufort was instructed to issue letters under the Great Seal investing the Duke of Bedford with the power to forbid it. Most unusually, Queen Katherine and her mother, the almost forgotten Queen Isabelle of France, were named to act as intercessors and peacemakers, in the traditional, if theoretical, role of a queen. When the king came of age an appeal to royal justice could be made, or the two parties could accept that by forbidding the duel, justice had been done (1).

Parliament instructed the Council to send envoys to the Duke of Burgundy (and to anyone else who might influence him) explaining that it was a unanimous decision, taken by the ‘three estates of the realm’ in the king’s name and asking him to accept it. Garter King of Arms was sent to Flanders, ‘upon certain secret and especial matters’ (2). 

Pope Martin issued a papal bull on 24 April expressly forbidding it now or at any time in the future (3).

Gloucester was not criticised in Parliament for his clash with the Duke of Burgundy; there may even have been a grudging admiration for him among the members, an admiration not shared by the Duke of Bedford. The Commons ‘compensated’ Gloucester with a loan of 20,000 marks, to be paid over four years, ‘for his various needs’ (diverse necessities) (4).  The soldiers he had brought back from Hainault had to be paid, and he would need money to extend his patronage and attract support within and outside Council.

*****************************************

(1) PROME X, p. 237 (duel prohibited by Parliament).

(2) Issues of the Exchequer, p. 392 (Garter King of Arms to Burgundy. His journey cost £5).

(3) L&P II, ii, pp. 412–414 (papal bull).

(4) PROME x, p. 262 (loan to Gloucester).

*****************************************

Protector and Chancellor: The Duke of Gloucester and Henry Beaufort

London was tense and expectant after Parliament was dissolved in mid-July. It was common knowledge that the Protector and the Chancellor of England were at each other’s throats. The author of Gregory’s Chronicle was so distressed that he ended his account with the words “and that Parlyment hade an evylle faryng ende, to shamefull for to be namy[d] of any welavysyd man.” The situation was so disgraceful he forbore to recount it.

What was it that made him ashamed (or afraid) to record it? It is tempting to speculate that as Parliament drew to a close, tensions boiled over and resulted in a slanging match between the Duke of Gloucester and the Chancellor, Henry Beaufort.  

Gloucester’s retainers spread inflammatory rumours among the excitable and volatile Londoners in the taverns and streets of the City. Bills slandering Beaufort were widely distributed. It was said that the Chancellor employed a young informer to give false evidence against innocent citizens so that Beaufort could arrest them on charges of treason, although Gregory’s Chronicle is careful to stress that this was hearsay: “as many men noysyde and sayde; yf  were trewe or no I remytte me to Gode” (1).  

A crowd gathered at the Crane Inn near Crane Wharf in Vintry Ward shouting that if they could lay hands on Beaufort they would throw him into the Thames to teach him a lesson he would not forget.  

Also in the tyme off the seyde parlement dyuers persons off lowe estate off the citee off London, in grete nombre assembled on a day vpon the Wharffe at the Crane In Vyntre wysshed and desired that they hadde ther the persone off my seyde lorde off Wynchestre; seynge that they wolde haue throwen him in Temyse to haue tauht him to swymme with wengis;  ffor wiche billes and language off sclaundre and manasse caste and spoken in the seyde cite caused by my seyde lorde the Chaunceller to suppose that they that so seyde and dydde, wylled and desired his destruccion, how were yt they hadde noo cause.  Chronicles of London (Julius B II) pp. 81-82 

The demonstration was large and unruly, and it unnerved Beaufort. He took refuge at his palace in Southwark and fortified it with men-at-arms and archers. He feared that the Londoners might try to burn down his residence just as they had burned down his father, John of Gaunt’s, palace of the Savoy during King Richard II’s reign.

The Duke of Bedford had sent Sir Ralph Butler over from France to urge the Council to defuse the animosity between Gloucester and Beaufort. Butler and members of the Council visited Gloucester and asked him to explain the reasons for his antagonism towards Beaufort. Perhaps, with a little good will, it could be resolved. Gloucester said he had very good reasons for his anger, his ‘heavy heart,’ towards his uncle, but he would consider submitting his complaints to the Council.

“. . . after the comyng to london of sir Rauff Botiller and maistre [Lewes –omitted in MS, added by Kingsford from Edward Hall’s chronicle] sent fro my lorde of Bedford, the remenaunt of the lordes of the counseill enfourmed that my said lord of Gloucestre bere hevynesse to my said lord of Wynchestre [they] come to my said lord of Gloucestre to his Inne, the sonday next byfore All halowen day  And there moved (shewid in Julius B II) unto hym that they hadde understonding of the said hevynesse, praying hym to lete hym [them] wete, yf he bare such hevynesse ayens my said lord of Wynchestre, and also the causes therof.  Atte which tyme as my said lord of Wynchestre was enfourmed afterward that my said lord of Gloucestre affermed that he was hevy toward my said lord of Wyncehstre And not withouten causes peraventure as he wolde putt in writing.”  Great Chronicle, pp. 141-142        

Butler’s visit may have precipitated what followed. Gloucester had turned London against the Chancellor, but that was not enough to get Beaufort dismissed as chancellor. Impetuously Gloucester took precipitate action.  On 29 October, the inauguration day for the mayors of London, the new mayor, John Coventry, was hosting the traditional celebratory feast with the aldermen and leading citizens when he received an urgent summons to attend the Duke of Gloucester.

