1437

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

See Introduction.

Money

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

Last Minority Council

The Minority Council continued to function, with King Henry attending some of the meetings, until a Great Council met in October and Henry’s personal rule began in November.

Lawlessness

Riots in Norwich and a feud between Lord Grey and Lord Fanhope led to disturbances in Bedfordshire. The Council summoned those involved to appear before them in the Star Chamber.

Grants. Safe Conducts

The Council dealt with routine administration, approving grants and safe conducts.

London

The bitterly cold weather and the collapse of the tower at the south end of London Bridge were of particular interest to the London chroniclers.  

Parliament

The parliament convened at Westminster on 21 January and sat to the end of March. The Commons passed a tax grant with an exemption for English exports of woollen cloth that alarmed the Council.

The Duke of Gloucester

Gloucester defended himself as Captain of Calais, but he did not offer to go to its relief in 1437.

Three Deaths

Queen, Katherine, Queen Joan, and Thomas Langley, Bishop of Durham, died.

Katherine and Owen Tudor

Queen Katherine’s secret marriage to Owen Tudor became public knowledge after her death.

Scotland

King James I of Scotland was assassinated in February. Diplomatic relations with Scotland were not renewed until the end of the year.

Duchy of Gascony

Envoys from the Earl of Armagnac came to England. Suggestions for a truce were referred to the Council in Bordeaux but came to nothing. Bertrand de Montferrand’s claim to lands in Gascony was settled.

Foreign Relations

Envoys from several countries visited England in 1437. Portugal. The Hanse. Italy. Spain.

Loans

The war in France had to be financed by heavy borrowing. Cardinal Beaufort made the largest loan.

Cardinal Beaufort. John and Edmund Beaufort

Cardinal Beaufort’s nephew John, Earl of Somerset, was a prisoner in France. Charles d’ Artois ‘calling himself Count of Eu’ was a prisoner in England. The Cardinal promoted an exchange of prisoners. 

Louis of Luxembourg

Louis of Luxembourg, Chancellor of France, came to England to discuss the appointment of a king’s lieutenant in France. 

Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick

Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick was appointed as the king’s lieutenant general in France.

Lord Willoughby

Lord Willoughby crossed to France in the summer of 1437 with the advance force of the Earl of Warwick’s army.

Peace Talks and the Duke of Orleans

The Council agreed that the Duke of Orleans would be allowed to return to France and meet the Duke of Brittany to promote peace negotiations with the French, but only if  Orleans paid the very large sum of 10,000 marks to finance his expedition.  The Great Council discussed the plan but would not sanction it because the promised payment for the duke’s expenses had not been received.

The War in France

The defences of Rouen were strengthened; the Council agreed to put a fleet to sea ‘for the defence of the realm.’ Lord Talbot continued to campaign while awaiting the arrival of the Earl of Warwick: Tancarvile and Montagris were recovered but Montereau was lost.

Le Crotoy

The Duke of Burgundy laid siege to Le Crotoy.

Richard, Duke of York

The Duke of York, whose term of office as the king’s lieutenant expired in May, was requested to remain in Rouen.

Warwick in Normandy

The Earl of Warwick arrived in Rouen in November as the king’s lieutenant in France.

The Great Council

A Great Council was summoned in October and sat into November to advise King Henry and to prepare for the assumption of his personal rule.

Church Council at Basel

The relations between Pope Eugenius IV and the Church Fathers at Basel had deteriorated. The Great Council discussed what King Henry’s attitude towards the disputants should be.  King Henry, or his advisors, favoured the Pope.

Calais

The Great Council discussed the defence of Calais at length, agreeing that provisions must be sent and appointing Sir Thomas Rempston to cross to Calais with an army as its temporary lieutenant.

King Henry VI, personal rule

King Henry VI came of age and assumed his personal rule in November 1437..

The King’s Gifts

A list of King Henry’s gifts at New Year 1437.

Bibliography 1437

The Last Minority Council

Parliament was in session from January to March 1437, but the first Council meetings recorded in the Proceedings are for 7 and 9 April in the Parliament Chamber.  The council met twelve times in April, six times in May, twelve times in June, thirteen times in July. A Great Council met at Sheen on 21 October and continued into November at the Hospitallers Priory of St John at Clerkenwell. There were a further eleven meetings in November; and at least three that are not recorded in the Proceedings in December.

Some of the councillors present at the April meetings were not members of the Minority Council, they attended because they were in London for Parliament:

King Henry. The Duke of Gloucester. Cardinal Beaufort. Archbishop Chichele of Canterbury. Archbishop Kemp of York. Robert Gilbert, Bishop of London. Marmaduke Lumley, Bishop of Carlisle. John Lowe, Bishop of St Asaph. Thomas Brouns, Bishop of Norwich. Thomas Bourchier, Bishop of Worcester. The Earls of Huntingdon, Warwick, Northumberland, and Suffolk.  Lord Tiptoft, and Lord Poynings. The Chancellor John Stafford, and the Privy Seal, William Alnwick.

Thomas Brouns, Bishop of Norwich and Lord Poynings attended on 7 April, but not on 9 April. The Bishop of Rochester, the Earl of Huntingdon and Lord Fanhope attended on 9 April but not on 7 April. The Treasurer, Lord Cromwell, is not listed as present at either meeting (1).

On 27 March, the day Parliament was dissolved, the Commons requested that all the petitions presented to Parliament that had not been dealt with ‘might be delivered to the lords of your most wise council’ (2). Parliament voted taxes, but the Council governed the country.

Richard Caudray, clerk of the council resigned in 1435 and was followed by Henry Benet. The record in the Proceedings for 1437 is not well kept and at times it is chaotic. The same information is repeated on differing dates, and those dates are not always reliable. Some of Henry Benet’s notes are so brief as to be meaningless making it impossible to be sure to whom or to what he is referring:

On 17 April: “To bringe þe names of lord[s] knyzt (s) [and] squirers tomorrow” (3). Does this refer to a list of men who might make loans to the king?  Or to those who might serve in the army for France? Or to something entirely different?

On 30 April: a meeting in the Star Chamber. An incomplete list to whom letters are to be sent. The names are mostly those of local crown officers, but were they tax assessors to secure the Parliamentary grants, or to recruit men to serve in the army for France? Or for something entirely? (4):

The Lords Welles and Beaumont for Kent, Surrey, Sussex, Essex and Hertford.

[John] Breknok for Kent, Sussex and Surrey

[John] Yerde for South[ampton?] i.e. Hampshire? Dorset and Wiltshire

[William ?] Derby instead of [Thomas] Haseley for Berkshire, Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire

[John] Merston for Devon and Cornwall

[John ] Somerset (?)   Baroñ (?)

John Hody instead of [Robert] Whitgreve for Worcestershire, Warwickshire and Gloucestershire

[?] Ashfield for Derbyshire and Staffordshire

[?] Harper for Shropshire and Herefordshire

Giles Thorndon instead of William Say for Lancashire and Cheshire

[Robert] Manfeld for Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire

John  [?] possibly for Lincolnshire, Leicestershire, North[umberland]  Huntingdonshire

[Richard] Caudray for Lincolnshire, Norfolk, Suffolk

Thomas Rokes for Bedfordshire and Buckinghamshire

[John] Stopingdon instead of Hotoft for Essex and Hertfordshire

On 8 July: ‘stewards to depart’ (5).

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

(1) PPC V, pp. 6-7 (present at Council in April).

(2) PROME XI, p. 225 (petitions transferred to Council).

(3) PPC V, p. 14 (17 April).

(4) PPC V, pp. 20-22 (30 April).

(5) PPC V, p. 43 (stewards).

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

Sergeants at law

In November the names of those eligible to become sergeants at law were submitted to the king. Lawyers served an apprenticeship of sixteen years at the Inns of Court to become eligible as sergeants at law. Only sergeants at law could plead in the Court of Common Pleas, and the judges were selected from their ranks (1).

(1) PPC V, pp. 79-80.

Lawlessness

The suppression of lawlessness was a major theme of the Chancellor’s speech to Parliament, and it remained of serious concern to the Council. After a series of disturbances throughout the year, on 4 December the Council issued an order to the sheriffs of London and twenty-four other counties instructing them to enforce Edward I’s Statue of Winchester of 1285 against bands of unemployed men who terrorized the countryside, holding unlawful gatherings and committing murder, rape, and arson. The Statute required all adult male citizens to arm themselves and turn out when required to support the sheriffs in hunting down and arresting malefactors (1).

(1) PPC V, pp. 83-84 (order to suppress lawlessness).

