1433

Minority Council

Lord Talbot and Xaintrailles. King Henry V’s debts. Alien merchants and bullion. Denmark. Henry Chichele, Archbishop of Canterbury. Prospero Colonna. Robert Danvers.

The Royal Household Expenses

John Merston, Keeper of the jewels allowed £40 for the king’s private expenses. Joan Astley, King Henry’s nurse. Wines from Bordeaux. Robert Rolleston, Kepper of the Great Wardrobe and robes of the Garter for the Emperor Sigismund.

 An Eclipse

The chronicles report a total eclipse of the sun on St Botulfus day, 17 June 1433. NASA records show that a total solar eclipse occurred on 17 June 1432.

Scotland

English commissioners went north to redress violations of the truce along the Anglo-Scottish border. The garrison at Berwick. James Cameron, Bishop of Glasgow.

The Duchy of Gascony

The Duke of Gloucester was granted lands in Gascony. Appointments to the judiciary. The Council in Bordeaux.

 The Duke of Brittany

William Bruges, Garter King at Arms was sent on embassy to John, Duke of Brittany. Breton piracy. Giles of Brittany.

General Council of the Church at Basel

An English delegation arrived at the Council of the Church at Basel and disrupted the proceedings by objecting to the presence of the Hussite ‘heretics,’ and to the way in which the council was being conducted. 

Peace talks

Cardinal Albergati’s peace negotiations stalled, and the crucial question facing the Minority Council was whether to continue to negotiate with the French or to resume the war on a larger scale.

The Duke of Bedford and Jacquetta of Luxembourg

The Duke of Bedford married the seventeen-year-old Jacquetta of Luxemburg, the niece of Bedford’s chancellor, Louis of Luxembourg, Bishop of Thérouanne

A Mutiny at Calais

The soldiers of the garrison at Calais mutinied over unpaid wages and unsatisfactory living conditions. The Duke of Bedford came to Calais and punished the mutineers severely.

A Council at Calais

An impressive council met in Calais at the Duke of Bedford’s behest from late April to late May. It combined members of the Minority Council, the Council in Rouen, and the Grand Conseil of Paris.

Paris

Food shortages were acute in Paris in the early months of 1433. Consignments of grain were shipped from England to France.

 The War in France

The Earl of Huntingdon, the Earl of Arundel, Lord Willoughby and Peter of St Pol were campaigning in France. Montargis. The Siege of Saint Valery. The Abbey of Sèes.

Hugh de Lannoy, Burgundian Ambassador

Hugh de Lannoy came to England in June to discover if the Minority Council was considering a peace with King Charles that might exclude Burgundy.

The Duke of Orleans

Lannoy visited the captive Duke of Orleans to discuss ways and means for obtaining his release. Orleans put a proposal to the Minority Council.

Parliament

Parliament met on 8 July 1433. It was prorogued from 13 August to 13 October because of pestilence in London. It was dissolved in mid-December. Petitions to Parliament from Queen Katherine, Joan, Countess of Westmorland and Sir John Radcliffe are recorded in the Proceedings.

Taxation

The Commons granted a tax of a tenth and a fifteen spread over two years, in four parts, the first part to be collected on 23 March 1434. They renewed the subsidy on tunnage and poundage and on wool and wool fells ‘for the defence of the realm.’

The Duke of Bedford in Parliament

The most important event in 1433 was the return to England of the Duke of Bedford after the council meeting in Calais failed to promise him the resources he needed to continue the war in France. Bedford defended his administration of France in Parliament. Parliament petitioned that he should remain in England to conduct the government. Bedford arranged for payments to be made from the Exchequer to finance the war in France. 

Ralph, Lord Cromwell, Treasurer

Royal debt was out of control. Lord Cromwell became Treasurer of England with authority to deal with the financial crisis. He demanded strict austerity measures.

The Minority Council

The Proceedings record thirty-nine council meetings in 1433:  one in January, eight in February, three in March, three in April, and three in May. None in June, six in July after the Duke of Bedford’s return to England, four in August, one in October, seven in November and three in December.

Lord Talbot and Poton de Xaintrailles

The French war captain Poton de Xaintrailles had captured John, Lord Talbot in 1429. the Earl of Warwick captured Xaintrailles in 1431. Negotiations for a prisoner exchange began in 1432.

See Year 1429: Defeat at Patay.

See Year 1431: Campaigns of 1431, the Earl of Warwick.

See Year 1432: Foreign Relations, Lord Talbot and Poton de Xaintrailles.

A safe conduct was issued on 6 February 1433 for Bernard de Genescell [Genestelle], Xaintrailles’s retainer, to come to England presumably to finalise these negotiations (1). Talbot was released and returned to England in the spring of 1433 (2). Xaintrailles was released in July. He was issued a safe conduct on 23 July ‘going to procure his ransom’ (3).

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

(1) Foedera X, p. 536 (safe conduct, February).

(2) Pollard, Talbot, p. 18 (Talbot and Xaintrailles release).

(3) Foedera X, p. 553 (safe conduct, July).

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

 King Henry V’s Debts

Ten years after his death the Council was still paying off King Henry V’s debts.

 The Abbot of Westminster

The Abbot of Westminster was to be paid £2,000  in yearly instalments of £100 from the issues of alien priories ‘for the performance of certain services for the soul of the late king.’ If these payment proved inadequate (and they would) then revenue from the lordship of Chirk would be assigned (1).

(1) PPC IV, p. 142 (Abbot of Westminster).

Henry V’s household

Henry V had bequeathed £4,000 to his household servants, to be raised by his executors from Duchy of Lancaster lands. The £4,000 was subsequently assigned on the customs of Southampton.

See Year 1432:  Parliament: Henry V’s legacy.

The need for ready money was so acute that in February 1433 the Council diverted the £4,000 to expedite the dispatch of an army into France.

Henry’s household, still loyal to their old master and his ambition to conquer France, agreed that £3,000 from the Southampton customs should be loaned for the war, with the assignment for repayment to remain on the customs until this sum had been repaid in full (1). In the meanwhile, the servants were to receive £1,000 between February and Easter 1433 and the balance in the following year (2).

NB: The commission to Lord Hungerford, Sir William Phelip, Sir William Porter and Sir Ralph Butler to distribute £4,000 on the petition of the household servants is dated 15 April but with no year. It is assigned in Foedera to 1433 but probably dates to 1432 (3).

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

(1) PPC IV, pp. 141 and 143-144 (Henry V’s servants’ loan).

(2) Somerville, Duchy of Lancaster, p. 204 (£1,000 to servants).

(3) Foedera X, p. 548 (£4,000 to the household, possibly misdated).

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

Denmark

It appears that an ambassador from King Eric of Denmark was in London in July. The Council made him a gift of a silver gilt cup worth £10 on King Henry’s behalf.  I have found no other published reference to this visit (1).

(1) PPC IV, p. 168.

 Alien Merchants and Bullion

Bullion (gold and silver) was scarce in England. Alien merchants were required to deposit about one third of the bullion they brought into England to buy goods to be deposited at the mint in the Tower of London to be melted down and minted into English coins of a standard set weight.

The Council was prepared to relax the letter of the law to encourage the import of the all too scarce bullion and the Treasurer was permitted to extend a reasonable delay for the deposit of imported bullion at the mint (1).

(1) PPC IV, p. 145

Henry Chichele, Archbishop of Canterbury

Chichele had contributed a loan of £2,000 to King Henry VI’s coronation expedition in 1431. It was to be repaid by assignment on the subsidy granted by Convocation to be collected at Martinmas, November 1431 (1).

Not surprisingly, the original assignment had not been honoured, and in February 1433 the Council undertook not to reassign it to another possibly less reliable source for repayment (2).

Two days later, on 22 February in consideration of his great services, the Council granted Chichele permission to acquire lands and rents to the value of 40 marks annually to endow his foundation of Chichele College for secular canons at Higham Ferrers, his birthplace (3).

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

 (1) PPC IV, p. 89 (Chichele’s loan in 1431).

(2) PPC IV, p.152 (assignment not to be changed).

(3) PPC IV, p. 154 (Chichele College).

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

Prospero Colonna

Cardinal Prospero Colonna, Pope Martin’s nephew, became Archdeacon of Canterbury in 1426. The Colonna family revolted against Pope Eugenius IV in Rome and were excommunicated in 1431. Archbishop Chichele, who had objected to the provision, seized the opportunity to deprive Colonna of the archdeaconry (1).

The excommunication was lifted and in January 1433 and the Council authorised Master Robert London, Colonna’s proctor, to collect the income due to Colonna from the archdeaconry (2, 3).

See Year 1426 The Duke of Bedford in England 

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

(1) Harvey, England and Papacy, p. 96 (Colonna).

(2) PPC IV, p. 140 (income to Colonna).

(3) Foedera X, p. 534 (income to Colonna).

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

Robert Danvers

Robert Danvers appeared before the Council on 20 June suspected of having erased some of the wording in a memorandum attached to an unspecified act of the Council. Any deliberate falsification of an act by the Council was taken very seriously, but on examination it was shown that Danvers was not responsible for the erasure.

Danvers was an attorney, trained at Lincoln’s Inn, and such an accusation would have been detrimental to his career. On 23 July the chancellor was ordered to enter Danvers’s exoneration on the chancery rolls (1). He went on to become Recorder of the City of London in 1442.

(1) PPC IV, p. 166.

Royal Household Expenses

John Merston, keeper of the king’s jewels, was instructed to deliver a mitre which had belonged to Archbishop William Courtney in the fourteenth century to Henry Chichele, Archbishop of Canterbury. The original order for the delivery, dated 1 July 1426, issued to two clerks, had not been carried out, and the mitre was still in the royal jewel collection (1).

Merston was allocated £40 ‘for the king’s chamber,’ i.e. for Henry’s private expenses in August (2).

Joan Astley, King Henry’s nurse, had been granted an annuity of £40 in 1424 and this was to be paid to her ‘notwithstanding any restrictions.’ The Treasurer, Lord Cromwell, had put a stop on the Exchequer (3).

See Lord Cromwell, Treasurer below.

A form of protection was issued by the Council for Sir John Tyrell, treasurer of the household, and Thomas Chaucer, chief butler, in charge of the royal cellars. Wines brought from Bordeaux for the household for the next year should be transported at the king’s risk and not at that of Tyrell or Chaucer. Losses of cargoes at sea by shipwreck or piracy were a common occurance (4).

In October the Council instructed Robert Rolleston, keeper of the king’s great wardrobe to deliver robes of the Order of the Garter ‘suitable to his rank’ to Emperor Sigismund annually (5, 6). This should have been done automatically from the beginning of Henry VI’s reign, as Sigismund had been installed as a Knight of the Garter with great pomp and ceremony by King Henry V in 1416.

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

(1) PPC IV, p. 177 (mitre to Archbishop Chichele)

(2) PPC IV, pp. 177-178 (£40 for the king’s use).

(3) PPC IV, pp. 181-182 (Joan Astley).

(4) PPC IV, pp. 178-179 (treasurer and butler of the royal household).

(5) PPC IV, p. 181 (Sigismund).

(6) Foedera X, p. 563 (Sigismund).

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

An Eclipse

The chronicles report a total eclipse of the sun on St Botulfus day, 17 June 1433. NASA records show that a total solar eclipse occurred on 17 June 1432, so the chronicle dating may be off by a year. The eclipse appears to have been predicted, the study of astronomy and astrology was widespread, and prophesies of portents inspired fear and awe.

“The xj yeer of this kyng Harri was the grete and general clip of the sunne on saynt Botulfis day; wherof moche peple was sore aferd.”  English Chronicle, p. 55

“In this year there was a general eclipse  . . . . on St Botulfus’s day in the afternoon.”   Annales (pseudo-Worcester) p. 760

“An in this same yere was the Clipse in þe after-None þat Asshewell, þe white frere and oþer clerkes spake of longe tyme before; which all peple dowted and were sore aferd of, thurgh the speche of þe seid frere. And this clipse was the xvij day of Iuyn.”   Brut Continuation F, p.  466

 Scotland

True Violations

King James sent his special representative, Thomas Roulle, to London in 1433 to complain once again of violations of the truce along the Scottish border and at sea and of the difficulties experienced by Scots who claimed reparations.

See Year 1430 Scotland, a Five-Year Truce.

The Council responded to Roulle’s complaints with counter claims of their own: from the time it was proclaimed in January 1431, the English Wardens of the March and the conservators of the truce had been instructed to maintain the peace and offer redress when necessary. It was the Scottish commissioners, not the English, who failed to appear on March Days, and King James should make sure that his commissioners respected the truce and attended these meetings.

The Scots were as guilty of violating the truce as the English, perhaps more so: only three weeks earlier on 1 July Scottish marauders had raided the area around Berwick and carried off 60 horses and 600 neats (cattle). A week later on 8 July they raided Glenvale, taking prisoners, burning houses, and rustling sheep and horses.

Nevertheless, the Council requested a safe conduct for Lord Scrope, or another suitable magnate, with a retinue of sixty people, to travel to Scotland to discuss ‘the state of the inhabitants of Berwick and Roxburgh,’ the question of peace, and the problem of the Scottish hostages (1).

See Year 1432:  Scottish Hostages.

Edmund Beaufort, Earl of Mortain, Cardinal Beaufort’s nephew, and Stephen Wilton a Doctor of Laws were sent rather than Lord Scrope. They were paid 200 marks ‘by way of a loan’ (an advance for their expenses?). Mortain persuaded James to grant ‘favours’ (concessions?) to the inhabitants of Berwick (2, 3).