It was commonly believed in London that the Chancellor had sent to Lancashire and Cheshire for ‘northern men’, known and feared as ruthless fighters, to fortify his residence in Southwark.  Gloucester warned the mayor that they posed a grave if hitherto unsuspected danger. Beaufort would use force to enter the City and set up his own government. Londoner’s liberties were under threat. Sensibly, the mayor ordered that a strict watch should be kept overnight.

The next morning, 30 October, Gloucester’s men roused London with the news that the Duke of Gloucester’s life was in danger. The response was all Gloucester hoped for: the citizens shut up shop, armed themselves, and answered his call to assemble at the north end of London Bridge. Gloucester also summoned members of the Inns of Court, the finishing school for young gentlemen as well as for lawyers in training, to join in the defence of the City.

Beaufort’s worst fears had come to pass. He believed that the Londoners would storm his citadel. He sent his men to draw chains across the road at the southern end of London Bridge to impede passage, and he had archers positioned in the windows of the nearest houses to repel any attempt to reach him.

The mayor deployed the city’s militia to guard the bridge and the ferry crossings of the Thames, He ordered the gates of London Bridge to be closed and manned at each end so that neither party could cross and come to grips with the other. Credit for keeping the protagonists apart until cooler heads could prevail belonged more to the mayor, the aldermen and the city officials than to anyone. There is no indication that the leading men of the City were on Gloucester’s side, despite the bias of the London chronicles which reflect public opinion and are all pro-Gloucester.

The confrontation is recorded in almost identical words in the chronicles. It was copied from a lost source. The exact sequence of events they recount is confused. Note the copying errors in Gregory’s Chronicle and The Great Chronicle:

King Henry was not at Windsor and Beaufort did not summon the king’s household men. The words “the Inns of” are omitted before the word “Courte,” but it was Gloucester, not Beaufort who went for them. Likewise, it was not Beaufort who summoned the mayor and aldermen of London. Nor did he arrest ‘worthy men in London,’ this must refer to earlier allegations that he had done so.

“And the same yere the Byschoppe of Wynchester sende to Wyndsore for certayne men of the kyngs howsholde, and lefte the kyng but with a fewe men, and for alle the prentys of Courte, unto Westemyster; and there they come in there beste a-raye; and thenne he sende for the Mayre of London and hys aldermen.  And there he restyde many worthy men of the cytee.”        Gregory’s Chronicle, pp. 157-158. Great Chronicle, p. 136

1. “And the same day at evyn and all the ny[gh]t ffolowyng whas strong and grete wacche. And the morowe next ffolowyng moch peple of the cite of london, in savyng and kepyng the kynges pease, arayed hem in sufficient harneys to stonde be the Duke of Gloucestre, protector of Englond, and be the Mayer of london, and in defence of the [cite] ageyne the Bysshop of Winchestre and the peple that with him were withholdyn of the countes of lancastre and Chestre, and of other contrees; but thankyd be god ther whas no harme done in nother party.     Chronicles of London (Cleopatra C IV) p. 130
2. “And in the iiij^e yere of Kynge Henryis regne the vj^e, there aros a grete debate betwene Sir Vmfrey, the Duke of Gloucestre, and Sir Henry Beauford, Bisshop of Wynchestir; and this Henry bare tho heuy herte ayens the pepull of the Cite of London; And þis debate bygan on þe day of ϸe Meyris tidynge of London, whanne thei come to Westminster paleis; and the Meyre of London that tyme me callid John Couentre, mercer.

“And on the nexte morow folowynge, the Bisshop of Wynchestre hadde gaderyd a grete pepull in Soughthewerke, of men of armys and archeris; and they of the Cite kept tho strongly London Brygge-gate with men of armys [&] archeris, that no man myght in, nothir oute, for to kepe the pees in bothe partyes. 

          And anon, vpon viij of the clokke in the mornynge, alle the Cite was vp with her wepyn, and shette in her howsis, and drew hem dounward to Temyseside, and wold haue apassid ouyr the watir, forto haue taken the Bisshop.  Brut Continuation D, p, 432

3. “And that yere the same day that the Maire rode to Westmynster to take his othe that is to say the xxix day of Octobre whan he come home to his mete with his Aldermen And with his good comuners, or they hadde fully ete the duke of Gloucettre sente for the Maire and hise Aldermen that they shuld come speke with hym. And whan they come he charged the Maire that he shuld kepe well the Citee that nyght And made good wacche And so ther was all that nyght. For my lord of Gloucestre and the Bysshop were no grete frendes as in that tyme.