Norwich

The mayoral election for the city of Norwich was to be held on 1 May 1437. There were serious dissentions between factions in the city over local government, as well as clashes between the citizens and the clergy of Norwich. The Council anticipated that the election would lead to rioting as had happened in the elections of 1433 (1, 2).

The undated record of the Council’s debate on Norwich in the Proceedings is so obscure that it is difficult to collate (3). Nicolas misdated it to 18 November, but it belongs in April 1437 when the Council was also debating the grant by Parliament of the exception from poundage for English exporters of woollen cloth.

See Parliament below

Lord Hungerford proposed that a temporary mayor should by appointed by the king to act until free elections could be held in May when the city’s franchises would be restored, but only on certain stringent conditions: a written submission admitting wrongdoing by the instigators of the earlier riots, a promise of future good behaviour, and, of course, a hefty fine.

The Council summoned Thomas Wetherby to appear before them on 25 April. Wetherby was the ringleader of a group of wealthy merchants in Norwich, he was accused of being the instigator of the 1433 disturbances. The Duke of Gloucester was asked to explain who had put up the bill of complaint (4).

On 26 April the Council decided to inform the citizens of Norwich that they were not convinced that the king’s peace would be kept in the upcoming election for the mayor.  Two crown commissioners, Marmaduke Lumley, Bishop of Carlisle, and Justice John Cottesmere would be sent to Norwich to supervise the election (5, 6).

Presumably the Council’s fears were realised as on 15 June representatives from Norwich appeared before them to answer the charges against them: John Cambridge, John Gerard, Robert Toppes, Robert Launesdale, John Kirkpatrick (?) Edmond Broo [. . . .] William Hempsted, Henry Pickering (?) William Asshewell, and Gregory Draper. They were bound over for £1,000 to return by the following Thursday to submit their defence (7).

On 12 July twelve men of Norwich, six from either side, appeared before the king and council at Kennington. They failed to convince the Council that they were to be trusted, and the city’s franchises and liberties were revoked.  Norwich was taken into the king’s hands (8).

Gregory’s Chronicle and Cleopatra C IV record that some aldermen were ordered out of Norwich, to Kings Lynn and Canterbury. The Proceedings gives the towns as Bristol and Canterbury, and names four aldermen, one of them Thomas Wetherby.

“Ande the same yere the kyng put downe the Mayre of Norwyche, and certayne aldyrmen were devydyd unto othyr certayne placys, sum to Lynne and sum to Cauntyrbury.  And John Wellys, Aldyrman of London, was made Wardon of Northewyche                Gregory’s Chronicle p. 180

And in that yere the kyng put dovne the Meire of Norwich, and toke all his ffraunches from them in to his ovne hand.  And John Wellys whas maden be the kyng custos or wardeyn of Norwich, the wiche whas an alderman of london ; and certeyn aldermen were devyded into other placys, some to lynne and some to Canterbury.

                                         Chronicles of London, Cleopatra C IV, pp .142-143

[Latin] “And this year the Mayor of Norwich was deposed and the city deprived of its franchises. W. Wellys, an alderman of London, was then made custodian of the town.”   Annales, p. 761

John Welles, an alderman of London, was appointed to govern the city in the king’s name and its citizens were commanded to obey him (9). Welles was born in Norwich, and it was hoped that as he understood the local factions, but no longer lived there, he could be trusted to act impartially.

The council finally agreed to appoint a temporary mayor and sheriffs, ‘indifferent (neutral) persons’ and that the fine should be enforced. “They selected John Cambridge who cannot possibly have been indifferent” (10). Cambridge had been Mayor in 1430 and was re-elected and then stood down in the disputed 1437 election.

John Kemp, the Archbishop of York, and one ‘Carpenter’ were to prepare the terms for the city’s submission.

There is a laconic entry in the Proceedings for 29 November that letters should be made for Norwich, but no reason is given (11). It may be that Thomas Brouns, Bishop of Norwich, rather than the city, is meant as the preceding item is for a warrant for a friar, to King Henry’s letters to the Pope, the Emperor, and to the General Council at Basel.

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

(1) Storey, End of Lancaster, Appendix III, ‘The Norwich Riots,’ pp.  219-220. (allowance should be made for Storey’s bias against the Earl of Suffolk).

(2) P. C. Maddern, Violence and Social Order, East Anglia 1422-1442, Chapter 6, ‘The Bloodless ‘Riots’: Norwich 1437 to 1443,’ pp. 175-205 (for a corrective to Storey).

(3) PPC V, pp. 76-78 (debate on Norwich).

(4) PPC V, p. 15 (Gloucester questioned re Wetherby).

(5) CPR 1436-41, p. 86 (Lumley appointed).

(6) PPC V, pp. 17-18 (commissioners appointed).

(7) PPC V, p. 33 (citizens before council June).

(8) PPC V. p. 45 (franchises revoked July).

(9) CPR 1436-41, p. 76 (John Welles appointed).

(10) P. C. Maddern, Violence and Social Order, p, 190 (for the quote) and 242.

(11) PPC V, p. 82 (letters to Norwich).

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

 Bedfordshire

In May the Council instructed William Pekke, John Fitz, and William Ludsop, three commissioners of the peace for Bedfordshire to convene a special judicial session to adjudicate on local felonies and lawbreaking (1). Pekke instructed the sheriff of Bedfordshire to assembly a jury, but the jurors were afraid to appear, and the session had to be abandoned before it began.

William Pekke was summoned to the Star Chamber in June to testify on oath before the Chancellor, the Treasurer, the Privy Seal, the king’s judges, sergeants at law, and attorneys, as to why the session had not been held (2).

The reason, which neither side was prepared to admit, was the ongoing struggle between two local magnates competing for dominance in their locality.  Reginald, Lord Grey of Ruthin was the leading local magnate, with his principal seat in the town of Silsoe where the judicial session was to be held. Sir John Cornwall, Lord Fanhope, whose manor of Ampthill was only three miles from Silsoe, determined to challenge Lord Grey’s pre-eminence.

Both men were commissioners of the peace for Bedfordshire, but Fanhope claimed to have a special licence from the Council to preside over the judicial session. He attended meetings of the Minority Council occasionally, while Lord Grey did not. This gave Fanhope a distinct advantage over his rival which he was not slow to exploit.

William Pekke and William Ludsop arrived in Silsoe first. Fanhope joined them with an armed retinue. Lord Grey, also with armed men at his back, and accompanied by another commissioner, John Enderby, showed up a short time later (3). Grey asked Pekke and Ludsop to explain what they were doing, and they showed him their commission. At first he said he would observe their proceedings, but Enderby alleged that the commission was fraudulent and had been obtained solely to indict Lord Grey’s tenants (4).

John Fitz testified at a second hearing in the Star Chamber on 28 June in favour of Lord Grey (5). Although a commissioner, Fitz said he had not been informed of the date set for the judicial session and he arrived late. He and two local clergymen attempted to arbitrate, suggesting that both Grey and Fanhope’s retinues should withdraw to the outskirts of the town while the session was being held. According to Pekke, Lord Grey refused, he wanted the session adjourned because he had not convened it, and it was his duty as their ‘good lord’ to protect the interests of his tenants.

The upshot was that between the presence of armed men and the crowd that had gathered in Silsoe, things threatened to turn ugly. Pekke suggested, and Grey and Fanhope apparently agreed, to postpone the indictments, and the session was abandoned. The quarrel died down, only to flare up again in 1439 at Fanhope’s instigation.

A month later, on 28 July, at a third hearing in the Star Chamber, John Fitz repeated some of his earlier testimony and Henry Lye, named in the Council’s original commission to hold judicial sessions, gave evidence as to the size of the lords’ retinues. Their accounts are contradictory (6).

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

(1) CPR 1436-1441, p. 578 (commissioners of the peace for Bedfordshire).

(2) PPC V, pp. 35-38 (first hearing in Star Chamber).

(3) Chronicon Angliae ed. Giles, p. 17 (names Fanhope and Enderby).

(4) Maddern, Violence and Social Order: East Anglia 1422-1442, ‘Riots by Accident: Bedford 1437 and 1439,’ pp. 206-225.

(5) PPC V, pp. 38-39 (second hearing in Star Chamber).

(6) PPC V, pp. 57-59 (third hearing in Star Chamber; this is an amended version of John Fitz’s original testimony.

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

Cheshire and Lancashire

Citizens of Cheshire and Lancashire were ordered to appear before the Council in June 1437 (1). No reason is given, but the counties were lawless and local feuds were commonplace. An ordinance was to be issued ‘respecting certain inhabitants of Cheshire and Lancashire’ (2).