Two northern lords, Lord Dacre and Lord Fauconberg were excused attending Parliament so that they could be present at a March Day to discuss truce violations. The Earl of Northumberland, Warden of the East March was in London attending Parliament; he signed the Council’s order (4).

Sir John Bertram, a Northumberland knight, a former sheriff, and MP for Northumberland was instructed to bring the Scots’ complaints to the attention of the people living along the English March and order them not to violate the truce.

Bertram was given the unenviable task of requesting the garrison at Berwick, whose wages had not been paid, to do their duty to ‘keep watch and ward’ and to promise that payment would be made to them ‘as sone as any mony may growe to the payment of the same’ (5).

In August Bertram, Lords Dacre, and Fauconberg were appointed with other commissioners as conservators of the truce, and in November the sheriff of York was ordered to proclaim that the Mayor of Berwick and the Prior of Coldingham Priory, to whom complaints of truce violations were routinely submitted were added to the list of  conservators (6, 7).

Berwick was obviously vulnerable. The Council, on the authority of Parliament, ordered that £500 of the customs duties from the port of Hull was to be allocated to the Earl of Northumberland for his and the soldiers’ wages at Berwick ‘in preference to all other payments’ (8).

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

(1) PPC IV, p. 169-172 (Council’s reply to Roulle).

(2) PPC IV, p. 178 (Mortain’s embassy to King James).

(3) PPC IV, Addendum, p. 351 (James’s ‘favours’ for Berwick).

(4) PPC IV, p. 174 (Dacre and Fauconberg excused Parliament).

(5) PPC IV, pp. 172-173 (Bertram and Berwick).

(6) PPC IV, p. 564 (Mayor of Berwick and Prior of and Coldingham as conservators).

(7) Balfour-Melville, James I, pp. 208-209.

 (8) PPC IV, p. 178 (payment to Northumberland and Berwick).

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

 Safe Conducts

Safe conducts for two months were issued at the end of April to William Croyser, Archdeacon of Teviotdale, William Turnbull, William, rector of Hawick, and four other Scots to travel through England on their way back to Scotland from Rome (1). They were delivering Pope Eugenius’s letters summoning James Cameron, Bishop of Glasgow to Rome to answer charges of sponsoring anti-papal legislation (2, 3).

A safe conduct was issued to James Cameron in October to travel through England on his way to Rome (4).

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

(1) Foedera X, p. 549 (safe conducts).

(2) Papal Letters VIII, p. 281 (summons to Cameron).

(3) Balfour Melville, James I, p. 206 (on James Cameron).

(4) Foedera X, p. 568 (Cameron safe conduct).

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

Queen Joan

In the summer of 1433 Queen Joan of Scotland sent twelve casks of salt salmon to her mother Margaret, Duchess of Clarence, and the Council exempted the duchess from paying customs duties on the salmon (1). Queen Joan was Margaret’s daughter by Margaret’s first marriage to John Beaufort, Earl of Somerset, the elder brother of Cardinal Beaufort, who died in 1410.

(1) Foedera X, p. 554.

The Duchy of Gascony

See Year 1423: The Duchy of Gascony.

The Duke of Gloucester

The Duke of Gloucester exploited his position as a royal duke and uncle to the king. Unlike other magnates who served the crown, Gloucester never paid for anything if he could possibly avoid it, and in March 1433 the Council confirmed his exemption from paying ‘fines and fees for charters, letters patent, writs and all other things whatsoever appertaining to the king as had been granted to him in the reigns of Henry IV and Henry V’ (1).

Gloucester continued to acquire land in Gascony. The estates of Pons VIIII, Lord of Castillon who died in 1430 had been granted to him as ‘custodian’ for Pons’s heir. The brothers Jean Count of Foix and Gaston de Foix capital de Buch, claimed parts of the Pons inheritance; Gloucester was uncertain of his hold on them.

See Year 1430: The Duchy of Gascony

In 1432 Bernard Angevin, an ex-Constable of Bordeaux, was ordered to examine the custody of the Pons lordships of La Marque, Castillon, Carcans, and Breuil and prepare a report for the Council in England ‘for the resistance of the count of Foix’ (2). Angevin came to England at the end of 1432 to report on his findings.

He informed the Council in February 1433 that not only had Pons’s Castillon lands been claimed by Jean de Foix, the castles and lordships within the Médoc of  Bernard de Lesparre, Lord of Labarde, who died in 1417, ‘which the king ought to possess’ were in the hands of Gaston de Foix.

The Council promptly granted the Lesparre lordships to the Duke of Gloucester and his heirs male, undoubtedly at Gloucester’s request, ‘lest the king’s right therein should be lost’ (3).

Henry V had seized the strategically important lordship of Lesparre in the Médoc in 1417. There were two claimants to the Lesparre inheritance and Henry V granted William, Lord Clifford, then Constable of Bordeaux, special powers to annex the Lesparre lands and compensate both claimants with other grants (4).

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

(1) PPC IV, p. 157 (Gloucester exempt from payments).

(2) Vale, Gascony, p. 100 (Bernard Angevin to survey Pons lands).

(3) PPC IV, p. 142 (Labarde lordships granted to Gloucester).

(4) gasconrolls.org.  C61_117

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

Charles de Beaumont

In February 1433 the Council conferred ‘the castle and castellany of Mauleon, of Soulle, and the bailliage of Le Bert [Labourt]’ in Gascony on the Duke of Gloucester. King Henry IV had granted these lands to Charles de Beaumont for life, so they too could be claimed by Gloucester as Henry VI’s inheritance in need of protection (1).

Charles de Beaumont alferitz (standard bearer) of Navarre died in 1432. He was an illegitimate son of Louis of Navarre, Count of Beaumont. He was brought up at the court of King Charles II of Navarre with the king’s legitimate children, Charles III and Joan, later Duchess of Britany and Queen of England, the wife of King Henry IV. Beaumont married Anne of Curton who held lands in Gascony, and he had visited England in 1430 as part of an Aragon/Navarrese delegation.

See Year 1430: Foreign Relations, Aragon and Navarre

Beaumont’s heir Louis de Beaumont, Lord of Curton and Guissen, may have visited England in 1433 and been compensated for the loss of his inheritance.  In July the Council granted Louis a licence to transfer to Gascony 200 ounces of silver and two ounces of gold, his gold and silver dishes (plate), a gold collar set with a sapphire, a ruby, and pearls, armour and equipment, bedding, and all his other luggage, any ordinance against the export of plate and jewels notwithstanding (2).

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

(1) PPC IV, p. 152 (Charles de Beaumont lands).

(2) Foedera X, p. 543 (Louis of Navarre to export jewels).

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

Gloucester had no intention of visiting his lands in Gascony, but he took steps to keep them safe. At the end of March 1433, letters of protection were issued for all ‘the officers, servants, serfs (questales), subjects, castles, towns, houses, lands, revenues, lordships with high and low [justice], movable and immovable goods pertaining to Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester in Gascony, and governed by him in this duchy’ (3).

The seneschal of Gascony, the constable of Bordeaux, the judges of Bordeaux, and all the king’s officers in the duchy were to maintain and protect Gloucester’s lands. The Constable of Bordeaux was instructed to pay the officers’ wages as a first priority ‘before all others’ (4).

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

(1) PPC IV, p. 152 (Charles de Beaumont lands).

(2) Foedera X, p. 543 (Louis of Navarre to export jewels)

(3) Foedera X, p.  545 (protection and wages for Gloucester’s officers).

(4) gasconrolls.org. C61 125 # 31 (payment to Gloucester’s officers).

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

 Bernard de la Planche

Bernard de la Planche, Bishop of Dax, accompanied Bernard Angevin to England to apprise the Council of the unsettled conditions in Gascony.

“And in this same yere, anon after Cristmaase þe Bisshop of Acres [Dax] in the land of Navern come to the Kyng in ambassiatry.”   Brut Continuation F, p. 465

The Council rewarded Planche by appointing him to the Council of Bordeaux with an annuity of 10 marks (1) and as a judge for civil cases in the superior (appellant) court of Gascony (2).

NB: The authorization for de la Planche to proceed to the Council at Basel in February 1433 is misdated in the Proceedings. It belongs in 1434 when he was again in England. (CPR 1429-1436 dated June 1434).

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

(1) Foedera X, p. 541 (annuity to Planche).

(2) Foedera X, p. 543 (Planche appointed to judiciary).

(3) CPR 1429-1436 dated June 1434).

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

Gaston de Foix

Possibly because of the extensive land grants in Gascony to the Duke of Gloucester, the Duke of Bedford and the Council considered it expedient to retain Gaston de Foix’s loyalty. His possession of the county of Benuages, granted to him in 1426, was confirmed to him and his heirs in August 1433 with a different witness list allowing for changes in Council personnel (1).

See Year 1426: The Duchy of Gascony.

The Council also authorized Gaston’s servants to purchase and transport ‘without impediment, from whatever port of England’ to the Duchy of Gascony, two  silver gilt basins (pelves) , two silver gilt bottles, four silver gilt jars (olle), two silver gilt spice plates, twelve silver gilt cups (ciphi), one silver gilt ewer, two silver bottles, two silver basins, two silver jars, thirty cups three with lids, three silver salt pots with coverlids and one silver ewer, bought in France (2, 3).

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

(1) Foedera X, pp. 544-555 (Gaston de Foix vicomté of Benuages).

(2) Foedera X, p. 543 (Gaston de Foix to export jewels).

(3) gasconrolls.org.  C61 125 #90 (silver plate).

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

Defence of the Duchy

Sir John Radcliffe and Fortaner de Pommiers Lord of Lescun, the seneschals of Gascony and the Landes, were empowered to receive homage to King Henry VI from local lords and to confirm fiefs in his name where appropriate (1).

The Seneschal of Gascony and the Constable of Bordeaux, Walter Colles, were authorized to coin money at the Bordeaux mint (2).

The seneschals were ordered to proclaim publicly that no subject of King Henry VI was to take service with, or accept payment from, Jean, Count of Foix or Jean, Count of Armagnac on pain of forfeiture. They were to keep the king’s peace but at the same time they were ‘to injure Foix and Armagnac ‘to the utmost’ (3, 4, 5).

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

(1) gasconrolls.org. C61 125 # 47 and # 46 (to mint coins and receive homage).

(2) Foedera X, p. 544 (to mint coins and take homages).

(3) PPC IV, p. 156 (not to take service with Foix).

(4) Foedera X, p. 543 (not to take service with Foix).

(5) gasconrolls.org C 61 125 # 25 (not to take service with Foix).

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

The Council in Bordeaux

The Council in Bordeaux, on the evidence of councillors and the community of the city of Bordeaux, indicted four men, Pey Eyquart [Achard in Foedera] otherwise known as Lassalle, Mathiu Olivey, Guilhem de Gayac, Guilhem Bidau and their accomplices as the ringleaders of insurrections, riots, fights and conspiracies in the city of Bordeaux over a period between 1428 and 1433. Some of those indicted escaped to England, and King Henry had ordered these charges be examined.

The accused made a good case: the Minority Council reversed the judgement of the Council in Bordeaux. They granted a pardon to the miscreants: the charges against them were to be dropped because they did not enter Bordeaux illegally (which seems illogical). They were not to be prosecuted by the king’s officers; their good reputation was to be affirmed and all their goods were to be returned to them.  The pardon is dated to April 1433 in the Foedera but to April 1434 in the Gascon Rolls (1, 2).

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

(1) Foedera X, pp. 547-548 (pardon misdated to April 1433).

(2) gasconrolls.org.  C61 125 # 85 (Pardon April 1434).

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

The Judiciary

Judges appointed in 1433 are listed in the Foedera: Bernat d’Ibos, Bishop of Bazas, Hélias de Faurie, abbot Bournet, Tétbaut d’Agès, dean of Saint-André of Bordeaux, Per-Arnaut de la Biscomtat, dean of Saint-Seurin of Bordeaux, Binsens Durrieu, treasurer of Saint-André of Bordeaux and Guilhem Fulheron, rector of Lormont near Bordeaux.

(1) gasconrolls.org. C61 125 # 45 (appointment of judges).

Legitimation

Letters of legitimation were granted to Augerot de Saint-Pée [Saint Pere in Foedera], the illegitimate son of Johan [d’Amézqueta], lord of Saint-Pée in the march of Labourt, to allow him to succeed as if he were his father’s legitimate son. Johan d’Amézqueta petitioned King Henry that he and his predecessors had served the king and his ancestors faithfully, and, desiring to have an heir permitting the survival of his name and coat of arms, and not able to have children from a legitimate union, he requested that his son Augerot de Saint-Pée be allowed to succeed him (1).

(1) Foedera X, p. 540 (legitimization of Saint-Pée).

The Duke of Brittany

In February 1433 William Bruges, Garter King at Arms carried a letter of credence to Duke John of Brittany in King Henry’s name signed by members of the Council, and a personal letter from King Henry stating that the king was in good health, enquiring after the health of the Duke and Duchess of Brittany, and expressing the king’s pleasure in the company of his cousin Giles of Brittany, the duke’s son, who had remained in England in 1432 after the Bretons left (1).

Apparently, there were no immediate plans to return him to Brittany. In November the Council agreed that the young Giles should receive 250 marks for the past year (125 marks at Michaelmas and 125 marks at Easter) and the same sum annually in future for his private expenses (2, 3).