And in the morowe next after certeyn men kept the yates of the Brigge by commaundement of my lord of Gloucestre and of the Maire.  And betwene nyne and ten of the clok come certeyn  men of the Bysshops of Wynchestre and drewe the Cheynes of the stulpes atte the Brygge ende in Southwerk side the whiche were bothe knyghtes and squyers with a grete meyne of archers.

And they enbatelled hem and made defence of wyndowes and pipes as thogh it had be in londe of werre as they wold have fought ayenst the kynges peple in brekyng of the pees.

And thanne the peple of the Cite herde therof and shitte theire shoppes and come downe to the yates of the brigge in keping of the Cite and savacion of the toune ayens the kynges enemyes.  For all the shoppes in london were shitte yn oon houre.” Great Chronicle, pp. 136-137

 Arbitration

The outcome was a standoff. Prince Pedro of Portugal, Duke of Coimbra, was pressed into service as a relative of both parties.

Pedro was Henry Beaufort’s nephew and Gloucester’s cousin. As a younger son of King João of Portugal and John of Gaunt’s daughter, Philippa of Lancaster, he was warmly welcomed by everyone. Pedro had come to London at the end of September and taken up residence at the Bishop of London’s palace in the City. The Council redeemed two gold pots studded with jewels, valued at £702, from Duke of Exeter as an appropriate gift for Prince Pedro (2, 3).

“And aboute Mychelmasse the same yere the kynges sone of portyngale come into Englond which was worthely resceyved of his uncles the Bysshop of Wynchestre and of the duke of Excettre.  And of his Cosyn the duke of Gloucestre and of all the Rialles of the Reaue bothe spirituelx and temporelx.”           Great Chronicle, p. 136 

The Council sent Henry Chichele, the Archbishop of Canterbury and John Stafford, the Bishop of Bath and Wells, to persuade Gloucester and Beaufort to disperse their forces. Pedro and the two bishops spent an uncomfortable day riding back and forth across London Bridge, eight times according to the chronicles, until an uneasy truce was at last agreed. The citizens dispersed, Beaufort’s men withdrew, and relative calm was restored.

 “But the Erchebissop of Caunturbury, Sir Henry Chichele, and the Bisshop of Bathe, Sir Iohn of Stafford, and the Prynce of Portyngale – that in the same tyme were in the Cite of London – went betwene hem and the Cite, that all was cessid and set in reste by none; blessid be God!”         Brut Continuation D, p, 432

**************************************************

(1) Gregory’s Chronicle, p. 158 (parliament’s evylle faryng ende).

(2) PPC III, pp. 178 (Pedro’s pots).

(3) Issues of the Exchequer, pp. 394-395 (Pedro’s pots).

**************************************************

Henry Beaufort

The Council met at Gloucester’s London residence on 31 October, a considerable concession, but Gloucester may have refused to come to them. No record of the meeting survives. The discussions would have been sensitive, and possibly inflammatory, but the only entry in the Proceedings, perhaps intentionally, is an authorization for the payment of 2,000 marks to Louis, Count Palatine of the Rhine as arrears for his annuity (1). 

Henry Beaufort had been thoroughly frightened. He did not doubt that if the Londoners had been able to reach him, they would have threatened to kill him. On the same day as the Council meeting at Gloucester’s residence he wrote an urgent appeal to the Duke of Bedford to come home. Beaufort told Bedford that Gloucester was out of control, that he was trying to start a civil war, and that unless order was taken to him, he would do so even yet.  “. . . haste you hyder. For be my trouthe and ye tary we shull putte this llonde in adventure with a felde. Suche a brother as ye have here, God make him a good man.”

Beaufort knew that Bedford was angry with his brother over the fiasco in Hainault, that he did not trust Gloucester and would be inclined to believe Beaufort’s accusations (2, 3).

Beaufort reminded Bedford that the successful prosecution of the war in France depended on stability of supply from England, and by implication, his financial support. He apologised for the delay in sending Sir Ralph Butler back to France but said that he and the Council wanted to be sure that Butler and John Estcourt were in full possession of the facts. Butler carried Beaufort’s letter to France and he undoubtedly furnished Bedford with a detailed account of the situation in London.  

See Year 1426: The Duke of Gloucester and Henry Beaufort

Gregory’s Chronicle ( p. 160) records that on 5 November, five days after the standoff, Gloucester, accompanied by Prince Pedro and members of the Council, escorted King Henry from Eltham to London (4). If they did, it was a triumph for Gloucester since it demonstrated that the City and the king were safe in the Protector’s charge. But this account is open to question: there was a Council meeting at Guildford on the same day.

  ****************************************************************

(1) PPC III, pp. 178-179 (Council meeting October 31).

(2) Great Chronicle, p. 137 and A Chronicle of London (Julius B I) pp. 166–167 (the full text of Beaufort’s letter in its chronological setting).

(3) Chronicles of London (Julius B II) p. 84 places it as part of Beaufort’s rebuttal at the Leicester parliament in 1426, ending with the words, “suche a brother as ye have here” and omitting the rest of the letter.