At the end of November 1437 letters from the Council were sent to several unspecified parts of England, and to the Breretons and the Egertons, two leading Cheshire families who were feuding with each other, but it is not clear if they related to the summons in June (3, 4).

See Year 1429: Lawlessness

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

(1) PPC V, p. 28 (Citizens to appear before Council)

(2) PPC V, p. 44 (Ordinance for certain inhabitants).

(3) PPC V, p 83 (letters to Breretons and Egertons).

(4) Griffiths, Henry VI p. 137 (citing the Egerton and Brereton families as examples of feuding in Cheshire).

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

Abbey of Chester

The Benedictine Abbey of St Werburgha, patron saint of the city of Chester, and its abbot, John Saughill, were taken under royal protection in July because of factional strife (1), ‘by reason of its having been wasted by misrule.’ John Stafford Bishop of Bath and Wells and Humphrey, Earl of Stafford were appointed its custodians (2, 3, 4).

In November the Council directed that a letter be sent to the abbot “respecting a person in his prison” possibly in connection with the earlier trouble at the abbey (5).

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

         (1) PPC V, p. 45 (Abbot of Chester).

(2) CPR 1436-41 p 76 (Church of St Werburga).

(3) http://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/ches/vol3/pp132-146

(4) https://www.saughall.gov.uk/village/village-history/history-of-saughall/

 (5) PPC V, p. 75 (Council letter to the abbot).

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

Sherborne Abbey, Dorset

[Latin] “In 1437 the Church of Sherborne in Dorset was set on fire on the day of St Simon and Jude.’  EHL, Sherborne Annals, p. 347

The abbey church of St Mary was the parish church of Sherborne. A dispute over rights in the church between the townspeople and the monks of Sherborne led to rioting. The Earl of Huntingdon was staying nearby. His men, the monks, and Robert Neville, Bishop of Salisbury who had a residence at Sherborne supported the town.

A priest shot a burning arrow into the thatched part of the church roof at its eastern end, the thatch caught fire and the church was destroyed. William Bradford, Abbot of Sherborne demanded that the citizens pay for the restoration of the church which was carried out during his abbacy (1).

This incident is recorded as 28 October 1437 in the Sherborne Annals but it may date to 1436. Bishop Neville visited Sherborne to adjudicate on 12 November 1436 and a delegation set out the grievances of the parishioners. He tried to settle the dispute even handedly, but a riot ensued (2).

But if the riot occurred on 28 October and the bishop’s hearing was on 12 November, then the riot predated the bishop’s arrival and may date to 1436.

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

(1) John Leland’s Itinerary ed. J. Chandler, (1993), pp 129-130.

(2) ‘Houses of Benedictine monks: The abbey of Sherborne’, in A History of the County of Dorset: Volume 2, ed. William Page (London, 1908), pp. 62-70. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/dorset/vol2/pp62-70

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

Sir Roger Fiennes

Sir Roger Fiennes was a wealthy Sussex landowner and an avid collector of property. As a minor royal official, he served on various commissions of array, to take musters, and to raise loans for the crown. Somehow, he ‘and others,’ had obtained a commission under letters of privy seal to dispossess William London, the Prior of Michelham in Sussex.  Michelham Priory was a Duchy of Lancaster possession, and whatever his original authorisation, which had been obtained by false information, Fiennes certainly had no authority to impound the priory’s wealth for his own profit. King Henry instructed the privy seal to rescind the earlier letters and to order Fiennes to restore the Prior and the priory’s property which he had seized ‘in derogation and disinheritance of the libertees and franchises of oure said duchie and ayeinst oure lawes’ (1).

(1) PPC V, pp. 59-60 (dated 19 July from St Albans. Misdated by Nicolas to 29 July).

 A Dispute

In July one ‘Lyydiard’ testified before the Council in the Star Chamber that he had given (or stood surety for) a bond of £100 to or for William, Lord Ferrers of Groby.  Lydiard agreed to accept arbitration by four people to be named by him and one ‘Harcourt’ to settle a dispute about the bond, and so that he should not be held in default before the lords, he accepted Jonh Vampage (who was a justice of the peace for Worcestershire) and one ‘Newton’ to be two of the four people named (1).

(1) PPC V, p 46 (Lydiard and Harcourt).

Prisoners

In November the Treasurer was instructed to pay four men 4 pence a day each for guarding two prisoners held in Windsor Castle (1).

A safe conduct granted was for one ‘Dolman.’ He is identified in the French Rolls as Walter Dolman. A safe conduct was issued to John Hussaff to bring Walter Dolman to England. Hussaff had captured Dolman while Dolman was crossing to Ireland (2).

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

(1) PPC V, p. 72 (prisoners at Windsor).

(2) PPC V, p 80 (Dolman).

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

Grants

Jacquetta, of Luxembourg, Duchess of Bedford

A petition on behalf of Jacquetta of Luxembourg, the widowed Duchess of Bedford, was presented to Parliament on 23 March. Jacquetta had been granted her dower lands in February 1436 on condition that she did not remarry without royal consent (1), but this is precisely what she did sometime in 1436.

Jacquetta petitioned that the income from her dower lands had been withheld by royal officials because she had married Sir Richard Woodville without royal licence, and she had no other income. King Henry pardoned the offence but imposed a fine of £1,000 on the couple (2).

Jacquetta could not raise so large a sum all at once, and her dower lands continued to be distrained for payment until the end of October when she and Woodville were pardoned for marrying unlawfully and King Henry ordered the escheators in those counties where she held lands to restore the income to her. Presumably the £1,000 had been paid and the full pardon came into effect (3).

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

(1) PROME XI, p. 208 (Jacquetta’s petition).

(2) CPR, 1436-41, p. 53 (March pardon and fine of £1,000)

 (3) Foedera X, p. 677-78 (restoration of dower lands).

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

Lord Fanhope

John Cornwall, Lord Fanhope, as avaricious as ever, requested a refund on a complicated arrangement under which he had petitioned Parliament for permission to grant the Friars Preachers at Ludgate 45 marks annually to recite the customary prayers for the good health of the king and the souls of Fanhope and his family (1).  He had also paid 20 marks as the tax of a tenth on income from alien priorys which had been granted to him. Fanhope claimed that this was a double imposition.

In May King Henry instructed the Treasurer to refund 20 marks to Fanhope as an overpayment; a warrant to that effect was issued on 18 June (2, 3).

In November Lord Fanhope, who attended the Great Council, was granted the farming of Trematon and Calstock in the Duchy of Cornwall for seven years (4).

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

(1) PROME XI, p. 205 (petition to Parliament)

(2) PPC V, pp. 23-24 (refund)

(3) PPC V, p. 35 (refund).

(4) PPC V, p. 80 (Fanhope).

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

Adam Moleyns

On the same day as the warrant for Fanhope, 8 marks 10s. 8d pence [£5 19s 4d] was awarded to Adam Moleyns (1). After he returned to England from the papal court at Rome Moleyns may have become one of the clerks of the Privy Seal Office and a messenger between that office and King Henry when Henry was not in London.

Moleyns would become the official clerk of the council in 1438 but he may have acted in that capacity before then, although Nicolas believes, with good reason, that Moleyns, who was a classical scholar, was not responsible for keeping the minutes of the council in 1437 (2).

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

(1) PPC V, p. 35 (award to Moleyns).

(2) PPC Preface, p. viii-x (Henry Benet clerk of the Council).

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

‘Tincolinio’ and Pieres

On 20 April: one ‘Tincolinio’ (otherwise unidentified) was pardoned payment for letters of denization (1).

The Treasurer, Lord Cromwell, reported to a council meeting at Westminster on 2 May that one William Pieres [Peres] a Saracen, resident in London who had converted to Christianity and been baptised, had petitioned the king for alms. Cromwell advised the council that King Henry, who was not present, wished that 2d a day should be granted to him (2).

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

(1) PPC V, p. 10 (Tincolinio).

(2) PPC V, p. 22-23 (William Pieres).

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

William Bonville

Sir Wiliam Bonville was a wealthy Devonshire knight, and the letters to be addressed to him in July may have been to request a loan (1).  Bonville attended the Great Council in October/November and on 8 November 1437, described as a king’s knight, Bonville was granted the lucrative office of steward in the county of Cornwall, worth 40 marks a year plus the accustomed fees and profits; the office was surrendered to him by his kinsman Sir John Courtenay (2, 3).

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

(1) PPC V, p.  43 (letters to Bonville).

(2) CPR 1436-41, p 133 (grant of stewardship of Cornwall).

(3) CPR 1436-41, p. 133 (grant of stewardship of Cornwall).