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

(1) PPC IV, pp. 150-151 (Garter’s letter of credence).

(2) PPC IV, p. 181 (annuity to Giles of Brittany).

(3) Foedera X, p. 563 (annuity to Giles).

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

William Bruges was more of a diplomat than a messenger. He raised three issues with the duke (1):

Piracy

The first and most important being Breton piracy. He reminded Duke John that the commissioners, he had promised to send in 1432 to treat for ‘reparations of the many injuries, robberies &c. committed by both parties,’ had failed to arrive in the city of Exeter (the West County was a hotbed of English pirates) and to urge him to send them immediately.

See Year 1432: Foreign Relations: Brittany.

Only King Henry’s strict ordinances had restrained his subjects from retaliating for the damages and injuries inflicted on them through the loss of their merchandise to Bretons pirates.

Piracy was endemic in the English Channel, and it was a toss-up as to who were the worst offenders, the men of Brittany or the men of the West Country. Ships and cargoes were routinely seized as ‘retribution’ for a previous act of piracy. The treaty of 1427 between England and Brittany provided for redress of seizure for both sides, and commissioners were supposed to meet regularly ‘for the redress of grievances.’

See Year 1427: John, Duke of Brittany

Numerous entries in the Calendars of Patent Rolls record demands for the restoration of goods seized from Breton ships, but Englishmen countered with complaints of Breton raids on coastal towns as well as piracy at sea. A petition in Parliament from English merchants had requested that action be taken to secure restitution of the value of ‘goods and chattels’ seized by the Bretons. All future claims by Bretons should be refused in the admiralty courts, until they put up sufficient security to satisfy the claims of Englishmen (2).

Basel

Garter’s second instruction concerned the Council of the Church at Basel. Garter informed Duke John that he was expected to send delegates to the Council to support the English position, and to endorse any proposals for peace that might be put by the English or Burgundian delegates.

See The General Council of the Church at Basel below.

Ransom

Garter’s third instruction was to complain that although Sir Walter Hungerford’s ransom had been paid, the bonds given for payment by his father, Lord Hungerford, to Breton Lord Beaumanoir, who had captured Sir Walter at the Battle of Patay in 1429, had not been surrendered.  Lord Hungerford and seven other councillors signed Garter’s letter of credence.

See Year 1432:  An Army for Normandy.

The Council appointed William Lyndwood, Keeper of the Privy Seal, Reginald Kentwood, Dean of St Pauls, William Estfield and John Welles, aldermen of London, Sir Walter de la Pole, Master Thomas Beckington, and Master John Stokes as commissioners in expectation of the Breton envoys’ arrival (3).

Duke John sent Doctor John Pregent, and Jacques Godart, the duke’s secretary to England. They were in London in June 1433. Hugh de Lannoy reported their presence to the Duke of Burgundy although he did not meet them (4, 5). In August the Council rewarded them with the gift of a cup and ewer of silver gilt, valued at 20 marks (6).

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

(1) PPC IV, pp. 149-150 (Garter’s instructions).

(2) PROME XI, p. 132 (Petition against Bretons).

(3) Foedera X, p. 546 (English commissioners named).

(4) Ferguson, Diplomacy, pp. 196-198 (names of Breton and English commissioners).

(5) L&P II, ii, p. 243 (Breton commissioners).

(6) PPC IV, p. 178 (Gift to Breton commissioners).

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

The General Council of the Church at Basel

The General Council of the Church at Basel had been in session for two years by the beginning of 1433, but it had not accomplished much. Its scope was too broad, its attendance too diverse, and its threefold aims, to root out heresy, to pacify Christendom and to decide on and implement a general reform of the church, were too wide ranging. Such aspirations were beyond the reach of any single council, even a united one, which Basel most certainly was not.

See Year 1432 The General Council of the Church at Basel.

The licences for Cardinal Beaufort and John Kemp, Archbishop of York to go to Basel, issued in 1432, were renewed in February 1433. The Cardinal now planned to pay a visit to Emperor Sigismund, possibly to ascertain Sigismund’s attitude to the quarrel between the Council at Basel and Pope Eugenius, or Sigismund’s stance on the possibility of peace talks between the English and the French taking place at Basel.

A protection was issued for Nicholas Strode, Abbot of Hyde, going in the cardinal’s retinue and Beaufort named his attorneys, John Assh and Nicolas Radford, to look after his interests while he was away. (1).

Archbishop Kemp requested a safe conduct for himself and his retinue to go as an ambassador to Pope Eugenius as well as to Basel. He was permitted to take £2,000 in coin, and plate to the value of 1,000 marks (2, 3). The Minority Council, especially the bishops, were uneasy at siding with a General Council against the Pope, and Kemp’s embassy was probably intended to effect a reconciliation, or at least to offer an explanation.  In the event both Beaufort and Kemp were diverted to attend the council at Calais called by the Regent Bedford.

See A Council at Calais below.

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

(1) Foedera X, pp. 538, 539 and 541 (Beaufort).

(2) Foedera X, pp. 536 and 539 (Kemp).

(3) PPC IV, p. 152 (Kemp).

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

The Delegates

The English delegation presented themselves to the Council at Basel at the beginning of March 1433 (1, 2). The two bishops Thomas Polton Bishop of Worcester, and Robert Fitzhugh Bishop of London, named in 1432 and Sir John Colville the only layman in the delegation attended.

See Year 1432: The General Council of the Church at Basel

A letter in King Henry’s name to Thomas Polton, in March 1433 ordered him to be in London a week after Easter ‘fully prepared to proceed with the other ambassadors (named in February) to the General Council (3).

Robret Fitzhugh became Bishop of London in 1431 while he was in Rome. He was recalled in 1432 and reached England in 1433 (4). As this was his first time in England as bishop, the London chronicles record that he became Bishop of London in 1433.

“And that same yere a-non aftyr the xij day the xxix day of Janyver, was the Lorde Fehewe ys brothyr stallyd Byschoppe of London.” Gregory’s Chronicle, p.  177

The Great Chronicle (p. 171) omits the words ‘his brother’ when referring to the bishop. Robert’s elder brother, William, was Lord Fitzhugh.

Polton and Fitzhugh arrived separately. Schofield claimed, on the strength of an entry in an anonymous diary of the proceedings, that Fitzhugh arrived in the middle of February (5) although a letter of protection for Fitzhugh from any prosecution for a year was issued in March with a licence to export £1,000, together with a quittance for the money he had received while he was in Rome as the king’s proctor (6).

The seven clerical delegates were Robert Burton, Precentor of Lincoln, John Salisbury, Subprior of Canterbury, William Worstede, Prior of Holy Trinity, Norwich, John Symondesburgh, Archdeacon of Wiltshire, and Thomas Brouns, Dean of Salisbury, who was allowed to take £300 with him and given permission to leave Basel if his expenses were not paid, Master Peter Pertrich, Chancellor of Lincoln, Master Alexander Sparrow, Archdeacon of Berkshire and possibly Master Henry Abendon, Chancellor of Wells.

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

(1) Schofield, ‘First English Delegation,’ p. 178, n. 6 (list of names who attended).

(2) Foedera X, pp. 525-533 (names of those going to Basel).

(3) PPC IV, p. 156 (Henry VI’s letter to Polton).

(4) Papal Letters VIII, p. 280 (Papal request for safe conduct for Fitzhugh).

(5) Schofield, p. 179 n. 3 (Fitzhugh at Basel).

(6) Foedera X, pp. 542 and 547 (licence to Fitzhugh 1433).

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

More Delegates

Robert Neville, Bishop of Salisbury and Theobald Dages, Dean of Bordeaux, were named as delegates in February 1433; John Clederowe Bishop of Bangor, was named in March, but they did not go (1.

At the beginning of May, Archbishop Chichele added Marmaduke Lumley, Bishop of Carlisle, Nicholas Frome, Abbot of Glastonbury, John Whethamstede, Abbot of St Albans, and Richard Chester, Vicar of South Willingham, to the list of delegates. They received letters of protection and licence to go to Basel, but they did not leave England (2).

At the same time a letter of protection for one year was issued to Alan Kirketon, Abbot of Thorney, who was to join the Duke of Bedford’s retinue in France (3).

Safe conducts, protection letters, payments, and permission for delegate to take money and jewels out of the country were issued by the Council, creating confusion and duplication over exactly who was to go where, and when. In some cases the delegates were authorised to leave Basel if their wages were not paid. This may reflect of the Council’s ambivalence or disinterest in Basel and the distraction of the more important peace talks with France

The Minority Council, especially the bishops, were divided in their opinion of the value of church councils and their enthusiasm for participation was lukewarm, but Convocation approved the attendance of the clergy.

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

(1) Foedera X, pp. 538, 539 and 546 (additional delegates).

(2) Foedera X, pp. 549-550 (delegates to Basel named in May).

(3) Foedera X, p. 551 (Kirketon).

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

The English at Basel

All delegates to the Council at Basel were required to swear an oath of loyalty to uphold its decrees. Voting was by ‘deputation’ i.e., by groups voting as individuals, rather than by ‘nations’ i.e., the English voting en bloc, as had been the custom at the earlier Council of Constance. The English delegation protested vigorously at this method of proceeding which the ‘King of England’ considered degrading to kings and princes.

Thomas Polton’s first verifiable appearance in Basel was in late April or early May when he and other members of the English delegation lodged a formal protest in the name of Henry VI as King of France and England against the proceedings of the Council. Representatives from Charles VII, who got there first, had been admitted by the Council as delegates from the King of France. Peter Pertrich, Robert Burton, and John Salisbury lodged a similar protest on 5 May (1). This protest may have been Polton’s only contribution to the Council. He died in Basel at the end of August.

(1) Schofield, ‘First English Delegation,’ pp. 181-182, n. 1 (protests by the English delegation).

Hussites

Fifteen Bohemian Hussites had been invited to Basel to resolve the contentious issues of the doctrine known as the Four Articles of Prague which caused the split between the Hussites and the Catholic church: the Four Articles authorised communion in both kinds, freedom to preach, the clergy to be as poor as the apostles, and public punishment of sinners (1).

See Year 1432: The General Council of the Church at Basel, Hussites.

Cardinal Cesarini presided over the debates with the Hussites; he allowed them full licence to make their arguments, but they were divided among themselves. The famous Hussite preacher and orator, John of Rokycana who led the debate represented the Utraquists (moderates); Peter Payne, an Englishman who had espoused the Hussite cause was a follower of the teachings of the Lollard John Wycliff and  Procopius [Prokof] the Great was a married priest and military leader of the Hussites, who had inflicted numerous defeats on the Catholic armies arrayed against him represented the Taborites (extremists).

“And that same yere began the generall counsell at Basill of all cristen londes, and theder kam the pragans thei of prage; and on master Pers a clerk that whas of Englond and whas Renagate, and another heretyk cam theder with hem. And there were many articles and poyntes of the ffeith determyned and spokyn of; and so they departyd withowten eny lettyng. And the cause whas of thei of prage had worthi clerkis of owre feith in plege for hem of Prage for to goo sauf and com sauf. And ellis they hadden goo to the fire, as men supposed that were ther.”  Cleopatra C IV, p.  135

“And atte this couseill were mony Articles and poyntes oute of the feithe commoned and determyned And so the Praganers past ayen to prage with oute only harme or lettyng  or they hadde worthy Clerkes of oure feithe in plegge that they shuld go sauf and come sauf. Orellys they hadde goo to brente wode as moost men supposed.” Great Chronicle, p. 170

The accounts of the Hussites at Basel in Cleopatra C IV, Gregory’s Chronicle, and The Great Chronicle derive from the same source; the original compiler was indignant and astonished that the heretics were allowed to go free and not burned at the stake as their founder, John Hus, had been. The explanation offered is disingenuous: the heretics were holding good Catholics as hostage for their safe return.

Bishop Polton, William Worstede, John Symondesburgh, and Thomas Brouns had been  authorised to negotiate with the Bohemians to reunite them with Holy Church, a somewhat ambitious procuration for such a small delegation (2). But reconciliation was not, apparently, on their agenda. They disrupted the Council’s proceedings as soon as they arrived. They began by criticising the Council’s tolerant attitude towards the Hussites and they objected to the presence of Peter Payne whom they dubbed a heretic and a traitor. Payne had been a fellow student with Peter Pertrich, Chancellor of Lincoln, while they were at Oxford together. Pertrich called Payne a Lollard and a traitor to his king and demanded his extradition to England to be tried under English law (3).

The inevitable stalemate over doctrinal differences resulted in the Hussite contingent leaving Basel in April, and Payne left with them. Representatives of the Council accompanied them for further meetings with the Diet, the governing body of Prague.

After the departure of the Hussites, the Minority Council, in King Henry’s name, forbade further participation in the Council until the objections lodged by Bishop Polton had been recognised and rectified. They were to withdraw altogether if they were not satisfied, and the threat was taken seriously.

Cardinal Landriani, who had obtained the promise of English participation in 1432 was sent back to London in October 1433 to urge the Minority Council not to withdraw. In November the Exchequer was ordered to pay him 100 marks for his visit (4, 5).

See Year 1432 The General Council of the Church at Basel.

But between the promise made to Landriani in 1432 of a substantial delegation and the arrival of a depleted delegation, although the pretence of an English commitment was maintained, English interest in the General Council waned. It was sustained only by some members of Convocation, such as Archbishop Chichele, who thought it their duty to send representatives to Basel.  From March to May 1433 the focus of the Minority Council was firmly on Cardinal Albergati’s peace initiatives and on the Council called to Calais by the Duke of Bedford.  Basel was, at best, a sideshow in 1433.