****************************************************************

 Jacqueline of Hainault

Throughout the summer of 1425 the Duke of Burgundy pursued his policy of acquiring Hainault as though the Duke of Gloucester no longer existed. Burgundy besieged Mons, captured Jacqueline, and had her confined in Ghent to await, or so he claimed, a decision from Pope Martin V as to the validity of her marriages. As an afterthought to the more important question of forbidding the duel between the Duke of Burgundy and Gloucester Parliament had instructed the Council to request Burgundy to release Jacqueline (1).

The ever-resourceful Jacqueline escaped in disguise to Zierikzee in Zeeland, and then to Gouda in Holland from where she continued to resist Burgundy with some success. In October she raised an army and defeated Burgundian troops at the Battle of Alphen (2).

“ . . . . they that wern in the forsaid toune [of Mons] becomen false And they delyvered the lady to here enemye the Duke of Burgoyne.  And he sente here to Gaunt there to be kept And as god wolde in shorte tyme she escaped thennes in mannes clothing to a towne of hire owne in Selande cleped Serise. And fro thennys into Holand. Where with helpe of hire frendes that wern there she withstode the duke of Burgoyne and all his malice.”      Great Chronicle, p. 136     

 “And fro þens she went to A town in Holand called þe Ghowde, & þer she was strong enough & withstode þe said Duke of Burgoyn.” Brut Continuation G, p. 498

The Council met in the Dominican Friary at Guildford on 5 November. The Proceedings does not record if Gloucester was present. They authorized a loan to Gloucester of 5,000 marks from the tax of a tenth granted to the king by Convocation (3).  Like the loan to him by Parliament it was generous: Gloucester was not obliged to repay it for twelve years, until the end of 1436, when King Henry reached his fifteenth birthday.  Was it a bribe or a reward?  The timing of the loan is intriguing. Gloucester was aware that abandoning Jacqueline had dented his popularity and he may have requested the loan to ‘rescue’ her, knowing that this would please public opinion.

There was no question of Gloucester returning to Hainault to bring Jacqueline to England, but when word of her victory at Alphen reached England, Gloucester seized the opportunity to send aid to his wife, hoping to humiliate the Duke of Burgundy by inflicting a second defeat on him. It would add considerably to his prestige and go some way to restoring his popularity.

 The Battle of Brouwershaven

Gloucester commissioned Walter, Lord Fitzwalter to raise an army. Fitzwalter reached Zierikzee early in 1426 with about 1500 men. There he had the misfortune to encounter a Burgundian army led by the Duke of Burgundy himself. The small English force and Jacqueline’s troops were soundly defeated at the Battle of Brouwershaven on 13 January 1426. Fitzwalter fled back to England with what remained of his army (4, 5). Thereafter, Gloucester lost whatever interest he may have had in Jacqueline’s fate.

******************************************************

(1) PROME X, p. 237 (Jacqueline’s release).

(3) Vaughan, Philip, p. 40–42 (Burgundy and Jacqueline).

(3) PPC III, p. 179 (loan to Gloucester).

(4) Vaughan, Philip, pp. 42–44 (Duke Philip’s triumphal account of Brouwershaven).

(5) Sumption, Triumph and Disaster, pp. 87 and 89-91 (description of the battle).

*****************************************************

The War in France

The annual effort to send an army to the Duke of Bedford got underway early in 1425. As usual loans had to be raised.

Loans

Chancellor Beaufort’s loan was by far the largest although as McFarlane pointed out the figure of £11,032 16s 4d in the Calendar of Patent Rolls is an error which was later corrected in the Exchequer. The correct sum was £9,933 6s 8d (2). It was still the biggest contribution, and Beaufort was permitted to retain a gold crown pledged to him by Henry V and given a gold collar studded with precious stones as security (3).

The Common Council of London loaned £3,000 ‘for the defence of the realm’ (4). Florentine merchants resident in London loaned £500. Venetian merchants loaned 500 marks (5).

A memorandum dated 3 March 1425 listed council members pledging loans to the king for his ‘great necessities,’ with the usual provisions for repayment:

Henry Chichele, Archbishop of Canterbury 1,000 marks.

Bishops Kemp, Morgan, and Wakering (a month before his death) 500 marks each.

Lords Hungerford, Tiptoft, Cromwell, and Scrope 500 marks each.

The Duke of Bedford’s legal representative in England contributed 250 marks.

 John Stafford the Treasurer, 200 marks.

William Alnwick, Keeper of Privy Seal, 100 marks. 

Robert, Lord Poynings although not a council member, loaned 500 marks. His dispute with John Leventhorpe was under review by the Council (1).

See Poynings and Leventhorpe above

Loans to the crown for the costs of the war in France occur regularly throughout Henry VI’s reign, the king was never free of debt. 

***********************************************

(1) PPC III, pp. 167–168 (Council loan).

(2) CPR 1422-1429 pp. 293-294 (Beaufort’s loan).

(3)  McFarlane, ‘At the Deathbed of Cardinal Beaufort,’ in England in the Fifteenth Century, pp. 124-125 (Beaufort’s loan).