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

Erard and Rinel

On 11 November William Erard, a Master of Theology and King Henry’s chaplain and John de Rinel, the king’s secretary received a joint grant of the two manors of Combe and Moncston in Hampshire ‘in consideration of long service, whereby they have lost all their living,’ William his benefices and patrimony, and John his inheritance and possessions’ (1, 2).

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

(1) Foedera X, p. 678

(2) CPR 1436-1441, p. 133

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

Knight of the Holy Land

Sir John Pelestrine, a knight from the Holy Land, came to England ‘upon private affairs,’ and put his case to the king. He left England to return to the Holy Land immediately after his audience. Henry granted him 25 marks; £16 13s 4d (20 marks) was paid ‘into his own hands’ by the Exchequer on 2 December 1437 (1, 2).

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

(1) PPC V. p. 75 (Grant to Pelestrine, not named in PPC).

(2) Issues of the Exchequer, p. 433 (Sir John Pelestrine).

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

Safe Conducts

On 10 May a safe conduct for forty days was issued ‘for a man of my Lady Say called Grym Goupil.’ The reason is not given and Goupil is not identified (1).

Elizabeth Botiller, the sister of Ralph Botiller, Lord Sudeley, married Sir William Heron. His first wife was Elizabeth, Lady Say and Heron took the title Lord Say.  Elizabeth Botiller assumed it when she married Heron. She was a formidable lady, despite her dubious claim, she held on to the title for the rest of her life.

A licence for ‘the legate’ to leave England with horses, baggage, goods and furnishings was issued on 11 May (2). Was it Piero del Monte the papal legate and collector who was in England in 1437 and had reported King James’s assassination to the Pope?

See King James assassinated below

Safe conducts for the brothers Sir Andrew and Sir Mathew Steward to leave England were issued on 12 July.  They are difficult to identify as there are so many Stewarts. They were not hostages for King James’s ransom, but they may have come to England on behalf of a hostage (3).

Sir Colart de Comyns [Colard de Commines] received a safe conduct for three months in July to visit the shrine of Saint Thomas Becket at Canterbury (4). Thielemans suggests that the pilgrimage was a cover for an agent of the cloth manufacturing towns of the Low Countries to explore trade deals while England and Burgundy were at war (5).

Philip Caudray and twelve others received safe conducts for two months in July. The reason for the safe conducts and the destination is not given. Richard Caudray had been clerk of the council until1435, but who was Philip Caudray? (6).

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

(1) PPC V, p. 24 (Gryn Goupil).

(2) PPC V, p. 2? (a legate to leave England).

(3) Foedera X p. 672 (Andrew and Matthew Stewart).

(4) Foedera X, p. 673 (Colart de Comyns).

(5) Marie-Rose Thielemans, Bourgogne et Angleterre, (1966) p. 115 (Colard de Commienes)

(6) PPC V, p. 48 (Philip Caudray).

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

Weather and Food

The harsh weather of the 1430s continued. The winter of 1436-1437 was bitterly cold with hard frosts setting in early in December and lasting well into February, with deaths from cold and malnutrition.

“And in this same yere, and the yere of grace M CCCC, xxxv^ti the grete, hard, bityng frost bygan the vij day of Decembre and endured vnto þe xxij day of Feuerere next, which greved þe peple wonder sore; and moche pepel deyed in þat tyme, for colde and for skarcite of wode and cole.  And tender herbes were slayne with þis frost, þat is to say, Rosemary, sauge, tyme, and many oþer herbes.” 

                                                                                        Brut Continuation F, p. 470

[Latin] This year there was a great frost with snow by day and night which lasted from St Andrews day to St Valentine’s Day and many birds perished.  

                                                                                      Annales (pseudo-Worcester) pp. 760 and 761 (misdated to 1433 and repeated as 1434).

“This yere was another grete frost enduring xj weks.”  Chronicle of London (J.B. I), p. 162.

London

In January 1437 the stone tower with its gate and two arches at the Southwark end of London Bridge collapsed into the Thames, taking a number of houses with it (1); the general opinion was that it was a miracle no one was killed. The disaster was probably due to the exceptionally severe weather of 1436-37. There had been a hard frost the day before the tower collapsed, and throughout the winter the walls of houses and churches lining London Bridge cracked and crumbled because of the cold.

“An other tower there is on London bridge to wit, ouer the gate at the south ende of the same bridge towards Southwarke.  This gate, with the tower thereupon, and two Arches of the bridge, fell down, and no man perished by the fall thereof, in the yeare 1436.  Towards the new building whereof, diuerse charitable Citizens gaue large summes of monies.”                      Stow, Survey of London, I, p. 60

“And in this same yere, durying the hard frost, þe Monday the xxiij of Ianuare, the gate of þe Cite at London Briggee ouer-threwe and fell doun into Tamys to þe hard ground, and drewe the houses after hym, bothe within and without, to grete harm to þe Cite and to þe brigge.                                             

And in this same yere, the walles of chirches, howses, and of Selers, ϸat were made of chalke, broke in many places, and fell in smale pecys to the grounde as dust.

                        Brut Continuation F, pp. 470-471.

And that yere was a passing grete Froste.  And oon of the strengest that hath be seyen.  For brede was frore so harde to gyder that but men wold thawe yt by the fire men myght not ete it ne cut it with knyfe but yf they wolde hewe it with Axe hacket or borsex (a type of hatchet).                     Great Chronicle, p. 173

The statement that even bread froze is unique to the Great Chronicle.

Chronicles: Short English Chronicle p. 62; EHL: Waltham Annals  p. 352;  Brief Notes  p. 149; Chronicle of London, Harley 565 p. 123 and Julius B I, p. 172; Gregory’s Chronicle, p. 179. Brut Continuation G, p. 505; London Chronicles, Cleopatra C IV, p. 142

Lions

All the lions in the king’s menagerie at the Tower of London died in a single night, according to the Chronicon Angliae (p. 17).  The incident is also mentioned as an extraordinary happening in Chronicle of London and in Brut Continuation G, but it seems probable that their deaths, like the collapse of the stone tower, were attributable to the exceptionally cold weather.

“Also this same yere the yate at london brigge with an hool Arche felle into the water of Temse wonderly. And thanke it be god neither man nor childe therewith was neither hurte neither perysshed.”        Chronicle of London, (Harley 565) p. 123

Also this same yere deyde alle the lyons that weren in the Tour of London, the whiche was nought sen in no mannys tyme before out of mynde. Brut Continuation G, p. 506

Parliament 1437

Parliament was summoned originally to meet at Cambridge on 29 October 1436, in the wake of the Duke of Gloucester’s exploits at Calais. It assembled at Westminster and sat for nine weeks from 21 January to 27 March 1437 (1).

“And in this yere ϸe Kyng held his parlement at Westmynstre; and it byganne at ϸe Fest of Seint Hillary [13 January] and ended at Ester next folowyng [Easter  Sunday 31 March].” 

                                                   Brut Continuation F, p.  471

“And this yere the kyng ordeyned that his parliament shuld have be holden atte Caumbrigge but afterward his counseill turned it to be holden atte Westmynster.  And so it was.  And it began the xxj day of Janyvere.”                                      Gregory’s Chronicle, p. 179

Chronicles: The Great Chronicle, p. 173.  London Chronicles, (Cleopatra C IV), p. 142. Annales, p. 761.

Taxation

The Commons announced a tax grant of a fifteenth and a tenth to be collected in two instalments, November 1437 and November 1438. They granted the wool subsidy from November 1437 for the next three years and tunnage on imported wines was assigned to ‘the safe keeping of the sea.’ The exemption for English merchants from paying poundage the export of woolen cloth reflected the Commons concern for the English cloth trade (1), but the potential loss of income alarmed the Council, and they debated the issued in April (2). Their deliberations as recorded in the Proceedings are mixed in with the unrest in Norwich, and Nicolas misdated them to 18 November.

Opinion on how best to counter Parliament’s exemption was divided. The king could of course, close English ports in the event of war or the scare of invasion, but in the case of cloth exports would such drastic action be legal or advisable? Lord Tiptoft agreed that the king might shut his ports, provided cloth, and other commodities on which poundage had been paid, were allowed to pass. Treasurer Cromwell suggested that the judges and the Attorney General should be consulted.

Could the Council impose a special extra duty? The Bishop of Lincoln pointed out that this was inadvisable as the Parliamentary grant, which was generous, had already been accepted. The Duke of Gloucester’s laconic comment ‘some parlement hath be that the King hath no graunte’ may have been a warning not to antagonise the merchants, or Commons.

Could bonds be imposed until the question could be raised in the next parliament and the tax reinstated?  The solution the Council came up with was to impose a ban on all woollen cloth exports while allowing English merchants to purchase exemptions, provided they paid poundage (3). It was a safe way out of a financial dilemma, but it demonstrates that the Council could at time exercise extraordinary powers in opposition to Parliament.