See Peace Talks and A Council at Calais below.

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

(1) Cambridge Medieval History, vol. VIII, ed. C.W, Previté-Orton (1936) pp. 30-31.

(2) Foedera X, pp. 529-530 (authorisation to treat with Bohemians).

(3) Schofield, ‘First English Delegation,’ p. 168 (Pertrich and Payne).

(4) Foedera X, p. 565 (payment to G. Landensis Episcopus).

(5) PPC IV p 185 (payment to Landriani, wrongly identified by Nicolas as Guillaume de Champeaux, Bishop of Laon).

NB: Foedera X, p. 539. The letter of protection for Sir John Colville who was at Basel, dated 28 November belongs in 1432.

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

Paris

Food shortages were acute in Paris in the early months of 1433. The Bourgeois of Paris recorded that the weather was so cold the Seine froze over and ‘all provisions therefore cost more, especially all grains that will make flour’ (1).

Consignments of grain were shipped from England to France:

In February a license to export wheat from Kent, Surrey and Sussex was issued to John Noisieux, a servant of Queen Isabelle of France.

Two Italian merchants Nicholas and James Bernardyn were permitted to export 50 quarters of wheat and 200 quarters of oats to Paris.

John Loutrell was licenced to export wheat and oats to Rouen, and in April the Duke of Bedford himself was licenced to arrange for the export of 1,000 quarters of wheat ‘of which there is a great scarcity in France.’ A quarter weight equalled about 28 pounds (2).

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

(1) Bourgeois, p. 285 (food scarcity).

(2) Foedera X, pp. 534-535 (wheat exports).

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

Peace Talks

Cardinal Albergati had postponed the peace conference at Auxerre in November 1432 to reconvene in 1433 at Seine Port, a small village not far from Corbeil seventeen miles south of Paris. Unlike Auxerre Seine Port was deemed easier to reach and safe for all the participants.

See Year 1432: Peace Talks Resumed.

French, English, Burgundian, and Breton delegates gathered there on 21 March 1433. Courtesy and policy required the Regent Bedford to treat the pope’s representative with respect, and he paid a personal visit to Cardinal Albergati.

The French delegates, Regnault de Chartres, Chancellor of France, Christopher Harcourt, and Jean Rabateau demanded, as they had in 1432, that the Duke of Orleans the Duke of Bourbon and the Count of Eu, prisoners in England since 1415, must be brought to France, possibly to Rouen, to take part in the discussions. As a gesture of goodwill, the English offered to have them brought to Dover: safe conducts would be issued for French representatives to consult with them there.

Regnault de Chartres agreed to refer this offer to King Charles. Cardinal Albergati himself visited the French court to persuade Charles VII to consider the English offer. Charles welcomed Albergati, but he ignored the offer.  It took time and patience to wring even a small concession from him, but eventually he suggested a four-month truce (1, 2).

Elated, Albergati and Regnault de Chartres drew up a treaty, and Albergati returned to Corbeil in July to submit it to the English. But on Bedford’s orders, Louis of Luxembourg, refused to sign.

A four-month truce was no use to Bedford. He needed at least a year to persuade the English Council and Parliament to endorse his programme for the war and more importantly to raise sufficient funds through taxation and loans to recruit an army large enough to launch a full-scale campaign in 1434.

Bedford’s reasons for rejecting the truce are outlined in letter from Henry VI to the Duke of Burgundy, although the door to peace is left open:

“. . . the truce of the said four months cannot be of any profitable effect for the king [or] his subjects. For in so short a time very little good could be done in so important a matter, and the said time would scarcely suffice to select a place to open and hear the sureties which were necessary for the said truce; but if the truce were longer means might be found for making peace, if the adverse party was not against it” (3)

Albergati gave up in despair. He reported the failure of his mission to the General Council of the Church at Basel in September, and expressed his belief that the protagonists were headed for war.

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

(1) Beaucourt, Charles VII, vol II, pp. 453-454 (peace talks).

(2) Sumption, Triumph and Illusion, pp. 413-414 (peace talks).

(3) Letters and Papers II, p. 256 (rejection of truce).

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

The Duke of Bedford and Jacquetta of Luxembourg

On 20 April 1433, five months after Anne, Duchess of Bedford’s death, Bedford married Jacquetta of Luxembourg. It was a political alliance contracted in haste amid mounting pressure on the English position in France. The extensive Luxembourg family were clients of the Duke of Burgundy, but its leading members had long been in English pay, and Bedford trusted in their loyalty

Jacquetta was seventeen, Bedford was forty-four and old before his time. They were married by Louis of Luxembourg, Bishop of Thérouanne who arranged the marriage (1). Louis had shared the burden of government with Bedford since 1425 as Bedford’s chancellor of France. His brother, John of Luxembourg, was one of the finest soldiers of his day. Louis and John were Jacquetta’s uncles.

“wherfor þe Duke of Bedforth Regent of Fraunce, being þan Capytain come to Caleys þe Twesday in þe Ester weke;  . . . . And in þe same weke  he rode to Terewyne; & bi þemean of Bisshop of Terewyn he wedded þerles doughter of Seynt Poul & came ageyn to Caleys.” Brut Continuation G, p.  502   

“and in the Estre woke the forsaid regent rood into Picardie to Tyrywe, and there the bysshop of Tyrewyn dede wedde the regent to the erles doughter of Seynt Poule; and whanne they were weddyd he com to Caleys ageyn.”   A Chronicle of London (Harley 565), p. 120

“And the xxij day of April the Duke of Bedford, Regent of ffraunce whas weddyd vnto the erll dowter of seynt poule in the tovne of Tirwen” (Thérouanne).” Chronicles of London (Cleopatra C IV), p. 135

Chronicles: Gregory’s Chronicle, p. 176; Great Chronicle, p. 170; Brut Continuation H, p. 569.

 The Duke of Burgundy was outraged. The Luxembourgs were his vassals, but the marriage took place without his knowledge or consent. Anne of Bedford’s death had shattered the last link between Bedford and Burgundy, they no longer trusted each other, if indeed they ever had.  The rift between them widened after 1432 and was not healed before Bedford died. Bedford suspected that despite years of placating Burgundy, Duke Philip was prepared to abandon the Anglo-Burgundian alliance.

Did Bedford have a personal as well as a political reason for marrying Jacquetta? Did he hope that Jacquetta would give him a son? Bedford was heir presumptive to the throne of England, and the next in line was his brother of Gloucester whom Bedford profoundly mistrusted.

Bedford petitioned Parliament in 1433 that his titles, Duke of Bedford and Earl of Kendal, granted to him for life by Henry V, should be re-granted as hereditary (1). If he nursed such a hope, he was to be disappointed. Jacquetta had a large family by her second husband, Richard Woodville, but Bedford died childless except for one illegitimate son and a daughter.

(1) PROME XI, Appendix, p. 154 (request for hereditary titles).

Mutiny at Calais

The Duke of Bedford was at Corbeil attending Cardinal Albergati’s peace conference when he received news that the Calais garrison had mutinied.  The wages of the garrison were as usual seriously in arrears.

A soldier of the garrison, John Madley, had come to London from Calais in December 1432 to represent the garrison and request payment of their wages.  At a meeting of the Council in the Duke of Gloucester’s London house. Madley received the stock reply and excuse: King Henry recognised and sympathized with the soldiers’ plight, ‘the greete poverty and indigence [which they] long han suffred.’ He had instructed the Treasurer to consign 4,000 marks to the Deputy Treasurer of Calais at Dover, to be delivered to Richard Buckland, the Treasurer, but only after the Duke of Gloucester received a written promise of good behaviour from the garrison: ‘a certificate and promesse of goode reule and gouvernance.’ This was typical of Gloucester but was hardly conciliatory, and it contributed to the garrison’s ugly mood (1).

Madley returned to Calais with Gloucester’s answer. The soldiers lost patience with the empty promises from England and just as they had in 1423, they seized all the wool in the warehouses in Calais.

See Year 1423: Calais.

The dating in the chronicles is contradictory, some say Bedford came to Calais before Easter and some say after Easter (Easter Sunday was 12 April). The account of Bedford’s movements in Cleopatra C IV is both critical and inaccurate:

“And than the Duke of Bedford aftyr her deth [Anne of Burgundy] he cam dovne to Roon; and ther he toke his leve ande went in to Englond ward by Caleys. And there the Duke heldde his cristmas. And so the Regent playd hym a bought in Pykardy tyll it whas esteryn. . . . . . . .”  Cleopatra C IV, p. 136

Brut Continuation H is the only chronicle to give details of Bedford’s actions, although its chronology too is confused (2):

Sir William Oldhall was in Calais as Bedford’s deputy when the mutiny broke out. He ordered the soldiers to return to barracks, but they were having none of it. They threatened Oldhall and ran him out of town, forcing him to leave his wife behind. Oldhall made his way hot foot to the Duke of Bedford.

As Captain of Calais, Bedford could not allow a mutiny to go unpunished. He met Richard Buckland, treasurer of Calais and Captain of Balingham, at Balingham, a small town within the Pale of Calais. Buckland negotiated with the soldiers on Bedford’s behalf and promised them that their wages would be paid out of the Calais customs. All unpaid assignments in the soldiers’ hands were to be collected and turned over to Bedford.

Bedford demanded the keys to Calais and ordered the arrest of between 80 and 110 of the mutinous soldiers. They were confined in the castle, with the overflow housed in the marshal’s prison.

Bedford tucked his hasty marriage into only a few days. He returned to Calais accompanied by his new duchess and Louis of Luxembourg and was received by the mayor and town officials with the customary welcome.

Bedford was not in the best of tempers, and he dealt harshly with the mutineers. He ordered Richard Vere, the mayor of Calais, to convene a special court and came in person to preside over it, with the sword of state lying on the table before him. The soldiers who had been imprisoned were marched in and paraded unarmed.

Bedford condemned four of the ringleaders to death, including John Madley, who had led the delegation to England to complain of the non-payment of their wages in 1432. Eighty men of the garrison, segregated to the left side of the court, were ‘banished’ (dismissed) and their wages were forfeit. The soldiers who lived in Calais (the married men?) stood on the right. They were docked their wages and back pay (3).

“and the xi day of Jun on seynt Barnabe day were foure sowdeours of Caleys beheded; that is to sey John Maddeley, John Lunday, Thomas Palmere and Thomas Talbot; and v score and x banshyd that same tyme; and before that tyme were banshyd vi score.”  Chronicle of London (Harley 565) p. 120

Bedford had to make an example of the mutineers, but his handling of the situation was unfortunate, it undermined his popularity. The sympathies of the Brut Continuation H clearly lie with the soldiers and hints at God’s punishment; it adds that Bedford “had neuer after bodily hele [health] till him dyet.”

Bedford decided that the best way to prevent future outbursts was to split the garrison up.  He ordered the transfer of a contingent of soldiers from Calais to defend Le Crotoy, and as further insurance of good behaviour, Richard Buckland was ordered in May to pay their wages (4).

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

(1) PPC IV, p. 139 (Calais garrison wages).

(2) Brut Continuation H, p. 570 (first phase of Calais mutiny).

(3) Brut Continuation H., pp. 570-571 (chronicler’s judgement).

(4) PPC IV, p. 162 (Calais soldiers to Le Crotoy).

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

A Council at Calais

The Duke of Bedford’s summons for a Council to meet at Calais was discussed in a Council meeting at Greenwich on 15 April 1433 King Henry’s presence. The Duke of Gloucester, Chancellor Stafford, William Lyndwood, Keeper of the Privy Seal, the Earl of Warwick, Bishop Morgan of Ely, Bishop Gray of Lincoln, and Lord Cromwell were present (1).

The Council agreed that the Duke of Gloucester and Chancellor Stafford should go to Calais. Stafford delivered the Great Seal to John Frank the clerk of the chancery rolls, on 22 April, for use during his absence (2, 3).

The Treasurer, Lord Scrope, reported that as he had to pay the expenses of Archbishop Kemp and Lord Hungerford, who were going to Basel via Calais, there was no money to meet the second quarter’s wages of the Earl of Huntington’s army, which was about to muster for France.

See The War in France below

He asked Gloucester and the Council to make provision to meet this expenditure before they left for Calais, and to hold him blameless if the money could not be found. Gloucester ordered it to be recorded that Scrope was not to be held accountable (4).

The Council that met in Calais at the Duke of Bedford’s behest from late April to late May was impressive. It combined members of the Minority Council, the Council in Rouen, and the Grand Conseil of Paris.

The Duke of Gloucester, as the king’s chief councillor, John Stafford, as Chancellor of England, William Gray, Bishop of Lincoln, and Philip Morgan, Bishop of Ely, the Earl of Suffolk, who had custody of the Duke of Orleans, Lord Hungerford, who expected to go to on to the Council at Basel, and Lord Cromwell, who was included for his financial expertise, came over from London. Cardinal Beaufort and John Kemp, Archbishop of York, were diverted from their intended visits to the Emperor and the Pope (5).

Louis of Luxembourg, Raoul Le Sage, Bedford’s trusted councillor, Sir John Fastolf, his master of household, Jean de Courcelles, a member of the Grand Conseil, Robert Piedefer, President of the parlement of Paris, and Raoul Roussell treasurer of the cathedral of Notre Dame, represented the interests of Lancastrian France (6).