(4) CPR 1422-1429, p. 293 (London’s loan).

(5) CPR 1422-1429, p. 286 (Italians loan).

***************************************************

An Army for France

Twenty-one war captains indented to serve with their own retinues. Sir Godfrey Hilton brought 40 men at arms and ninety archers. Sir John Popham and Nicholas Carrington contributed 30 men-at-arms and ninety archers each. The lowest contingent was John Burnham with two men-at-arms and six archers, actually only one, as the captains were counted as men-at-arms (1, 2).

Musters for an army of about 1500 men were taken in May at Dover and then Calais.  The Standish brothers, Roland, Alexander, James, and Thomas mustered with six men-at-arms and twenty-seven archers. They were paid £122 7s 6d for six months service (3, 4).

****************************************************************

(1) CPR 1422-1429, pp. 299–300 and p. 302 (lists of war captains, men at arms and archers). 

(2) L&P II, ii, pp. 411-412 (list of war captains from a 16^th century transcript. For ‘Anjou Domini M.cccc.xxv’ read Maine).

(3) Marshal, A., ‘James Standish and the Standish Family,’ in ‘The Role of English War Captains in England and Normandy,’ MA thesis University of Wales, University College, Swansea (1974), pp. 298-301.

(4) Issues of the Exchequer, pp. 392-392 (Standish brothers).

******************************************************************

 Le Mans

The expeditionary force arrived in Calais at the end of June.  The Earl of Salisbury’s first objective was to dislodge the French garrisons from Beaumont le Vicomte and La Guierche in the valley of the Sarthe in preparation for the siege of Maine’s capital, Le Mans.

The Earl of Salisbury, the Earl of Suffolk, Lord Willoughby, and Lord Scales, laid siege to Le Mans in July. Their army was equipped with heavy artillery. Salisbury was an exponent of the relatively new use of artillery in siege warfare (1). His gunners pounded the walls of Le Mans for two weeks. At the beginning of August Adam Chatelain, Bishop of Le Mans and its leading citizens, having waited in vain for a French army to come to their relief, offered to treat for surrender to avoid the destruction of the town. Salisbury imposed the same terms as he had for the surrender of Meulan in 1423 and Le Mans opened its gates on 10 August.

See Year 1423: The Siege of Meulan.

Surrender

Le Mans was to be delivered into his hands within eight days if the Dauphin’s forces did not come to its relief. All artillery and military ordnance were to be surrendered and the French gunners (artillery men) who had fired on the English during the siege were to be turned over to Salisbury to be dealt with as he saw fit.

Anyone not wishing to swear allegiance to Henry VI might leave the town within eight days, taking all their goods with them, provided they obtained Salisbury’s permission.   Anyone  who was willing to swear an oath to the king of England, and to submit to the Regent Bedford could remain and retain their possessions.

The exceptions were any English, Irish, Welsh or Gasçons who had previously sworn allegiance to Henry VI and then turned traitor. The surrender terms did not extend to anyone who had been complicit in the murder of the Duke of Burgundy’s father John the Fearless  in 1419, or in the kidnapping in 1420 of the Duke of Brittany by Olivier de Blois, Count of  Penthièvre. They were not protected under the treaty.

See Year 1422: The Kingdom of France.

See  the Counts of Penthièvre below

English captives being held for ransom were to be set free without their ransom being paid. Le Mans was to raise 1,000 livres tournois for the repair of the fortifications damaged in the siege and to pay compensation where appropriate. Twenty-four leading citizens, clergy and laity, were to be given as hostages. Anyone who broke the agreement would be deprived of the benefits offered; the citizens were to report any breaches of the conditions and offenders would be punished (2, 3). 

***************************************************

(1) L&P II, p. 42. In November 1425 Robert Cotes, Bedford’s master of ordnance, issued a receipt for six score crowns of gold (120) and 220 livres tournois from the Earl of Salisbury to pay for ordnance used at the siege at Meulan and at the battle at Cravant in 1423. Salisbury was to claim reimbursement for this amount. 

(2) Great Chronicle, pp. 133–135 (full text of the surrender terms).

(3) Wavrin III, pp. 126–127 (short version of the terms).

******************************************************

 Maine

The chronicles report with pardonable pride that the English took thirty-six towns and castles in Maine. 

“Also the same yere the erle of Salysbury, the erle of Suffolk, the lord of Wylughby, and the lorde Scales, with there meyne leyden a sege to the cite of Mauns, the whiche citee was yolden up to them withinne schort tyme, with manye othere stronge townes and castells to the nowmbre of xxxvj^ti. 

A Chronicle of London (Harley 565) p. 113. Chronicles of London (Cleopatra C IV) p. 130.

The Brut Continuation G (p. 498) adds a patriotic detail:  Normandy and parts of France as far south as Orleans were under English rule, but the rest of France was in bad shape!