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

(1) PROME XI, pp. 216-219 (taxes, subsidies and exemptions).

(2) G.A. Holmes, ‘The Libel of English Policy,’ English Historical Review, vol 76, April 1461, p. 206 and n 7 (Council deliberations dated to April 1437).

(3) PPC V, pp. 77-79 (Council deliberations misdated to November 1437).

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

 Sir John Tyrell, Synopsis

Sir John Tyrell, the MP for Essex and treasurer of the household, was elected as Speaker, but on 19 March the Commons reported to the king and council that Tyrell was too ill to perform his duties and that they had elected William Burley in his stead (1). Tyrell died a month later, on 2 April. Burley would play a minor but important role in future parliaments.

(1) PROME XI, pp. 201–203 (Burley as Speaker).

John Tyrell was a client of the Duke of Gloucester. He was employed by Gloucester for his expertise in estate management and in 1427 he and William Lyndwood were sent on a diplomatic mission to Gloucester’s estranged wife, Jacqueline of Hainault. In December 1427 he was appointed to the prestigious and lucrative position of chief steward of the Duchy of Lancaster estates north of the Trent excluding Lancashire and Cheshire (1).

Tyrell was elected to Parliament as the member for Essex thirteen times between 1411 and 1437. He was elected Speaker for the first time in 1427 and again in 1431. He and William Lyndwood were appointed to attend the Council in Rouen for six months, possibly because as Speaker he could report on Parliament’s mood to King Henry and the Rouen Council.

See Year 1431: Cardinal Beaufort, Beaufort’s Retinue.

John Hotoft, treasurer of the royal household, had resigned in February 1431, and as soon as he arrived in Rouen Tyrell replaced Hotoft. Tyrell was knighted in Rouen.

In 1434 Tyrell was involved in a dispute over the expenses of the royal household.  He claimed that he had not received 500 marks allocated to him as treasurer, but Exchequer records showed that the 500 marks had been paid by the customs officers in the port of London. The entry in the Proceedings ends with the statement that so many arguments were introduced by both sides in the dispute ‘that at this tyme to reherce or to declare were too longe’ (2).  But Tyrell retained his post as treasurer of the household for the rest of his life, so presumably his word was accepted.

See Year 1434: Royal Household ‘Sir John Tyrell.’

He was elected to Parliament for the last time in 1437 and once again the Commons chose him as their Speaker. But by then he was too ill to carry out his duties. He died on 2 April 1437 at the age of fifty-five (3, 4).

At a council meeting on 10 April, with King Henry present, the question of a replacement for Sir John Tyrell as treasurer of the household was discussed. Sir Henry Bromflete, Sir John Popham, Sir John Stourton, and Robert Whittingham were potential candidates. Popham was sent for and granted the position on 17 April, which made him treasurer for the war as well as treasurer of the household (5).

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

(1) Somerville, Duchy of Lancaster, p. 420

(2) PPC IV, pp. 266-268 (treasurer of the household).

 (3) Roskell, ‘Sir John Tyrell,’ in Parliament and Politics III, pp. 277-315

(4) ‘John Tyrell’ in historyofparliamentonline.org

(5) PPC V, p. 8 (Popham as Treasurer of the Household).

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

The Duke of Gloucester

After his triumphant return to England in 1436 to claim credit for saving Calais, the Duke of Gloucester, as Captain of Calais, was concerned for the future safety of the town, and for his own position and reputation.

See Year 1436: Gloucester and Calais.

On 25 February he knelt before the King in Parliament and declared that the soldiers of the Calais garrison had not been paid, and desertion in the ranks was high. He requested an entry on the parliamentary roll that this was not his fault, and he should not be held responsible if any harm came to Calais as the result of other people’s negligence. Safely back in England, he declared his willingness to live and die in Calais’s defence (1).

Any threat to Calais and its precious wool staple made the Commons nervous. They submitted a petition on Gloucester’s behalf on 25 March requesting that if the income from the allocation of 20 shillings [£1] from the subsidy on wool to pay the garrison’s wages fell below the sum required, the Treasurer of England should be authorized to make up the deficit from whatever sources he saw fit. The petition was granted (2).

On 27 March Parliament thanked Gloucester for his ‘swift and noble action . . . for the recovery of the town of Calais,’ and congratulated him on resisting the Duke of Burgundy’s ‘treacherous’ attack’ (3). The legend that Gloucester alone had saved Calais in 1436 was already well entrenched.

Gloucester was also Captain of Guines in the Pale of Calais and in April the Council authorised payment of wages for the garrison at Guines for three months (4). It was agreed that £1,000 of the 20,000 marks loaned by the Staplers of Calais for its defence (5) should be allocated to raising a force of mounted archers in England at eight pence a day to be sent to defend Guines (6).

In May Gloucester claimed recompense for the 5,000 marks annuity that King Henry had granted him in November 1431, which had been withheld from May 1433, due to restrictions placed by the Council on the king’s grants. It now amounted to £7,785 10s 6½d. King Henry referred Gloucester’s bill to the Council; they judged that since Gloucester had received £1,000 annually for attending council meetings, he owed the king £1,1271 10s 10¼d. Henry pardoned the duke from repaying it (7).

In October while the Great Council was in session at Sheen, King Henry granted Gloucester a licence to import 100 casks of Gascon wine for his household annually, without paying customs duties on it (8).

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

(1) PROME XI, p. 204 (Gloucester’s petition for Calais garrison).

(2) PROME XI, pp. 209-10 (allocation of money to Calais).

(3) PROME XI, pp. 216-18 (Gloucester praised).

(4) PPC V, p. 14 (garrison at Guines).

(5) CPR 1436-41, p. 175 (repayment of the loan dated 30 June 1438).  

(6) PPC V p. 26 (mounted archers for Guines).

(7) CPR 1436-41, p. 54 (crown debt).

(8) Foedera XI, p. 678 (grant of wine).

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

Queen Katherine died

Queen Katherine, Henry VI’s mother, had retired to Bermondsey Abbey in 1436 when she was already terminally ill. She died there on 3 January 1437 at the age of thirty-five.  As she lay dying Katherine received a New Years Gift from the king. A gold tablet, and a crucifix garnished with sapphires and pearls bought from a London goldsmith John Paddesley for £40 (1).

On 8 February, her body was brought to St Katherine’s church beside the Tower of London, and the following day, accompanied by lords and ladies, the mayor and aldermen, crafts and priests, she was carried in procession for a funeral mass at St Pauls and then taken to Westminster Abbey where she lay in state for three days before being buried in the Lady Chapel.

“And in þis same yere deyed good Quene Kateryn, þat was moder to Kyng Henre the Sext, and wife to Kyng Henre the .v^th, the Þursday þe iij day of Ianuare, in þe Abbey of Bermondesey without Suthwerk, in þe counte of Surre.

And the Friday, the viij day of Feuerere next after, the body of the Quene was brought to Seint Kateryns beside the Toure, and so thurgh London to Seint Paules, with lordes and ladyes, and with the Maire and Aldermen, and the Craftes in London and with all the religious peple, as chanons, prestys and freres; and there was a solempne dirige and masse on the morowe. And from thens she was brought to Westmynstre, and þere was hir terement holden and doon rially; and þere buryed n the Chapell of oure Lady, on whos soule God haue mercy! Amen!”    Brut Continuation F, pp. 470-471

Chronicles: Chronicle of London, (Harley 565) p. 123 and (Julius B. I.) p. 172 ; Gregory’s Chronicle, p. 179; London Chronicles, Cleopatra C IV, p. 142; Brut Continuation G, p. 505; Great Chronicle, p. 173; Short English Chronicle, p. 62; EHL : Waltham Annals, p. 352.

Katherine named King Henry as her sole executor. On 4 March 1437, Robert Rolleston, keeper of the Great Wardrobe, John Merston, keeper of the king’s jewels, and Richard Alred were deputed in his stead, to receive what was due to her, and to execute her will (because King Henry did not have the time!).  Cardinal Beaufort, the Duke of Gloucester, and William Alnwick, Bishop of Lincoln were the supervisors (2, 3, 4).

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

(1) PPC V, p. 61 (New Year gift to Katherine).

(2) Foedera X, pp. 662–663 (mandate to Rolleston, Merston and Alred).

(3) PROME XI, pp. 222–224 (Executors of Queen Katherine).

(4) CPR 1436-41, pp. 389-390 (misdated to 1439).