“And in this same yere, anon after Ester þe Archebisshop of Caunterbury (an error for the Archbishop of York) and oþer Bisshoppes with othere clergy and the Duke of Gloucestre with oþer lorde[s] knyghtes and squyers went ouer the see to Caleys, for trety, and made þere a consayle betwene þe Frenssh and þe Englissh.  And þider come out of Fraunce the Duke of Bedford, Regent, with many other Frenssh lordes, bothe spiritual and temporall; and also þider come þe Cardynall þe Bisshop of Wynchestre.”  Brut Continuation F, p.  466

The wording in the Brut is misleading. Its reference is to members of the Grand Conseil not to representatives of King Charles VII.

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

(1) PPC IV, pp. 157-58

(2) PPC VI, p. 351 (the Great Seal to be held in chancery).

(3) Foedera X, pp. 548-459 (surrender of the Great Seal and its return to the Chancellor on 23 May).

(4) PPC IV, pp. 158-159 (Scrope’s report on lack of finances at the Treasury).

(5) Schofield, ‘First English Delegation,’ pp. 185-187 (list of those attending the council in Calais).

(6) Beaucourt, Charles VII, vol. II, p. 462 (list of those attending the council in Calais).

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

Deliberations

Two crucial points of policy were debated at Calais: should a truce or a peace with King Charles be pursued and if so on what terms; or, if the French proved unreasonable, as there was every reason to suppose they would, how could the war best be continued? What could be done to prevent the Duke of Burgundy from making a separate peace with France?

William Wytlesey was paid £1 for copying the terms of the ‘great truces’ concluded in the past between England and France to be sent to Bedford and Gloucester in Calais (1).

The Duke of Gloucester magnanimously conceded the need, however distasteful, to conciliate Burgundy. He agreed that Bedford and Cardinal Beaufort should act as arbitrators to end his long-standing but outdated quarrel with Duke Philip (2, 3).

See Year 1425: The Duke of Gloucester and the Duke of Burgundy.

Bedford was exasperated by the Calais mutiny. He blamed Gloucester and the Minority Council for financial negligence and a lack of commitment to the war. Wages for the garrison at Calais were their responsibility and if they could not even meet this obligation, where was the money for future campaigns in France to come from? Only Cardinal Beaufort’s personal loans, and loans under his direction from the feoffees of Duchy of Lancaster lands administering Henry V’s will, were keeping the war effort afloat.

The deliberations at Calais ended unsatisfactorily. The royal brothers agreed that Henry VI’s title as King of France must be maintained, but they differed on how this was to be achieved. Bedford wanted a firm undertaking of ongoing financial support from the Council. He did not get it. Gloucester was convinced that he could do a better job of waging war in France. He criticised Bedford’s management of the war as being responsible for recent losses and defeats.

Bedford was also concerned by the deterioration of the Anglo-Burgundian alliance, due in part to his hasty marriage to Jacquetta of Luxembourg.  He agreed to attend a personal meeting to be arranged by Cardinal Beaufort who got on better with Duke Philip than Bedford did (9).  Bedford went to St Omer to meet Burgundy as arranged, but despite all Beaufort’s persuasions, Burgundy refused to visit Bedford’s lodgings and Bedford in turn, as ‘a son and brother of a king’ refused to go to the Duke of Burgundy (4, 5).

The Duke of Gloucester and Chancellor Stafford were back in England by 22 May. The Great Seal was restored to the Chancellor on 23 May 1433, and the Council reconvened at Westminster on 24 May with Gloucester, Stafford, Archbishop Chichele, Bishop Langley of Durham (supposedly retired) William Lyndwood, Keeper of the Privy Seal, the Earl of Warwick, Lord Scrope, and William Phelip present.

Bedford decided that the only thing for it, especially in the face of Gloucester’s criticisms, was for him to go England, take control of the Minority Council, and face Parliament. Neither Bedford nor Gloucester acknowledged what some of the other councillors recognised: the Exchequer was empty, parliamentary grants were proving harder to obtain, and were in any case inadequate.

The Duke and Duchess of Bedford crossed from Calais to England between 21 and 23 June.

“. . . . Iohn, Duke of Bedford with his newe wedded wife, þe Erles doughter of Seintpoule; and they come from Fraunce ouer the see into England, and so come to London the xxiij^th day of Iuyn þat was Mydsomer Even. And the Mayre and aldermen, with many worthy comouns of London brought theym from the Blak-heth in Kent and so to London into Fletestrete, vnto þe Bisshoppes Inne of Salesbury with all honoure and reuerence.”                 Brut Continuation F, pp.  466-467

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

 (1) Issues of the Exchequer, p. 420 (copying of earlier truces).

(2) L&P II, ii, pp. 417-418 (Gloucester’s agreement to reconcile. Stevenson misdated it to 1428).

(3) Vickers, Gloucester, p. 236 (points out that the agreement is dated at Calais. Gloucester was not in Calais at any time before 1436 except for the council at Calais in 1433).

(4) Wavrin IV, pp. 38-39 (Bedford and Burgundy).

(5) Monstrelet I, p. 615 (Bedford and Burgundy).

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

The War in France

A letter in King Henry’s name to the Duke of Burgundy in July 1433 claimed that the English had 3,700 men in the field under the command of the Earl of Huntingdon, the Earl of Arundel, and Lord Willoughby, not counting 6,000 men in the garrisons scattered across France, Normandy, Anjou (sic) and Maine (1).

Roger Winter, a clerk of the Exchequer, was sent to Dieppe and then to Rouen to deliver £2,500 to the Duke of Bedford to pay for the army in France.  His journey took forty-four days and he received £85 19s for expenses.

In July Winter was instructed to take 5,000 marks to Arques in the Pale of Calais to Louis of Luxembourg for the expenses of the war. Winter was to travel in the retinue of Lord Talbot who was preparing to return to France (2).

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

(1) L&P II, p. 258 (numbers of men in France).

(2) Issues of the Exchequer, p. 422 (money to Bedford and Louis of Luxembourg).

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

The Earl of Huntingdon

In February1433 John Holand, Earl of Huntingdon, was appointed to lead an army of about 1,200 men to defend Lower Normandy, with the same powers of command as the Earl of Salisbury or any other commander had during Henry VI’s reign (1).

Huntingdon was awarded the considerable sum of 1,300 marks for his services past and present in France, and for the expenses and losses he had sustained in the past (2). He had been captured at the Battle of Baugé in 1421 and only returned to England in 1426 following complicated negotiations for his release. He played a major part in the campaigns of Henry VI’s coronation expedition of 1430-1431.

See Year 1424 and 1425: Parliament: John Holand, Earl of Huntingdon for his ransom.

See Year 1430: The Campaigns of 1430 for Huntingdon in France.

“And in this same yere the xxij^th day of Aprell, the Erle of Huntyngdon, with other dyuers lordes, knyghtes and squyers, with men of armes and archers, shipped at Hampton, and went ouer the see into Normandy and so to Fraunce, for to mayntene kepe and gouerne the right of oure Kyng and þe parties of Fraunce and Normandy.”  Brut Continuation F, p.  466

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

(1) PPC IV, p. 146 (Huntingdon to command army).

(2) L&P II, p. 257 (Huntingdon 1200 men).

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

Montargis

“And that same yere the erll of hontyndon went in to the reame of ffraunce with c speris and vii c bowys. And he did many jornayes and whan many smale placys in gattinas, vp toward Montarges; and rescewyd Montarges, the wich whas besegid by the Arminakes. And than he cam dovne into Normandy ayen, ande kom in to Englond the same yere.” Cleopatra C IV, p. 136

Despite the claim in Cleopatra C IV, the Earl of Huntingdon did not ‘rescue’ the castle at Montargis.  Dunois, Bastard of Orleans defeated the Earl of Warwick at the siege of Montargis in 1427 and captured the castle.  The Duke of Bedford offered a reward of 10,000 gold crowns to anyone who could recapture it.

See Year 1427: The War in France, Montargis.

Montargis remained in French hands until July 1433 when two mercenary captains, Perrinet Gressart, and the flamboyant François de Surienne, called L’Aragonais, gained access to the castle by bribery.

Their biographer, André Bossuat, casts doubt on the tale of the barber who was bribed by the woman he wished to marry to show them where to scale the castle walls. He suggests that Berry Herald told the story to gloss a French defeat, just as Cleopatra C IV credited the victory to an English captain (1).

There is an oblique inaccurate reference to Montargis in a marginal note in The Great Chronicle: “this yere the Frenche men toke by stelth y^e towne off montarges & y^e castell off Rouen butt thenglishemen shortly recoveryd them.”  Great Chronicle p. 171

In September 1433 Bedford issued a mandate for the payment of 5,000 saluts, half the sum originally offered, to Francois de Surienne (2).

The question might be asked as to why the Earl of Warwick, supposedly with an army of 3,000 men, was unable to take Montargis in 1427 while the mercenary captains, with far fewer men apparently did so with ease in 1433, even allowing for help from inside the castle.

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

(1) A. Bossuat, Perrinet Gressart et François de Surienne, pp.196-98 (Montargis 1433).

(2) L&P II, ii, pp. 427-428 (mandate for payment of 5,000 saluts).

NB: The mandate is dated 6 September 1434, 12 Henry VI, but 6 September 12 Henry VI is 1433.

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

The Earl of Arundel

John, Earl of Arundel was campaigning in France. He petitioned Parliament in absentia to recognise him as Earl of Arundel. His father, another John, who died in 1421, had claimed the earldom as a cousin and closest male heir of Thomas Fitzalan, Earl of Arundel, who died childless in 1415, but the Arundel claim was disputed by John Mowbray, Duke of Norfolk.

The dispute turned on who rightfully held the castle of Arundel from which the title stemmed (1). Thanks to his war service and the Duke of Bedford’s influence, John’s petition succeeded. Parliament recognised his claim officially in November 1433 and he became Earl of Arundel (2) although he had apparently been recognised de facto if not de jure much earlier. He is referred to as Earl of Arundel in the chronicles well before 1433.

In the second six months of 1433,  with a force of about 900 men, Arundel recovered towns and fortresses in Alençon and Maine lost to the French in 1429 and 1430.

He recaptured the abbey at Sées on the River Oise northeast of Saint Cénéry, which changed hands a number of times after its capture by Henry V in 1418 and he then set about dislodging the French from Saint Cénéry itself. Lord Willoughby had laid siege to it in 1432, but Ambroise de Loré had forced him to abandon his siege.

See Year 1432: The War in France, Lord Willoughby and Saint Cénéry.

“And the same yere all the cristmas tyme the erll of Arondell had leyd siege vnto a full fayre place callid Seynt Selerin (Saint Cénéri) and whan ther with Cely Gillam (Sillé le Guillaume) with a composicion, and the abbey of Ses (Sées), and many other placys in Normandy and in mayn.”    Chronicles of London (Cleopatra C IV), p. 136

The garrison held out for three months. Arundel’s gunners blew a huge hole in the castle wall, killing a number of the defenders, including Loré’s lieutenant, Jehan de Armenge. This time Loré did not come to the rescue, even though his wife and children were in the castle. Saint Cénéry surrendered early in 1434.

See Year 1434: The War in France, John, Earl of Arundel

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

(1) PROME XI, pp. 117-122 (Earldom of Arundel claim and counter claim).

(2) Powell & Wallis, House of Lords, pp. 463-64 (Arundel’s claim).

(3) Chartier I, pp. 164-165 (siege of Saint Cénéry).

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

The Siege of Saint Valery

The Burgundian town of Saint Valery on the Somme had been captured by a surprise assault, and to prove to the Duke of Burgundy that his alliance with England was worth more than a truce with France, the Duke of Bedford ordered a special effort to be made recover it.

Robert, Lord Willoughby and Peter St Pol, Count of Luxembourg, with 1,600 men (500 of them under St Pol’s command contributed by the Duke of Burgundy) laid siege to Saint Valery in Picardy between May and August 1433 (1). St Pol was paid 500 marks by the English Exchequer for his services (2).

Expenditure for a quick recovery of Saint Valery far outweighed its worth. Louis of Luxembourg, Bedford’s Chancellor of France, received various remittances to finance it.:

When Archbishop John Kemp was diverted to attend the Duke of  Bedford’s council in Calais he was instructed to pay the 1,000, marks he had received for his expenses to travel to the Church Council at Basel to Louis of Luxembourg for the siege of Saint Valery (3).

At the council in Calais Cardinal Beaufort agreed to loan 10,000 marks for ‘the defence of the realm of France’ and the siege of Saint Valery. The money was to be delivered to Louis of Luxembourg (4, 5).

Richard Buckland, Treasurer of Calais, received a loan of 500 marks (£333 6s 8d) from the wealthy London mercer, William Estfeld, at the end of May ‘to pay men-at-arms and archers for their wages and rewards for services performed at Saint Valery and other places held by the enemies of the king’ (6).

In August, the mayor, constables, and the staplers at Calais were instructed to send 2,000 marks to the receiver of Pont Neuf toward the costs of the siege (7).

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

 (1) L&P II, p. 257 (siege with 1600 men).

(2) PPC IV, p. 163 (500 marks to St Pol).

(3) PPC IV, p. 168 (1,000 mark from Archbishop Kemp).

(4) PPC IV, p. 243 (repayment of Beaufort’s loan, 1434).

(5) Issues of the Exchequer, p. 425 (repayment of Beaufort’s loan. 1434).