The Earl of Salisbury and the Earl of Suffolk laid siege to Antoine de Loré’s headquarters at Sainte Suzanne in September (1).  The town held out for two weeks against Salisbury’s heavy artillery. Salisbury had not expected resistance, and he imposed harsher penalties on Sainte Suzanne than on Le Mans. Loré and the garrison were allowed to leave, but without their horses. The indemnity imposed on the town was twice that of Le Mans and the artillery gunners were hanged outside the town’s gates (2).

Salisbury next objected the town of Mayenne was a much harder nut to crack. The garrison held out for six weeks. Salisbury became impatient, he wanted to resume his campaign in Champagne where he was governor.  In November and he bribed them to surrender with an offer of generous terms (3).

**********************************************

(1) Sumption, Triumph and Illusion, pp 166-168 (Maine).

(2) M. Warner, ‘Chivalry in action: Thomas Montagu and the War in France,’ Nottingham Medieval Studies, vol. xlii 1998 (pp. 157-159 for Maine).

(3) Chartier I, pp. 25-26 (Maine).

**********************************************

The Fortress of Mont Aimé          

The hilltop fortress of Mont Aimé [‘Moynier’] in the southeast corner of the county of Champagne lay on the route from Paris to Reims where the kings of France were crowned and where the Duke of Bedford planned to crown Henry VI. 

Mont Aimé  was held for the Dauphin by Eustace de Conflans. Bedford sent Jehan Milet, a notary, and two councillors, Pierre de Fontenoy and John de Pressay to Mont Aimé in June 1425, to assess its strength (1). The Earl of Salisbury assaulted Mont Aimé and evicted Conflans but before he could secure the position, he was summoned by the Duke of Bedford to take command of the siege of Le Mans far to the west in the county of Maine.

During Salisbury’s absence the French re occupied Mont Aimé. Bedford was determined to recover it and with the approval of the Grand Counseil in Paris, he levied an aid on Rheims, Chalons, Troyes, and the Langres to raise an army to besiege Mont Aimé.  

Philippe de Morvilliers, the first president of the parlement of Paris, and Louis de Luxembourg, the Duke of Bedford’s Chancellor of France, set out from Paris on 1 August to meet Bedford in Rouen The visit lasted a week.  The reason for the visit is not given, but it may have been in connection with Mont Aimé (2).

Jacques Braulart, president of the chamber of inquests of the parlement of Paris, accompanied by Jehan de Pressy, set out in September for Reims, Chalons-sur-Mer, and Épernay to collect the tax and take the musters of an army to besiege ‘Moynier.’ They returned to Paris on 15 October (3).

The Earl of Salisbury arrived in November and, accompanied by Pierre Cauchon, Bishop of Beauvais, Pierre de Fontenoy and John de Pressay  ‘and others’ he resumed the siege in December. The garrison in Mont Aimé  refused to surrender; they held out into 1426. They finally surrendered to Salisbury in February 1426 after a siege of 45 days ( 4, 5).  

This was not the end of the story. The French recovered Mont Aimé again in 1426 and Salisbury was commissioned in October to recover it and the nearby town of Vertus. It took until March/ April 1427 for him to finally subdue the stubborn fortress (6, 7). According to Monstrelet John of Luxembourg was present at the second siege (8).         

*******************************************************

(1) L&P II, pp. 56-57 (Milet and Fontenoy to assess Mont Aimé. They received four livres tournois a day).

(2) L&P II, pp. 59-61 (Morvilliers was allowed eight livres tournois a day). 

(3) L&P II, pp. 62-65 (Braulart and Pressy collected the taxes. Braulart received four, and Pressy six, livres tournois a day).

(4) L&P II, pp. 62-63 (Salisbury with Cauchon resumed the siege).

(5) Wavrin III, p. 135

(6) A.M. Lobanov, ‘The Outposts of Lancastrian France in Eastern Champagne,’ Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. History, vol 64, issue 4, (2019), pp. 1318-1337 (pp 1324-1325 for Mont Aimé).

(7) Sumption, Triumph and Illusion, pp. 144-145 (Mont Aimé).

(8) Monstrelet I, p. 535 (second siege).

            ***********************************************

The Duke of Brittany

John, Duke of Brittany had signed the Treaty of Amiens with the Duke of Bedford in 1423.

See Year 1423: The Treaty of Amiens.

Arthur de Richemont

Arthur de Richemont, the Duke of Brittany’s belligerent brother, had been captured at the Battle of Agincourt. King Henry V released him on parole in 1420 after he gave his word that he would support the English and do all he could to persuade his brother to adhere to the Treaty of Troyes recognising Henry V as heir to France.

Richemont kept his word until 1425 when the canny Dauphin Charles offered him the Constableship of France. As Constable Richemont would command all the military resources at the Dauphin’s disposal. Richemont was a soldier, not a courtier and he was ambitious for military glory.

Reclaiming Richemont’s loyalty was the first step towards recovering the Duke of Brittany’s adherence to the French crown. The next step was to detach Brittany from his English alliance. After the devastating losses at the Battle of Verneuil in 1424 Charles needed Breton soldiers to fill the depleted ranks of his armies. He invited the Duke of Brittany to come to court and  assured him that the councillors who had favoured Brittany’s enemy the Count of Penthiève had been dismissed.