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

Queen Katherine and Owen Tudor

Queen Katherine was only twenty-one when King Henry V died in 1422.  An Act of Parliament in 1427-1428 ‘the missing statute of the realm’ because it is not on the parliamentary rolls, forbade her to marry without her son’s consent, which could not be given until Henry VI came of age, but this is exactly what she did. She married a Welsh squire, Owen Tudor in secret (1).

The date of the marriage is not known, but they had at least four children, three sons and a daughter, before she retired to Bermondsey Abbey in 1436 when she was terminally ill.  A date of 1428 is the most plausible. In that year Henry VI was removed from his mother’s care and established in a separate household under the governance of the Earl of Warwick.

See Year 1428: The Earl of Warwick, King Henry’s Governor.

King Henry may not have known of the clandestine marriage before Katherine died but in the spring of 1437 Owen  was summoned to appear before the Council because Henry wished to meet him. Owen was at Daventry (Daventry Manor was Duchy of Lancaster land) and the Duke of Gloucester sent Owen a verbal message to come to court, promising that he could come and go freely. Owen was apprehensive, his marriage was canonical and therefore legal, but it was a secret morganatic marriage, and he had no way of knowing how King Henry would react. He refused to attend the council without a formal safe conduct in writing.

Owen came to London and took sanctuary at Westminster but was lured out. He appears to have been informed that King Henry suspected him of disloyalty, and he decided to present himself voluntarily to the king, He told Henry that he had heard of allegations that the king was offended and displeased with him. Owen declared that he was innocent of any wrongdoing and that he would answer any charges laid against him in a court of law. He submitted himself to the king, and ‘thereafter he had returned to Wales.’

Nevertheless, Owen was arrested some time before 15 July 1437 and incarcerated in Newgate. The reason for his arrest is not specified; Brut G attributes it to the Duke of Gloucester, and this explanation has been accepted by later historians.

“This same yere, one Owayn, A squyer of Walez, A man of low byrth, which had many A day to-fore secretly wedded Quene Katerine, & had by hir iij sonnes & a doughter, was taken & commaunded to Newgate, to prison, bi þe lorde of Glowcestre, Protectour of þe Reame.         Brut Continuation G, p. 507

The council met at Kennington on 15 July, with King Henry absent, to consider whether Owen’s arrest was lawful, as he had previously been promised that he could come and go freely. The ‘evidence’ against Owen, rests on the record of this meeting in the Proceedings. It is extremely murky, a masterpiece of obfuscation and prevarication even by conciliar standards (2, 3, 4).

Katherine’s marriage was known to the council, but it was not acknowledged. There is only one oblique reference to her, ‘with whom Oewyn Tidor dwelt.’ The Council found that since Owen had come and gone freely initially, his subsequent arrest was lawful, as he did not have a second safe conduct at the time of this arrest.

A subsequent request (for Owen’s arrest?) had been made at the suit of a party (unidentified) whose rights under common law meant that the king’s grant of a safe conduct could not take effect unless the circumstances were covered by a statutory exception, which was not the case. Owen could not claim protection under a safe conduct twice. The Council advised the king that the arrest was lawful, and Gloucester asked for, and was granted, a declaration under the Great Seal to that effect.

A second document, included by Nicolas in the Proceedings, stated that at the time Owen retuned to Wales neither the king nor Gloucester had known of Owen’s malicious intentions. These had come to light subsequently, and he was now in prison. If the Council ordered his release, they would be responsible for setting him free ‘to raise any rebellion, murmur or inconvenience,’ and King Henry should be warned of ‘the disposition of Wales.’

This fantasy was based on two irrelevant facts: Owen was a Welshman, although he had been granted denization by Parliament in 1432 (5, 6, 7). Wales was perceived and feared as a hotbed of potential sedition ever since the famous rebellion of Owen Glyn Dower under Henry IV. An accusation, no matter how far-fetched, that a Welshman planned to raise rebellion in Wales, would be believed.

But why would Owen Tudor contemplate raising rebellion in Wales? For what purpose and to what end?  As far as is known, Owen, although born in Wales had never lived there, except, perhaps, as a child. He was generally called Owen ap Meredith before he became Owen Tudor, the nearest he ever came to being Welsh.

The statement that Owen ‘returned to Wales’ is itself suspect. Owen had not been in Wales after Queen Katherine’s death; he had appeared before King Henry and had then been arrested.  Who was the party whose rights had to be protected?

The Chronicon Angliae records that Katherine wished to marry Edmund Beaufort, Cardinal Beaufort’s nephew, but that the Duke of Gloucester as well as other lords, objected and a statute forbade it. So, because she could not control her carnal passions (non valens passions penitus refraepare) Katherine married Owen, a man with few possessions, instead (8).

Harriss suggested that Katherine had contemplated marriage with Edmund Beaufort, and that this was the reason behind the ‘missing statute of the realm’ forbidding Katherine to marry. The Duke of Gloucester, Protector at the time, was jealous of Beaufort influence, and had refused to allow the charismatic Edmund to become the young king’s stepfather (9).

It is not correct to infer that Katherine was forced to remain with King Henry’s household after 1428 so that she could be watched. Until then Katherine had charge of her son, the two households were merged, and Katherine contributed £7 a day to the costs of the royal households. But in 1428 when the Earl of Warwick became King Henry’s governor the households separated. Katherine only contributed when the households came together to celebrate the great feasts such as Christmas, Easter and Whitsuntide (10).

There may be another explanation for the Duke of Gloucester’s hostility to Owen.  If he had indeed suspected that Edmund Beaufort would influence the impressionable young king, he may equally have feared that the same would be true with Owen. Unlike Beaufort, Owen had no influence at court or in council, but he was presumably charming and possibly handsome, or why would Katherine have chosen him?  King Henry had expressed a wish to meet Owen, but what he made of his stepfather is not recorded. If Henry were to take one of his wayward fancies to Owen, the latter’s position, and possible influence at court would be assured.

Towards the end of 1437 Owen escaped from Newgate with the help of a priest. He  probably feared for his life, or at least a long term of imprisonment.

“And þe same yere he brake prison by þe mean of A preest þat was his Chapelayn.”  Brut Continuation G, p. 507

“Thys yere brake owte of the kynges jayle of Newgatte Owyn by the helpe of hys prest, and wondyd hys keper, who had prevyly weddyd qwene Katerne.”                                                                                                                                   Chronicle of the Grey Friars

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

(1) Griffiths, ‘Queen Katherine of Valois and a Missing Statute of the Realm,’ in King and Country, pp. 103-113.

(2) PPC V pp 46-50 9 (proceedings against Owen Tudor).

(3) Nicolas, PPC V, Preface, pp. xvi-xix. (Chrimes, Henry VI, p. 8 n. 4) claims that Nicolas misunderstood the entry in the Proceedings, his ‘garbled account . . . has been too closely followed by later writers.’

(4) S.B. Chrimes, Henry VII, Appendix A, pp. 325-26.  Chrimes describes them as ‘written in a not very lucid style with a good many lacunae and uncertain phrases.’

(5) PROME XI Appendix p 64 ‘Petition to the Commons by Owain ap Meredith born in Wales for exemption from the restrictions imposed by the statute of the second year of Henry IV.

(6) Rotuli Parliamentorum Iv, p. 415

Endorsed: Let it be sent to the Lords. Rely is given that letters be made whereby he is considered a liege Englishman for life

(7) CPR  1436-1441, 12 May 1432. P. 212. ‘Letters of denization pursuant to the act of the present parliament for Owen Fitz Meredith notwithstanding the statute of 2 Henry IV.  For 40s paid in the hanaper.’

(8) Chronicon Angliae, ed. J.A. Giles, p. 17

(9) Harriss, Beaufort, p.178, n 34 (Katherine and Edmund Beaufort)

(10) NA, E101 408/6; E101/408/9 (Katherine’s household contributions).

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

Queen Joan died

The Dowager Queen Joan died on 9 /10 July 1437.  She was the daughter of the King of Navarre and widow of John,  Duke of Brittany who died in 1399.  Joan came to England in 1403 to marry King Henry IV as his second wife. She was never popular in England.

Her stepson Henry V accused her of witchcraft in 1419 so that he could hold her in ‘captivity’ and confiscate her dower lands to help meet the costs of his wars in France. He repented his treatment of her just before he died1422 (1) and her lands were restored to her in 1423 (2).

See Year 1423: King Henry V’s Debts

Thereafter Joan lived retired from court. She was at her manor of Langley for New Year 1437 where she received a New Years’ gift from Henry VI: a gold tablet garnished with jewels, previously given to the king by Eleanor Cobham Duchess of Gloucester (3).

Joan died at Havering atte Bower, one of her manors in Essex. Her body was carried to Canterbury Cathedral where she was buried beside Henry IV. The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester attended his obsequies.