(6) Issues of the Exchequer pp. 421-422 (Estfeld’s loan).

(7) PPC IV, p. 178 (Calais Staple loan).

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

Peter St Pol, Count of Luxembourg

The siege of Saint Valery ended by negotiation in August and St Pol garrisoned the town, presumably with Burgundian troops. He was preparing to lay siege to Rambures where he died unexpectedly on 31 August, probably of disease contracted at Saint Valery. His body was taken to St Pol and buried in the abbey church of Cercamp (1).

A funeral mass was held for him at St Pauls in 1433 while Bedford and Jacquetta were in England. St Pol was the father of Jacquetta of Luxembourg, the Duke of Bedford’s second wife.

“In this yere the ix^th day of Novembre the terment of therle of seynt powle fader unto the wyfe of the duke of Bedford and Regent of Fraunce full solempnely was holden at powles in london.”  Great Chronicle, p. 171

(1) Monstrelet I, p. 620 (St Pol death and burial). 

Hugh de Lannoy, Burgundian Envoy

The Duke of Burgundy wondered if he had backed the wrong horse. Perhaps he could get more out of the English than he could out of the King of France. He sent Hugh de Lannoy and the unnamed Treasurer of the Boulennois to England in June 1433 on a factfinding mission to mend fences with the English Council and discover if they were considering a peace with King Charles that might exclude Burgundy.

Lannoy, a staunch Anglophile. He had been Burgundy’s ambassador to England twice before, in 1426 while the Duke of Bedford was in England, and again in 1429, to suggest a peace conference.

The Burgundians landed at Sandwich and were on the road to Canterbury when they met up with William de la Pole, Earl of Suffolk. Lannoy introduced himself and delivered a letter from Duke Philip to Suffolk. He asked Suffolk to facilitate an interview with King Henry and Suffolk, ever the courtier, declared his willingness to be of service to Burgundy.

Lannoy’s first visit in London was to the Earl of Warwick. He presented Warwick with a letter from Burgundy like that addressed to Suffolk, but Warwick was not welcoming. He treated Lannoy coolly but courteously requested news of the Duke of Burgundy. Lannoy asked Warwick where he might find King Henry and when he might expect to see him.  Warwick replied that the king was not in London, he was away hunting. He would inform Lannoy of a time and place when Henry would grant the Burgundians an audience.

They met Cardinal Beaufort at mass on the following day. He received them graciously but not as warmly as they expected, although he said he would do what he could for them. Warwick informed them that Henry was at Guildford and would receive them on Friday morning. They journeyed to Guildford where they found King Henry surrounded by his Council.

Lannoy and King Henry

Lannoy presented the Duke of Burgundy’s letters to King Henry whom he described as ‘ung tres bel enfant.’ Henry addressed him graciously in French and asked after the Duke of Burgundy’s health which gave Lannoy the opportunity to reply pointedly that Burgundy was in excellent health and was campaigning in Champagne with an army ‘to resist his enemies and your own.’

Henry ordered the Burgundians to retire while Burgundy’s letters were read and discussed by the lords in Council. The Burgundians were then recalled, and Warwick informed them that their letters of credence would be presented to a Great Council in London on the following Tuesday or Wednesday.

The Council met at Westminster on Wednesday 1 July. Lannoy presented his credentials and put the Duke of Burgundy’s proposals to them. He was asked to present the proposals in writing, but he refused, because he had been told what he was to tell the English, Burgundy had not committed his instructions to writing.  The councillors insisted, and reluctantly, and being careful to keep a copy of what he wrote to show Duke Philip, Lannoy complied.

Lannoy then began to prevaricate and obfuscate: the Duke of Burgundy had been informed by ‘certain lords’ of ‘certain things’ which might aid King Henry while causing ‘very great damage’ to ‘others.’ This was far too vague for the Council, and Lannoy was told to meet privately with Cardinal Beaufort, Henry Chichele, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Earl of Warwick to spell out exactly what he was talking about. The Council would reply to all the points he raised.

The meeting took place at Cardinal Beaufort’s palace in Southwark. Lannoy explained d that John, Duke of Brittany and his brother Arthur de Richemont, the Constable of France had approached the Duke of Burgundy as to act as intermediary. Within the limits of preserving his honour, Richemont, who was out of favour with King Charles VII, might be willing to join his brother and Burgundy in giving military aid to the English. Duke Philip, through Lannoy, also strongly advised the Council to seek the friendship of Amadeus, Duke of Savoy, Burgundy’s ally, who was on bad terms with Charles VII.

Basically, Lannoy’s message was that if King Henry wished to win the war, he would need assistance from those French magnates who were at odds with King Charles. Lannoy did not identify them, but he thought that King Henry could easily win their good will and support if he offered them lands, estates, and money as rewards! Duke Philip believed in bribery to achieve his ends; he had accepted bribes from the English for years.

Lannoy and the Council

The Great Council’s answer was delivered to Lannoy on 7 July. He was told that King Henry would reply to the Duke of Burgundy separately, in a closed letter. Cardinal Beaufort suggested in King Henry’s name, that Lannoy should encourage Burgundy to pursue talks with the Duke of Brittany, with Arthur de Richemont, and with Amadeus of Savoy and make as good a deal with them.

It was impossible for Henry to make any promises or offers to the French lords until Parliament met and discussed the matter, but an English embassy would be sent to Burgundy as soon as Parliament was dissolved, to discuss ‘many other great matters which at present could not be declared.’

The Earl of Warwick was less conciliating. He roundly informed Lannoy that the Duke of Burgundy had insulted King Henry. Not once during Henry’s long stay in France had he received a visit from the duke. Lannoy countered that this was not surprising given the ill will that the English publicly displayed towards his master: he had heard Burgundians spoken of harshly on all sides and even threatened while he was in London. But he was sure that if King Henry were to visit France again, Duke Philip would make him welcome.

Lannoy and the Duke of Bedford

Lannoy visited the Duke of Bedford and Duchess Jacquetta the day before he left England. Beford said he was sorry that the Duke of Burgundy had such a bad opinion of him, for he did not hate the duke, far from it. He knew that the coldness between them was prejudicial to King Henry and to the good of the country. He would continue to act, as he always had, in King Henry’s interests, but this did not preclude the interests of the Duke of Burgundy, and he hoped, God willing, that they might become friends again at some future date.  Bedford humbled his pride by sending this message. Only the necessity retaining Burgundy as an ally and not as an enemy would have forced even this much out of him.

Lannoy wrote his report at Lille on 17 July (1). Peace or war had been debated in Parliament.  There was a rumour that the Council were considering a marriage between King Henry and a daughter of Charles VII to obtain peace, but that no steps had been taken and they were unlikely to proceed. His overall impression was that the Duke of Bedford and the Council, while deploring Burgundy’s close contacts with Charles VII, whom they still referred to as ‘the Dauphin,’ wanted to retain the Anglo-Burgundian alliance and had no intention of making a separate treaty which would exclude Burgundy (3).

(1) L&P II ii, pp. 218-248 (Lannoy’s report is in three parts: arrival in England, pp. 222-230; interview with the Duke of Orleans, pp. 230-238 (see below); and incidents in London during his stay, pp. 238-248).

King Henry’s Reply

As promised, the Council wrote a long letter in King Henry’s name, beginning with a recapitulation of the Council’s willingness during the past two years to negotiate for peace or at least a truce, and the refusal of ‘the Dauphin’ to consider reasonable terms.

The Duke of Burgundy’s accusation that King Henry had not done enough either for peace or in war was untrue. It was the Dauphin’s fault that a truce had not been signed. The captive French magnates had been brought to Dover and safe conducts for French representatives to cross to Dover had been offered, but the French had failed to come. Their offer of a four-month truce had rightly been rejected. Only a truce for at a least a year and preferably longer, would give time for a lasting peace to be negotiated.

See Peace Talks above.

King Henry appreciated Burgundy’s offer to continue the war in person and make a financial contribution in so far as he could, but only if King Henry and the Council agreed to raise an army large enough to be deployed in various places (undoubtedly in Burgundian territory). Burgundy had also requested 400 men, to be paid for by the English, to join John of Luxembourg in Picardy. (This is not mentioned in Lannoy’s report). King Henry’s letter pointed out that English were already maintaining three armies in the field, one of them in Burgundian territory.

See The War in France. Saint Valery above.

The letter ends on a cautionary and possibly threatening note. King Henry was conscious of the poverty and misery in France because of the war; he acknowledged the expense Burgundy had incurred in the fighting, but with God’s help, Henry would right these wrongs in person as soon as he was old enough. He would remember who had served him well, and who had not, and he would not forget those who had rendered him the greatest service. Henry, as King of France, accepted Burgundy as his loyal subject; he would never believe any report that said otherwise, since he knew that Burgundy ‘would distain to do a thing which was unloyal and dishonourable, and such as a loyal and honourable prince ought not to do’ (1).

(1) L&P II, ii, pp. 249-262 (‘King Henry’s’ reply to Lannoy’s articles).

Charles, Duke of Orleans

After his meeting with King Henry, Lannoy paid a visit to the Duke of Orleans who was in the sympathetic custody of William de la Pole, Earl of Suffolk (1, 2).

Suffolk complacently allowed the meeting to take place. Orleans inquired after the health of his cousin the Duke of Burgundy. Lannoy replied that the duke was desirous of learning how Orleans was faring. Orleans said he was in good health physically but distressed and depressed by his long years in captivity. Lannoy suggested that these years had not have been wasted. Orleans, with his extensive knowledge of both countries, might become a mediator between the King of England and the King of France. How much Orleans knew of either king is doubtful.

Orleans replied that he had offered time and again to take the role of mediator, as his good ‘cousin’ the Earl of Suffolk could confirm.  But, he said, ‘I am like a sword in a sheaf.’ He could not act unless he was allowed to return to France to consult his friends. Orleans claimed that he had influence with many French lords who would follow his advice, and he knew he could count on the Dukes of Burgundy and Brittany to join him in his efforts to achieve peace – once he was a free man.

Lannoy piously affirmed that the Duke of Burgundy ardently desired peace to relieve the suffering of the people of France who had been ruined by the war. Suffolk sententiously confirmed that he knew Burgundy was ‘well disposed towards peace.’ Orleans came in on cue: neither he nor Burgundy was the cause of ‘the evils which have come to the kingdom of France.’

Orleans was a poet with a turn for the dramatic: he declared with pardonable exaggeration, that if he could be the means of restoring peace, he would willingly suffer death. He insisted that he was more likely than any man alive to achieve peace, which meant more to him than his freedom, if only King Henry would make use of his services. This was a step too far for Suffolk who brought the interview to a close. He hastily reminded Orleans that King Henry had not kept him in isolation, that safe conducts had been issued over the years for Orleans’s people to come to him freely.  Orleans urged Lannoy to visit him a second time and Suffolk agreed that this might be arranged, but Lannoy doubted it, he said he knew that meetings between himself and Orleans were not approved by the Council.

Suffolk told Lannoy that the Duke of Burgundy would be informed of any decisions on peace or war taken by the Council. Was Suffolk acting on his own initiative, or was he being used as a spokesman by members of the Council to reassure the Duke of Burgundy?  Lannoy claimed that Suffolk had high hopes of peace though the agency of Orleans, especially now that Orleans’s herald, and a delegation including one of King Charles’s secretaries, had been granted safe conducts to come to England.

Orleans wanted permission to write to Burgundy, but Suffolk sent Jean Cauvel, one of Orleans’s guards, described as Suffolk’s barber, to inform Lannoy that Orleans could not be allowed to communicate directly with Burgundy. Was this true? Orleans had been in touch with his friends in France for many years. What was to stop them forwarding a letter from Orleans to Burgundy? Or was Orleans’s correspondence censored?

Orleans attempted to set up a clandestine correspondence with Burgundy through Jean Cauvel. Cauvel claimed that as a native of Lille he was a loyal Burgundian who would never betray the Duke of Burgundy, and he offered to carry letters secretly between Orleans and Burgundy. Cauvel told Lannoy that he had won Orleans’s trust because he spoke excellent French! Cauvel asked Lannoy to tell the Duke of Burgundy, in case the duke had heard that Orleans hated him (because of the old feud between their fathers?) that this was not true. He had heard Orleans say that he loved Burgundy more than any other French lord.  Lannoy thanked Cauvel and told him to tell Orleans that he could rest assured that Burgundy would do all he could for him.

Lannoy returned to Calais where he met Orleans’s councillor, Jehan de Saveuses who had recently visited the French court. He told Lannoy that most people at court believed that peace was possible, but only if the English released the Duke of Orleans, and King Henry renounced his claim to the French crown – in that order (3).

Much of Lannoy’s report to the Duke of Burgundy is open to question. Lannoy wrote what he knew Burgundy wished to hear. Burgundy wanted Orleans released for reasons of his own that had nothing to do with altruism. Orleans free and back in France might distract King Charles’s attention away from the war of attrition that Charles was waging against Burgundy, especially if Orleans kept his promise to agitate for peace.

The Duke of Burgundy, and Orleans himself, failed to understand that King Charels did not want Orleans back in France. He paid lip service to the movement to free Orleans because it would tarnish his image if he did not but an alliance between the Duke of Orleans and the Duke of Burgundy, the two most powerful nobles in France, would undermine Charles’s ambition to bring his unruly magnates under his jurisdiction. The king did not want Orleans to return to France under an any obligation to the Duke of  Burgundy. And Charles was right: this is precisely what Orleans did when was finally set free in 1440.