See The Count of Penthièvre below.

Duke John was a cautious man. He agreed to meet the Dauphin at Saumur, the favourite residence of Yolande, Dowager Duchess of Anjou. Yolande was Charles’s mother-in-law, she and Richemont encouraged Brittany to reconcile with Charles.

Charles met Brittany at Saumur in October 1425. Yolande entertained them lavishly.  Brittany stipulated certain conditions as ‘necessary’ for him to renounce his commitment to the Duke of Bedford and the English: 

First, Charles must make peace with the Duke of Burgundy. Brittany and many others believed that Burgundy was the most powerful man in France, far more powerful than the Dauphin and his court at Bourges.  Then Charles should try to end the war with England or at least negotiate for a truce. If this proved impossible then the full weight of French finances should be thrown behind the war and not frittered away by Charles’s ministers and favourite courtiers. Two commissioners, one chosen by Charles and the other by Brittany himself should be appointed to administer expenditure, with the final decision on what resources should be committed and where to rest with him and his brother the Constable. In return Brittany would supply military aid and do homage to Charles.

Brittany’s advice was totally unrealistic, but it reflected the duke’s political position, a position he would maintain, with occasional lapses, for the rest of his life.

Charles was adept at agreeing to requests and making promises he had no intention of keeping. He accepted Brittany’s ‘necessary conditions’ without a blink and promised that he would always consult Brittany and respect his opinions.  He had achieved his aim to detach Brittany from his English alliance, and if the Constable chose to claim credit for his brother’s return to favour, Charles had no objection.

Duke John signed the Treaty of Saumur. Either he underestimated or did not stop to consider the Duke of Bedford’s reaction. Bedford was furious. He informed Brittany that he was now an enemy and would be treated as such (2). One of Bedford’s first acts on arriving in England, within a week of assuming his powers as Protector of England in January 1426, was to instruct Thomas Beaufort, Duke of Exeter, the Admiral of England, and the sheriffs in every shire to proclaim that England was at war with Brittany (3, 4).

*******************************************************

(1) Beaucourt, Charles VII, vol II, pp 111-114 (Brittany and Charles VII).

(2) Sumption, Triumph and Illusion, p. 176 (Bedford’s threat).

(3) PPC III, p.181 (England declares war on Brittany).

(4) Foedera X, p. 349 (England declares war on Brittany).

*********************************************

The Count of Penthièvre

The Counts of Penthièvre were rival claimants to the Duchy of Brittany.

Olivier de Blois, Count of Penthièvre had kidnapped Duke John in 1420 and demanded the duchy as the price of his release. It was widely believed that the Dauphin Charles had sanctioned the coup.

Jeanne de Valois, Duchess of Brittany, rallied the Breton nobles to rescue their duke. They raised an army and, faced by overwhelming odds, Olivier released Duke John after holding him for nearly five months. Not surprisingly Olivier was condemned to death as a traitor; he and his brother fled into exile (1, 2). The Estates of Brittany declared that the Penthièvre lands within the duchy were forfeit.

While Brittany was an ally of England the Penthièvres had been proscribed as enemies of England, but Duke John’s volte face made them potential allies. Olivier petitioned the Minority Council for safe passage for himself, his brother, (another John!) and sixty retainers to travel to England via Bordeaux. Surely the Duke of Bedford would wish to exploit the Penthièvre claim to the Duchy of Brittany.

And Bedford did just that. He threatened Brittany that he might recognise the Penthièvres and restore them (4). Safe conducts for one year were granted to Olivier and John on Bedford’s advice in March 1426.  Warrants to facilitate their journey were issued to the Council at Bordeaux, to the Comte de Longueville, Captal of Buch, England’s ally in Gascony, and to the Seneschal of Gascony, or his lieutenant (3).

****************************************************** 

(1) Sumption, Cursed Kings, pp. 688-689 and 706-707 (Penthièvre).

(2) Jones, Creation of Brittany, pp. 342-344 (Penthièvre).

(3) Sumption, Triumph and Illusion, pp. 176-177 (Bedford’s reaction).

(4) Foedera X, pp. 354-355 (safe conducts).

*****************************************************

 The Administration of Lancastrian France 

Louis of Luxembourg

As the Duke of Bedford prepared to leave France at the end of 1425 he anticipated a long stay in England. He decreed that the Duke of Burgundy was to preside over meetings of the Grand Conseil in Paris but if he was not available (which was probable) then Louis of Luxembourg, Bishop of Thérouanne would preside.    

See Year 1422: The Grand Conseil

Louis had entered the Duke of Burgundy’s service in 1419 as a councillor. Bedford appointed him to the Grand Conseil and made him Chancellor of Lancastrian France in 1425. Louis remained in English service for the rest of his life.

Pierre Surreau

Surreau was Bedford’s Receiver General for Normandy. He would collect the taxes and ensure the smooth administration in the duchy.  