“And this same yere the ix^th day of Juyll, deyed Quene Iohan in the Maner of Haueryng-at-Bour in Essex, which was wife to Kyng Henry the iiijth; and from thens she was brought to Caunterbury, and there is she buryed; on whose soule God haue mercy! Amen!”    Brut Continuation F, p. 471

The chronicles give 9/10 July for Joan’s death, except Brut Continuation G (p. 505) which had 2 July and says her body was brought to Canterbury via, ‘Carmondsey,’ an error for Bermondsey. The royal summons to attend her funeral is dated 23 July and the funeral took place on 11 August (4).

Chronicles:  Chronicle of London (Harley 565) p. 123. Gregory’s Chronicle, p. 180; Chronicles of London (Cleopatra C IV) p. 143

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

(1) A.R. Myers, ‘The Captivity of a Royal Witch,’ in Crown, Household and parliament in fifteenth century England, pp. 93-134.

(2) PROME X, pp. 173-76.  (Joan’s petition in 1423, referring to 13 July 1422).

(3) PPC V, p. 61 (Years Gift)

(4) PPC V, p. 56 (list of those summoned to attend the funeral. The date of 18 July for Joan’s death is not in the summons, it was added by Nicolas in the heading).

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

Thomas Langley. Bishop of Durham died

Thomas Langley was educated at Cambridge and began his career in the service of John of Gaunt. He passed with other Duchy of Lancaster officials into the service of King Henry IV. He became Bishop of Durham in 1406 and was a Chancellor of England under Henry IV, Henry V and Henry VI (1).

Langley was Chancellor when Henry V died in 1422 and he surrendered the Great Seal to the Duke of Gloucester representing the baby King Henry VI. He was reappointed as Chancellor in the first Minority Council.

See Year 1422: The Minority Council

As Chancellor Langley took the oath of allegiance to Henry VI from seven French prisoners captured at Harfleur before they were set free in 1423. And in 1424 he presented to Parliament the indictment of John Mortimer on a charge of treason

See Year 1423: French Prisoners, Harfleur Prisoners

See Year 1424: Sir John Mortimer

In 1424 Langley along with other council members, accepted the articles set out by Parliament to define the role of the Minority Council in governing England. He signed as Bishop of Durham, not as Chancellor. He resigned as Chancellor in July 1424 at the age of sixty-one, claiming that he wished to spend more time in his diocese, but he remained a member of the Council, receiving 200 marks a year. Was pressure put on Langley to make way for Henry Beaufort to become the next Chancelor, a position Beaufort undoubtedly coveted?

See Year 1424:  The Minority Council

Langley was one of the councillors appointed in 1425 to settle a dispute between Robert, Lord Poynings and John Leventhorpe.

See Year 1425: The Minority Council, Poynings and Leventhorpe, a private dispute.

As a supervisor of Henry V’s will, and a feoffee for Duchy of Lancaster land assigned by Henry V to meet his debts, Langley agreed, along with Henry Beaufort, to make loans to the crown from Duchy of Lancaster income. They loaned £1,000 in 1424 towards the rescue of the town of Le Crotoy.

See Year 1424: The War in France, Le Crotoy.

Langley supported Beaufort in resisting the request of the Duke of Beford in 1434 to divert income from Duchy lands for the defence of Normandy, only agreeing provided money from other sources was allocated to meet the terms of Henry V’s will. When this proved impossible, the Cardinal Beaufort and the other feoffees agreed in 1435 to loan £6,000 from Duchy of Lancaster lands, which was more than the net value of the enfeoffed lands. This may have been the Cardinal’s decision, rather than that of Langley and the other feoffees.

See Year 1434: The Duke of Bedford’s Requirements.

See Year 1435: The War in France, Finance.

Like everyone else in Henry V’s service, Langley loaned money to the king. In 1424 he resisted the Council and Treasurer Stafford’s efforts to recover a large gold tabernacle pledged to him and to Henry Bowet, the Archbishop of York, for repayment of a loan. He demanded assurances in Parliament that the Treasurer would honour his promise to redeem the outstanding debt.

Langley retained documents from his time as chancellor after he resigned. In 1426 the Duke of Bedford instructed him to bring Henry V’s will with him to the Parliament at Leicester, possibly as evidence in the dispute between the Duke of Gloucester and Cardinal Beaufort. Langley was one of the nine councillors named as arbitrators to settle the dispute. He resigned from council on the last day of Parliament, excusing himself on the grounds of age and ill health.

See Year 1426: The Duke of Gloucester and Henry Beaufort, Arbitration.

See Year 1426: The Duke of Bedford and Henry Beaufort.

In July 1432, Langley was instructed to turn over to the Earl of Warwick his records of earlier peace negotiations with the French. Warwick would bring them to London and entrust them to the Treasurer for safekeeping.

See Year 1432: A Prospect of Peace.

Langley attended council meeting periodically after 1426, probably invited because of his long experience. He is recorded as being present at meetings in June and July 1428.

In 1433 Langley, along with two other bishops agreed to forgo their fee as councillors provided they were only summoned only in ‘term time’ i.e. when the law courts were sitting.  It was a gesture, on Langley’s part at least, to placate the Duke of Bedford for at the same time Langley requested once again to be excused from attending council because of his ‘great age.’

Langley’s principal contribution as a councillor was negotiating with the Scots. It might be said that he had a lifetime’s experience of their slippery arts of diplomacy. He was first commissioned to meet Scottish representatives in 1410 under King Henry IV. As Bishop of Durham it was as important to him as it was to the Wardens of the March to maintain a semblance of peace and respect for the law, along the Anglo-Scottish border.

Langley was the lead negotiator of the treaty and truce of 1423/1424 by which King James of Scotland obtained his freedom, and thereafter Langley led English commissions to discuss reparations for violations of the truce, or for extensions of it, in 1425, 1429, 1430, 1432, 1435 and 1436.

The letter Langley wrote to King James from Berwick in 1425 is typical of the ongoing tit for tat in border negotiations. Langley complained that the Scottish Wardens of the March were derelict in their duties: they neglected to show up on appointed March days and they failed to enforce the terms of the truce. He dismissed the Scots counterclaims as lies and requested King James to put a stop to Scottish harassment of the English garrisons at Berwick and Roxburgh.

In February 1430 he was appointed with other ambassadors to meet with the Bishop of Glasgow and Scottish nobles to reply to peace proposals put to the Council by King James. In November Langley and the other ambassadors negotiated a truce to last for five years from 1431 to 1436.

In July 1435, with this truce due to expire in less than a year, Langley again led a large commission to negotiate for a new truce, or an extension of the existing one. Langley was commissioned again in 1436 with the Bishop of Carlisle and William, Lord Fitzhugh, to resume the talks of the previous summer, but apparently this meeting never took place and the truce was allowed to lapse.

See Year 1436: Scotland.

Thomas Langley, Bishop of Durham, died on 20 November 1437 and was buried at Durham.

(1) I.C. Sharman, Thomas Langley, (1999).

Scotland

King James of Scotland assassinated

King James I of Scotland was assassinated on 21 February 1437 by his own subjects while he and his queen (Joan Beaufort) were in residence at the Dominican Friary in Perth.  Sir Robert Graham, who had publicly called King James a tyrant, led the attack.  Sir Robert Stewart, the king’s chamberlain, smuggled the murderers into the Friary.

James was preparing to go to bed when he was alerted by the noise made by the conspirators as they approached his chamber, and he hid in a sewer under the floor. The assassins wounded Queen Joan but could not find the king, until one of them remembered the sewer. They cornered James, clad only in his night clothes, and hacked him to death with their swords. They escaped but were soon captured.

Sir Robert Stewart and another conspirator were taken first, and tortured, before being executed. It was said that the torture was Queen Joan’s vengeance on the murderers. Sir Robert Graham and the other assassins were taken to Stirling Castle. They too were tortured before being executed. The murder of an anointed king was the most heinous of all crimes in a hierarchical society, it was a crime against God.

The responsibility for the plot is open to question. Was it the Earl of Athol or his grandson, Sir Robert Stewart, who instigated it?  Michael Brown argued for Athol: ‘In the mind of Bower (Scotichronicon) and subsequent Scottish chroniclers there was no doubt. It was the hand of Walter Earl of Athol, which directed the murder of the king.” Balfour- Melville favoured the ambitious Robert Stewart, Athol’s grandson, who persuaded Athol to back the plot.

In addition to Sir Robert Graham the sources name six assassins: Thomas and Christopher Chambers of Perth where the murder took place. Two brothers John and Thomas Hall also of Perth, and two other brothers the Barclays of Tentsmuir. They all had links of loyalty and interest to the Earl of Athol.