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

(1) PPC IV p. 182 (Orleans’s keep. In November 1433 the Council authorized payment to Suffolk for custody of Orleans from 29 August 1432 at the rate of 14s 4d a day for custody of Orleans from 29 August 1432 at the rate of 14s 4d a day).

(2) Foedera X, p. 564 (Orleans’s keep).

(3) L&P II, pp. 230-238 (Lannoy’s report on his meeting with Orleans).

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

Orleans’s Proposal

Charles of Orleans was now forty-four years old and had been a prisoner in England for eighteen years. There are indications in Lannoy’s report that he was becoming increasingly impatient with King Charles for failing to obtain his release, and that he was planning to take matters into his own hands.

In August 1433 he submitted a long, involved, and repetitive text couched in legal language which he claimed was his own, not influenced by anyone else (1, 2). Its interest to the Minority Council lay in the second paragraph: Orleans reneged on his earlier refusals to accept the Treaty of Troyes and addressed Henry VI as ‘King of France and England.’

He adjured Henry to issue safe conducts for a peace conference to convene either at Calais or in Normandy on 15 October, just two months away. Orleans claimed he had been in touch with his friends in France, and they had promised him they would attend, although somewhere in Normandy would be preferable to Calais.

Orleans named Yolande, Duchess of Anjou, and her younger son Charles; John, Duke of Brittany, and his brothers Arthur de Richemont and Richard of Étampes; the Duke of Alençon; Jean, Count of Armagnac and his brother Bernard, Count of Pardiac; Jean, Count of Foix; the Count of Clermont; the Archbishop of Reims (or of Embrun), and the Bishop of ‘Belira’ (?) as his supporters. He would advise them as to time and place as soon as a date had been fixed by the English Council.

The recipients of his pleas probably expressed their hope that he would be released and endorsed his suggestion for a peace conference, but, with the possible exception of the Duke of Brittany, Orleans’s ‘supporters’ formed what might be called the war party at the French court.

Yolande was King Charles’s mother-in-law; she had married her daughter Marie to Charles when he was still the Dauphin. Yolande had great influence with Charles, and she consistently urged him to fight the English, giving him all the support she could. Her son, Charles of Anjou, was one of King Charles’s favourites. Her daughter, another Yolande, was married to Duke John of Brittany’s son and heir, Francis.

The Duke of Alençon had fought alongside Joan of Arc as one of her chief supporters. Charles of Clermont, the Duke of Bourbon’s son, was loyal to King Charles despite the possibility of obtaining his father’s release if he agreed to swear allegiance to Henry VI.

In outlining his terms Orleans entered fantasy land: ‘The Dauphin’ would be offered a settlement, provision notable et honnête of lands and lordships in France (unspecified).   At the same time ‘King Charles’s’ subjects would retain their liberty and ownership of their lands or be compensated with an equivalent grant.

A general peace would be signed, and Orleans magnanimously offered to return to England and remain there for a year until peace was firmly established; after that he would be set free without paying his ransom.

If a general peace could not be concluded at the meeting in Calais, Orleans would persuade the French nobles to recognise Henry as King of France. The English would be permitted to take over the government of France until peace could be imposed. Even some men who were not French, such as the Dukes of Milan and Savoy, would join Orleans’s alliance.

Orleans would pay homage to Henry VI and his heirs as the true King of France and England and swear to serve him until the conquest was complete. He engaged to persuade the Duke of Alençon, John, Count of Armagnac and Bernard, Count of Pardiac as well as his own brother the Count of Angoulême, still a prisoner in England, ‘and all his other friends’ to follow his example.

As a gesture of good faith, he would turn over his lordships of Blois, Orleans, and Chateaudun, with some of his smaller estates, to King Henry, and order his subjects to recognise Henry as their king. Anyone who refused would be severely punished. His influence was such that once he was in France, he could secure the submission of the great port of La Rochelle and of Mont Saint Michel, which the English had never been able to capture, as well as other towns: Limoges, Saintes, Bourges, Chinon, Poitiers, Tournani, Tours, Béziers and Loches, which the English had no hope of capturing.

As soon as some part of these enticing promises had been met, Orleans would be allowed to leave England, and when they had all been met, he would be free to go without paying his ransom.

On 7 October a king’s messenger, delivered thirty-four safe conducts to the Earl of Suffolk ‘for the Queen of Sicily and other persons coming with her from France to the king’s town of Calais.’ (3).  Did Orleans or Suffolk persuade the Council that Orleans could perform miracles?

Dunois, Bastard of Orleans, the duke’s half brother was included with those Orleans had named, plus two additional bishops, four war captains, including La Hire and Xaintrailles, the Abbot of Blois, and fifteen others, most of them Orleans’s servants (4).

A letter in King Henry’s name informed the Duke of Burgundy, not of what Orleans was offering, but merely that Orleans had suggested a conference between French and English representatives to meet at Calais in October. It was hoped that Burgundy would attend in person or send representatives.

Burgundy was sceptical. He instructed Quentin Menart, Provost of Saint Omer, to investigate. Menart approached William Oldhall, Bedford’s deputy in Calais, and Oldhall informed him that no one had come to Calais from England. He had questioned one of Orleans’s servants who was on his way to England carrying letters to King Henry and the Duke of Bedford to explain why the meeting had not taken place. All the man could tell him was that it was postponed, possibly to Christmas, because the French objected to Calais as the venue.  Oldhall himself was going to England and would try to learn more details (5).

At the end of 1433 the Council issued safe conducts for two servants of Dunois to come to England ‘for the ransom of the Earl of Suffolk’ (6). Suffolk had been Dunois’s prisoner, and he had released Suffolk before his ransom was paid. Did Dunois suspect that Suffolk had not lived up to his promise to do all he could to obtain Orleans’s release? (6)

King Henry’s letter issuing the safe conducts does not name the English representatives he would send to Calais, it refers to ‘certain lords of our blood and lineage and other notable persons, bishops and lords,’ the implication being that Bedford, Gloucester or Cardinal Beaufort might accompany Orleans to Calais. If this was designed to entice the French magnates, it failed. Without King Charles’s permission none of Orleans’s ‘friends’ would come to Calais or anywhere else. Orleans’s grand plan fizzled out and he remained in England for another seven years.

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

(1) Foedera X, pp. 556-561 (Orleans’s proposal).

(2) Beaucourt, Charles VII, vol. II, p. 463 (Orleans proposal).

(3) Issues of the Exchequer, pp. 422-423 (safe conducts delivered to Suffolk. Nicholas was paid 6s 4d).

(4) Foedera X, pp. 561-563 (Henry VI’s letter issuing safe conducts).

(5) Plancher, Histoire de Bourgogne IV, cxxiv-cxxxvi (Henry VI’s letter to Burgundy; Oldhall to Menart and Menart to Burgundy).

(6) Foedera X, p. 566 (Dunois’s servants to England).

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

Parliament

Chancellor Stafford issued writs on 24 May to summon Parliament to meet on 30 June in anticipation of the Duke of Bedford’s arrival in England. But five weeks was not considered long enough for the sheriffs to arrange the elections and for the members to arrive. Stafford extended the date to 8 July (1).  Cardinal Beaufort returned to England on 10 June.

“. . . . Herry Beauford, Cardynall Bisshop of Wynchestre, come ouer the see into England, and so to London the x^th day of Iuyn, to his Maner of Seint Mary Ouerey in Suthwerk.”   Brut Continuation F, p. 466

Parliament met on 8 July 1433. The first session was short; it was prorogued from 13 August to 13 October because of pestilence in London. The second session lasted from 13 October to about 18 December.

 “And about the Feast of the translation of St Thomas the Martyr the king held a parliament at London which lasted until the Purification of the Virgin. It was attended by the duke of Bedford with his new wife.”   Benet’s Chronicle, pp. 183-184

Curry notes that it is unlikely that parliament sat until the Purification (2 February 1434) as claimed by Benet’s Chronicle (2).

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

(1) PPC IV, p. 163 (Parliament summoned).

(2) PROME XI, pp. 67 and 88 (Parliamentary sessions).

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

Petitions in Parliament

Numerous petitions were presented to this parliament, only a few of them are recorded in the Proceedings.

Queen Katherine

A petition from Queen Katherine to King Henry, complained that the Exchequer had defaulted on payment of her income from land grants made to her by King Henry VI in 1423 ‘on account of some ambiguity in the said letters.’ She asked him to issue correctly worded writs to the Treasurer and Barons of the Exchequer to accept all the sums she claimed, and to suspend all proceedings against her (the reasons for non-payment?) until the next meeting of Parliament in October. The petition, dated xiiij die [….] anno xj, was granted by Gloucester, Archbishops Chichele and Kemp, Chancellor Stafford, and the Earl of Huntingdon (1). It was confirmed by Parliament.

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

(1) PPC IV, pp. 179-180 (Queen Katherine’s petition).

(2) CPR 1429-1436, p. 294 (confirmation and additional grant).

(3) PROME XI, Appendix, p 154 (confirmation of council’s decision).

(4) Rotuli Parliamentorum IV, pp. 459-460 (petition printed in full).

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

Joan, Countess of Westmorland

Ralph Neville, Earl of Westmorland died in 1425. His wife Joan Beaufort, Countess of Westmorland, her son, Richard Neville, Earl of Salisbury and the executors of her late husband’s will, petitioned Parliament in 1433, as they had in 1426, to be allowed to present evidence to the Council to substantiate their claim that a financial judgement in favour of King Henry V and against the late Earl, passed by the Exchequer, was erroneous (1, 2). They were referred to the Council and instructed to present themselves and their evidence within three weeks of Easter, 1434. There is no record in the Proceedings of their appearance in 1434.

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

(1) PROME XI, Appendix no. 25, p. 155 (background to the petition).

(2) Rot. Parl IV, pp 469-470 (the 1433 petition in full)

(3) PPC IV, pp. 189-190 (order to appear before the Council in 1434).

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

Sir John Radcliffe

Sir John Radcliffe had reluctantly returned to the Duchy of Gascony as Seneschal in 1431.

See Year 1431: The Duchy of Gascony ‘Sir John Radcliffe’.

Radcliffe came home in 1433 to claim his unpaid wages: four shilling a day as Seneschal of Gascony, and wages for 200 archers at 20 marks a year, plus 1,000 marks a year as Captain of Fronsac, dating back to his 1423 indentures with Henry VI, and his earlier indentures with Henry V for Fronsac.

The Council acknowledged that he was now owed £7,029 13s 1d and assigned the profits from Caernarvon and Merionneth, and the lordship of Chirk and Chirklands in North Wales to him. The grant was confirmed by privy seal in May (1, 2). But revenue from the lordship of Chirk had been assigned earlier in the year to pay off a debt to the Abbot of Westminster (see above) and there was little likelihood that the large sum owed to Radcliffe could be recovered from lands in North Wales.

Radcliffe petitioned Parliament in October 1433 that the income from the customs of the port of Melcombe, assigned to him in 1430, should be transferred to the port of Poole as customs duties were no longer collected in Melcombe, which was granted (3).

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

(1) PPC IV, p. 155 (grant of income from North Wales).

(2) CPR 1429-1436, pp. 269-270 (grant of income and resumé of wages owed to Radcliffe).

(3) PROME XI, p. 126 (petition to transfer debt to customs at Poole).

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

Taxation

“This parliament granted the king a fifteenth, to be paid over four years (sic) from which the laity was excused 6,000 marks.”  Benet’s Chronicle, p. 184

The Commons  granted a tax of a tenth and a fifteen spread over two years, in four parts, the first part to be collected on 23 March 1434 with a deduction of 6,000 marks (£4,000) for the relief of the poorest parts of the country. They renewed the subsidy on tunnage and poundage and on wool and wool fells ‘for the defence of the realm,’ and introduced a new levy of 12 pence in the pound for the export of finished woollen cloth. The subsidy paid by alien merchants on each sack of wool and wool fells was increased to 53s 4d from November for the next three years (1).

(1) PROME XI, pp. 88-90.

The Duke of Bedford in Parliament

The Duke and Duchess of Bedford crossed from Calais to England between 21 and 23 June 1433.

“. . . . Iohn, Duke of Bedford with his newe wedded wife, þe Erles doughter of Seintpoule; and they come from Fraunce ouer the see into England, and so come to London the xxiij^th day of Iuyn þat was Mydsomer Even. And the Mayre and aldermen, with many worthy comouns of London brought theym from the Blak-heth in Kent and so to London into Fletestrete, vnto þe Bisshoppes Inne of Salesbury with all honoure and reuerence.”   Brut Continuation F, pp.  466-467

For only the second time in Henry VI’s reign, the Duke of Bedford received a summons to Parliament. At its first session in July Bedford rose in his seat in the Lords to claim that malicious persons had accused him of mismanagement of the war and misgovernance of Normandy. He issued the standard challenge to any such persons to come forward and make their accusations public; he would answer all comers, regardless of their rank.

Bedford was a large man, and he had a commanding presence. His authority and integrity had never before been questioned, and it seems probable that there was an appalled silence before King Henry, the Duke of Gloucester, and the Lords hastened to deny that they had heard, or believed, any such rumours. Chancellor Stafford, in the king’s name, assured Bedford of their trust in his leadership, their recognition of his great services, and their gratitude to him (1). If Gloucester was behind the rumours, and this is by no means certain, his attempt to discredit his brother had miscarried.