In January 1426 Surreau issued a receipt to John Deveau vicomte (sheriff) of Pont Audemar for 280 livres tournois, 14 sols (shillings) and 7½ deniers (pence) as Pont Audemar’s allocation of the second instalment of the tax voted by the Estates of Normandy in 1423. John Chamberlain delivered the money and signed the receipt with Surreau (1).

See Year 1423: Estates General of Normandy

War Captains

Bedford appointed Thomas Montagu Earl of Salisbury, William de la Pole Earl of Suffolk, and Richard Beauchamp Earl of Warwick to conduct the war in his absence: Salisbury in Normandy, Anjou, Maine, the Vendômois, Chartrain, and Beauce. The Earl of Suffolk in Lower Normandy along the border with Brittany, and the Earl of Warwick in the Vermandois, Champagne, Brie, and the Gatinais (2). 

NB: So in Stevenson, but these place names do not correspond with the areas in which the three men are known to have operated. Warwick campaigned in Normandy while Salisbury campaigned in Champagne and Brie.

*************************************************

(1) L&P I, pp. 22–23 (administration and taxes).

(2) L&P I, preface p. lx, note 3 (Bedford’s war appointments).

************************************************

Bibliography 1425

Primary Sources

Bourgeois of Paris, A Parisian Journal, trans. J. Shirley (1968)

The Brut, or the Chronicles of England II, ed. F.W.D. Brie,  (Early English Text Society, 1908)

CClR. Calendar of the Close Rolls, 1422-1429

CFR. Calendar of the Fine Rolls 1422-1430

CPR. Calendar of the Patent Rolls 1422-1429

A Chronicle  of London, ed. N.H. Nicolas & E. Tyrell (1827)

Chronicles of London ed. C. L. Kingsford (1905)

Foedera, conventiones, literae……  20 vols., ed. T. Rymer, (1704-35)

The Great Chronicle of London, ed. A.H. Thomas,  & I.D. Thornley,  (1938)

Gregory’s Chronicle in The Historical Collections of a Citizen of London

in the Fifteenth  Century, ed. J. Gairdner, (Camden Society XVII, 1876)

Issues of the Exchequer, ed. F. Devon (1837)

L&P. Letters and Papers Illustrative of the Wars of the English in France during the reign of Henry VI, ed. J. Stevenson, Rolls Series, 2 vols in 3 (1861-1864)

PPC. Proceedings and Ordinances of the Privy Council of England, 6 vols., (Record Commission, (1834-37)

PROME.  The Parliament Rolls of Medieval England, vols. X, ed. A. Curry & R. Horrox, (2005)

Three Fifteenth Century Chronicles, ed.  J. Gairdner, (Camden Society, 1880)

Wavrin, J de, Recueil des croniques et anchiennes istories de la Grant Bretaigne, a present nomme Engleterre,  eds., W. & E.L.C.P. Hardy, 5 vols., (1864-91). 

Secondary Sources

Archer, R.E., ‘Parliamentary restoration: John Mowbray and the dukedom of Norfolk in 1425, in Ruler and Ruled in Late medieval England ed. R.E. Archer & S. Walker (1995)

Beaucourt, G. du Fresne de, Histoire de Charles VII,  6 vols, (Paris, 1881-1891)

Griffiths, R.A., The Reign of King Henry VI (1981)

Harriss, G.L., Cardinal Beaufort, (1988)

Lobanov, A.M., ‘The Outposts of Lancastrian France in Eastern Champagne,’ Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University, History, vol 64, issue 4, (2019)

Marshall, A., ‘The Role of English War Captains in England and Normandy, 1436-1461’,            M.A dissertation, University College, Swansea, (1974)

McGladdery, C., James II, (1990)

Myers, A.R. ‘The Captivity of a Royal Witch,’ in Crown, Household and Parliament in Fifteenth Century England (1985)

Newhall, R.A., The English Conquest of Normandy 1416-1424 (1424)

Otway-Ruthven, A.J., A History of Medieval Ireland (1968)

Powell, Edward, ‘The Strange death of Sir John Mortimer: Politics and the law of treason    in Lancastrian England’ in Rulers and Ruled in Late Medieval England, ed. R.E. Archer & S. Walker, (1995)  

Powell, J. Enoch & Wallis, K., The House of Lords in the Middle Ages (1968)

Roskell, J.S., Common and their Speakers in English Parliaments 1376-1523 (1965)

Sharpe, R.R. London and the Kingdom, vol. III (1895)

Stansfield, M., ‘John Holland, Duke of Exeter and Earl of Huntingdon and the costs of the Hundred Years War’ in M. Hicks, ed. Profit, Piety and the Professions in later Medieval England, (1990)

Sumption, J., The Hundred Years War V, Triumph and Illusion (2023)

Vaughan, R., Philip the Good, (1970)

Warner, M. ‘Chivalry in action: Thomas Montagu and the War in France,’ Nottingham Medieval Studies, vol. xlii (1998)

Online

historyofparliamentonline.org