Nevertheless, there was little enthusiasm in Parliament for the Duke of Bedford’s war policy. The Commons would much prefer him to stay in England and direct the government.  During the second session, on 24 November, they petitioned the king to persuade him to remain in England where his presence was sorely needed. He alone could maintain law and order and supress faction, in council and out of it (2). This ringing endorsement tempted Bedford, he considered governing both countries simultaneously; it was, after all, what Henry V had planned to do.

On 18 December the day Parliament was dissolved, Bedford demanded and received from Parliament powers which gave him the regency in all but name. He was to be consulted on all conciliar appointments and no councillors could be dismissed without his consent. Parliament was not to be summoned until he had been informed, wherever he might be, so that he could arrange to attend it. All major appointments to offices, including bishoprics, were to be referred to him. The undertaking Bedford had given in 1427 to recognise the supremacy of the Council in government would be negated, and Gloucester’s position as ‘chief councillor’ would be seriously undermined (3).

See Year 1427: The Duke of Bedford and the Council.

On a more humane note, all old servants of the House of Lancaster, dating back to John of Gaunt, Henry IV, Henry V, and the present king were to be rewarded for their (often unpaid) services by grants of offices or corrodies commensurate with their rank, whenever such became available.

But Bedford never lost sight of his real objective and his life’s work, the war in France. He kept in constant touch with his Chancellor, Louis of Luxembourg. Dennis Longchamp, a pursuivant, was granted 5 marks by the council for his journeys to bring letters from Luxembourg to Bedford and to return to France with Bedford’s replies (4).

On 16 December elaborate arrangements were made to transfer 8,000 marks, which ‘the king had promised to pay in all haste’ to Louis of Luxembourg [in Rouen,] despite Treasurer Cromwell’s stop on the Exchequer.

Of the 8,000 marks 3,700 were to come from the English Exchequer.  The larger sum of 4,300 marks, was to be met by bills of exchange on the Exchequer in Rouen, from member of Bedford’s household:  Richard Leyland, treasurer of the household (3,000 marks), Giles Ferrers, Bedford’s secretary (800 marks) and John Rinel, the French secretary (500 marks) (5, 6).

Rinel was paid 25 marks for the exchange of the 500 marks sent through him to Louis of Luxembourg (7). It appears that only half the promised amount could be raised. At the beginning of February 1434 Louis of Luxembourg in Paris, acknowledged receipt of 8,400 nobles (a noble = 6s 8d, half a mark) and issued a quittance to the Treasurer, Lord Cromwell (8). It was nowhere near enough for the campaign Bedford had in mind, it was the best Bedford could get.

There was to be a Great Council meeting early in 1434 for further discussion of the war. Lord Hungerford and William Grey, Bishop of Lincoln, who had attended Bedford’s Council in Calais and William Alnwick, Bishop of Norwich, King Henry’s confessor, received a special summons to be at Westminster by Easter 1434, presumably to support Bedford’s plans for the future (9).

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

(1) PROME XI, pp. 77-78 (Bedford in Parliament).

(2) PROME XI, pp. 83-84 (petition for Bedford to remain in England).

(3) PROME XI, pp. 85-87 (Bedford’s conditions).

(4) PPC IV, p. 182 (Longchamp).

(5) PPC IV, p.188 (8,000 marks to Louis of Luxembourg).

(6) Foedera X, p. 565 (8,000 marks to Louis of Luxembourg).

(7) PPC IV, p. 187 (payment to Rinel).

(8) Foedera X, p.  568 (Luxembourg’s quittance for 8,000 nobles)

(9) PPC IV, p. 188 (summons to Westminster for 1434)

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

Denizations

The Duke of Bedford used his influence in Parliament to obtain denization for several men who had served him in France.  Sir Andrew Ogard, Raoul Le Sage, Lord of St Pierre and Jean Rinel.

Andres Pedersen, was a Dane who severed Bedford in France. He is described as ‘Chamberlain and Councillor’ to the duke. He became Andrew Ogard in 1433 when Parliament granted him English citizenship with permission to obtain lands in England (1, 2).

Raoul Le Sage, Lord of St Pierre, was one of Bedford’s most trusted councillors (2). . In August 1433 he was awarded an annuity of £40 by the Council ‘in consideration of the services he had rendered to the late and present king in France and in the Duchy of Normandy (3, 4).   He was granted denization in Parliament.

Jean Rinel [Reynel] one of the king’s French secretaries, also received letters of denization, although these are not on the parliamentary roll.  Rinel began his career in the service of King Charles VI of France. He passed into Henry V’s service and then into the Duke of Bedford’s. His signature appears on numerous orders issued by Bedford from Rouen and Paris throughout the 1420 and 1430s (5, 6).

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

(1) L&P II, ii, 434 (Ogard).

(2) PROME XI, pp. 114-115 (Ogard denuzation).

(3) PPC IV, p. 175 (Le Sage annuity).

(4) PROME XI, p. 115 (Le Sage denization).

(5) Foedera X, p. 552 (Rinel denization).

(6) Otway Ruthven, King’s Secretary, pp. 91-93 (Rinel’s career).

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

Ralph, Lord Cromwell, Treasurer of England

The Duke of Bedford had returned to England with one purpose in mind: to obtain moral and financial backing for the war in France under his direction. He had obtained the first with the Lord’s endorsement of him in Parliament; to obtain the second he needed a firm and steady hand at the Exchequer.

Two days before the end of the first session of Parliament, on 11 August, Bedford removed Lord Scrope, Gloucester’s choice as Treasurer of England, and replaced him with Ralph, Lord Cromwell, an original member of the Minority Council who had attended Bedford’s Council in Calais.

Cromwell was about forty years old in 1433. He had been in royal service all his life.  He had served Henry V and as an astute diplomat he had helped to draft the Treaty of Troyes in 1420. He held the important position of chamberlain of Henry VI’s household until he was dismissed by the Duke of Gloucester in 1432 (1). As a senior member of the Council, Cromwell had complained in Parliament that his dismissal was unjust (2).

See Year 1432, The Duke of Gloucester, the Council, and the Household.

Cromwell accepted the role of Treasurer of England, but only on his own terms (3). He would hold it for ten years, the longest serving treasurer of the fifteenth century, during which time he would manage to become a very rich man.

On 12 August the Council ordered the collectors and controllers of customs duties in all the major ports to come to Westminster bringing ‘all books, rolls, tallies, monies, and other things necessary for their charge and discharge in their accounts and to make no payments in the meantime.’ The Treasurer would appoint as financial officers only those who would agree to reside at their posts and carry out their duties in person (4).

On 13 August Cromwell put a stop on the Exchequer. No payments against assignments of any kind over £2,000 were to be made except for the royal household and repayment of loans to the king (5). A complete audit of royal finances was to be put in hand.

In the two months between his appointment and the opening of the second session of Parliament in October, the clerks of the Exchequer under Cromwell’s guidance prepared a detailed statement of income and expenditure, extrapolated from the records of the years 1429-1432, which Cromwell presented to Parliament.

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

(1) R.L. Friedrichs, ‘Ralph, Lord Cromwell and the Politics of Fifteenth Century England,’ Nottingham Medieval Studies 32 (1988), pp. 207-226

(2) PROME XI, pp. 17-18 (Cromwell’s complaint in Parliament 1432).

(3) PPC IV, p. 175 (Cromwell became treasurer of England).

(4) PPC IV, pp.  175-176 (Customs collectors to present their accounts).

(5) PROME XI, p. 78 (no assignments over £2,000).

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

Cromwell’s statement on royal finance

Cromwell began by stating that he had accepted the post of Treasurer on the understanding that the accounts he presented in Parliament would be examined in detail. He believed that the Lords and the Commons alike, although they had been made aware by previous treasurers of the crown’s debts, did not fully understand the extent of the problem and what it might mean for them and for the country. He was not to be held accountable, or responsible, for the situation when he took over the Exchequer.

Cromwell demonstrated that if crown expenditure continued at its present level without adequate funding the situation would never be corrected and could only get worse.  He established that the crown’s gross income was about £65,000 but that outstanding assignments would reduce it to £35,000, with an on-going deficit running at over £21,000 annually, excluding the costs of the war in France (1, 2).

The first requirement was for Parliament to vote sufficient taxes to cover the costs of the royal household, the government of the country, the defence of the realm, i.e. the war in France, and to settle royal debt. This was a tall order, and it drew little sympathy from the Commons.

Cromwell proposed to give priority to the expenses of the household, the wardrobe, and repairs to royal palaces and castles; in the future assignments should be subject to his scrutiny before they were confirmed by the Council.

Cromwell requested the Council to set guidelines for the order of preferment for payment of assignments so that those whose assignments could not be honoured would not blame him. In other words, crown debt was a collective responsibility (3).

On 17 December, the day before Parliament was dissolved, Cromwell made sure that he was granted all the wages, fees, and ‘regards’ that his predecessors had received (4).  He was also to receive 200 marks annually for his attendance at council (5). Whoever was to miss out financially under the new regime at the Exchequer it would not be Lord Cromwell.

The royal finances would have to be carefully managed and stringent restraints would be needed over a long period to reduce the deficit and replenish the bankrupt Exchequer. Substantial parliamentary tax grants from the Commons, and loyal support, in the form of loans, would be required.

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

(1) PROME XI, pp. 102-112 (Cromwell’s financial statement).

(2) Harriss, Beaufort, pp. 232-34 (deficit).

(3) PROME XI, pp. 112-113 (Cromwell’s request for guidelines).

(4) PPC IV, p. 188 (Cromwell’s wages as Treasurer).

(5) PPC IV, p. 187 (Cromwell’s wage as councillor)

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

Austerity measures

As a start to the austerity programme Bedford offered to reduce his salary as chief councillor, from 8,000 marks [£5,333 6s.8d] to £1,000, forcing the parsimonious Gloucester to follow suit. (1). Gloucester was to be paid the £1,000 as chief councillor back dated to May 1433 (2).

After further discussion, on 21 December the bishops, led by Cardinal Beaufort, Philip Morgan, Bishop of Ely and William Grey, Bishop of Lincoln, agreed to forego their fee for attending council during term time provided they were not summoned during vacation time. Thomas Langley, Bishop of Durham was excused all attendance because of his great age (3).

As a further economy, King Henry was packed off after Parliament was dissolved, to stay as a guest with the Abbot and monks of Bury St Edmunds from Christmas 1433 to Easter 1434 (4). Was it during this prolonged stay that he developed habits of extreme piety?

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

(1) PPC IV, pp. 185-186 (reduction in Bedford and Gloucester’s salaries).

(1) PPC IV, p. 186-187 (Gloucester’s salary).

(3) PROME XI, p. 129 (bishops waived their council fee).

(4) Wolffe, Henry VI, pp. 74-75 (King Henry at Bury St Edmunds)

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

Bibliography 1433

Primary Sources

Annales (pseudo-Worcester) in 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)

Benet’s Chronicle. John Benet’s Chronicle for the years 1400-1460, ed. G.L.& M.A. Harriss, Camden Miscellany XXIV, (Camden Soc., 4th ser. IX, 1972)

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)

CPR. Calendar of the Patent Rolls 1429-1436

Chartier, J., Chronique de Charles VII, roi de France, 3 vols, ed. A. Vallet de Viriville, (Paris, 1858)

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

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

An English Chronicle of the reigns of Richard II, Henry IV, Henry V and Henry VI, ed. J.S. Davies (1856).

An English Chronicle 1477-1461, ed. W. Marx (2003)

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

Handbook of British Chronology, ed. F. M. Powicke and E.B. Fryde (1961)

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

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)

Monstrelet. The Chronicles of Enguerrand de Monstrelet trans. T. Johnes, 2 vols., (1877)

Papal Letters. Calendar of Entries in the Papal Registers Relating to Great Britain and Ireland, vols VII and VIII, (1906 and 1909)

PROME. The Parliament Rolls of Medieval England, vol. X, ed. A. Curry (2005)

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

Waltham Annals, English Historical Literature in the Fifteenth Century, ed. C.K. Kingsford, (1913).

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

Balfour-Melville, E.W.M., James I, King of Scots 1406-1437 (1936)

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

Beaurepaire, C. de Robillard de, Les États de Normandie sous la domination anglaise (1859)

Bossuat, A., Perrinet Gressart et François de Surienne, (Paris, 1436)

Cambridge Medieval History, vol. VIII, ed. C.W, Previté-Orton (1936)

Emden, A, B., A Biographical Register of the University of Oxford to A.D. 1500, vol I (1957)

Ferguson, J., English Diplomacy 1422-1461 (1972

Friedrichs, R.L., ‘Ralph, Lord Cromwell and the Politics of Fifteenth Century England,’ Nottingham Medieval Studies 32 (1988)

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

Harvey, M., England, Rome, and the Papacy 1417-1464 (1993)

Otway-Ruthvin, A.J., The King’s Secretary and the Signet Office in the XV Century (1939)

Plancher, U., Histoire générale et particulière de Bourgogne, vol IV (1741). 

Pollard, A.J., John Talbot and the War in France 1427-1453 (2005)

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

Schofield A.N.E.D., ‘First English Delegation to the Council of Basel,’ Journal of Ecclesiastical History, vol 12 (1961)

Somerville, R., History of the Duchy of Lancaster 1265-1603 (1953)

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

Vale, M.G.A., English Gascony 1399-1453v(1970)

Williams, E. Carleton, My Lord of Bedford, (1963)

Wolffe, B.P., Henry VI, (1981)

Online sources

gasconrolls.org

historyofparliament.org