Walter Stewart, Earl of Athol was an old man, in his seventies. He had received many favours from King James, and until the birth of a son and heir to James in 1430, Athol had stood closest to the throne. He and his grandson Robert may have seen themselves as the male heirs presumptive.  But by 1437 Athol did not trust the king and he had grievances against him. His son David had died in captivity in England in 1435 as a hostage for James’s still unpaid ransom.

More than one Scottish noble resented the heavy taxes James had imposed to raise the ransom which he had then spent on other purposes, including buying jewels for himself and the queen. Athol knew James’s predilection for confiscating other Scottish nobles’ lands on the filmiest of pretexts.  He also had reason to suspect the queen. Born Joan Beaufort she had the family trait of acquisitiveness, and she had her eye on some of Athol’s estates. With James dead Athol expected to become Regent of Scotland for James’s six years old son. Athol admitted knowledge of the plot but disclaimed responsibility. He was executed but not tortured, as he did not accompany the assassins.

There are two contemporary accounts of the murder:

The Dethe of the Kynge of Scotis, translated from a lost source by John Shirley, is the most detailed.  Balfour-Melville rejected it as unreliable: ‘The Dethe ‘written in England a few years later contains much falsehood mingled with narrative.’  James’s latest biographer, Michael Brown, accepts it: ‘Despite an element of the fantastic and some slips and quirks of detail The Dethe is strong where it matters. (1, 2).’

The Dethe claims there were three hundred conspirators, but Brown suggests this is an error and that thirty is more likely.  Even this seems excessive, those named were more than sufficient to carry out the deed.  James was an unpopular king, and the humiliation of his ignoble retreat from the siege of Roxburgh in 1436 after only twelve days was seen by many as a disgrace to the honour of Scotland (3).

The second account is ‘The earliest account of the murder of James I,’ edited by R. Weiss. This version is based on information sent to Pope Eugenius from London by the papal legate Piero del Monte who claimed that his informant was Cardinal Beaufort. The Cardinal had received a letter from his niece Joan Beaufort, Queen of Scotland (4).

[Latin]“Sometime in the following month of March, urged on by the evil council of the earl of Athol, the king’s uncle, and others of his faction, a man of Scotland, usually named as William (sic) Graeme, and several others, broke into the king’s chamber during the night, as the king was preparing for bed.

The king was clad only in his shirt and breeches, and this unexpected entrance frightened him; he fled into the sewer beneath his chamber, but [they found him] and murdered him cruelly and inhumanely, stabbing him with their swords. And his corpse showed about thirty wounds, of which seven were lethal. In evidence of this deed the Papal Legate in Scotland afterwards sent the king’s shirt to the Pope. Blessed be God that his servants are shielded by his hand against evil, but He confounds and destroys perjured disturbers of the peace.” Brief Latin Chronicle, p. 166

The Papal Legate was Antonine de Saint Vito, Bishop of Urbino whom Pope Eugenius had sent to Scotland in 1436 at King James’s request. to assist him in reforming the church in Scotland.  Eugenius urged King James and Queen Joan to give full assistance to his legate (5).

The account in Gregory’s Chronicle, The Great Chronicle (p. 173) , and Cleopatra C IV (p. 142), derive from a common source.

“Ande the same yere the Kynge of Schottys was trayturly slayne in hys owne londe, of a false squyr and the squyrys sone, of the same londe, that was namyd Robert Grame.  The whyche squyer and hys sone were take anon aftyr and there they were playnely put to dethe, as welle worthy was, to be traye any kynge or prynce.” Gregory’s Chronicle, p. 179

“And aftirward aboute the moneth of Marche be excitacion and stiryng of the erl of Atholle and othir, the said kyng of Scottis, as he was goyng toward his bed, hauyng no more vn him but onli his shirte, cruelli and vnmanli was slayne; and as it was said he hadde on him xxx woundis, wherof vij were dedly. An English Chronicle (Davies) p. 56

“And in ϸe begynnyng of Lent, tydynges come to ϸe Kyng and to the Reame, how ϸat ϸe Kyng of Scottes, Sir Iames Steward, was slayn at Seint Johnes Towne with treson, by a Squyer of Scotland.”            Brut Continuation F, p. 471

[Latin] And about the feast of St Matthew the Apostle [24 February] the king of Scots was murdered by the earl of Dunbar and other Scottish earls and barons in the night.    Benet’s Chronicle p. 185

Benet mistakenly implicates the Earl of Dunbar. Sir David Dunbar was not part of the plot. He chased and attacked the fugitives and was wounded, losing the fingers on his left hand.

Berwick and Roxburgh

The Council was still concerned by the Scottish threat to the safe keeping of Berwick and Roxburgh.  In November they agreed to a bill to release £1,000 in tallies for Berwick ‘which should be in the hands of the Earl of Northumberland’

A rapid search for anyone who would take on the captaincy of Roxburgh castle at less than £2,000 a year failed, and Ralph Grey, who had been appointed captain in 1436 and was at Roxburgh when King James laid siege to it, had to be approached. He indented to serve for a year from Midsomer last (1437) to Midsomer next (1438) for £2,000 (6).

See 1436: Scotland, Roxburgh

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

(1) Balfour-Melville, James I, pp. 243-248.

(2) M. Brown, James I, Chapter 8: ‘The Assassination of James I.’

(3) The Dethe of the Kynge of Scotis, translated from a lost source by John Shirley, in Death and Dissent: two fifteenth century chronicles, ed. Lister M. Matheson (1999).

(4) R. Weiss, ‘The earliest account of the murder of James I,’ English Historical Review, vol 52, (1937), pp. 479-491.

           (5) Papal Letters VIII, pp. 229-230 (Bishop of Urbino).

(6) PPC V, p 75 (Berwick and Roxburgh).

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

Diplmatic Relations

Diplomatic relations with Scotland were resumed at the end of 1437.

Scotland was being ruled in the name of the child King James II, much as the Minority Council had ruled for Henry VI. But unlike Henry’s mother Queen Katherne, James’s mother, Queen Joan (Beaufort) took an active part in Scottish politics.

King James I had allowed the truce between England and Scotland to expire on 1 May 1436 and he had then attacked Roxburgh Castle.  Queen Joan, encouraged by the Scottish Chancellor, John Cameron, Bishop of Glasgow and Lord Gordon put out feelers for a resumption of peace talks with England (1). She corresponded with her uncle, Cardinal Beaufort, and safe conducts for three months were issued in September 1437 for John Cameron, Alexander Seton, Lord Gordon, Walter Ogilvy and John Foster to come to England (2).

A formal commission was issued in Edinburgh on 30 November to Alexander Seton, Lord Gordon, Alexander Lord Montgomery, Master John Methven, a king’s secretary and John Vaus, an armed escort, to travel to England to negotiate a truce (3).

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

(1) A.I. Dunlop. The Life and Times of James Kennedy, p. 22

(2) Foedera X, p.  677 (Safe conducts, September).

(3) Foedera X, p. 679 (Scots commission to negotiate).

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

The Duchy of Gascony

See Year 1423: The Duchy of Gascony

Bertrand de Montferrand

Bertrand, Lord of Montferrand had been granted Amaniu Béguey’s lands in Gascony by the Minority Council in 1432.

See Year 1432: The Duchy of Gascony.

Guilhotin Andron, Lord of Lansac had counter claimed them against Sir John Radcliffe in 1428, and his claim was still under consideration, but in July 1437 ‘the seneschal and royal officers’ in Gascony were ordered to put Montferrand ‘in possession of the lands of the late Sir Amaniu Beguey’ (1, 2).

Montferrand’s claim in 1435 to inherit the estates of his uncle Bérat d’Albret’s  had been held up by the crown’s officials in Gascony: ‘the king’s officers and others had created impediments’ to the d’Albret inheritance.

See Year 1435: The Duchy of Gascony.

It was not until August 1437 that the commissioners who had investigated Monterferand’s claim were ordered recognise his rights and allow him to take possession of the Albret lands (3, 4).

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

(1) Foedera X, p. 672 (Béguey lands).

(2) gasconrolls.org. C61 127, # 51 (Béguey lands).

(2) Foedera X, p. 675 (Albret lands).

(3) gasconrolls.org. C61 127 # 44, 45, 46, 76 (Albret lands).

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

 The Earl of Armagnac

Envoys from Jean IV Earl of Armagnac came to England to present articles to the Council concerning local disputes. As usual, the Council ordered them to be sent to the Council in Bordeaux where commissioners were to be appointed to settle them.

At the same time Pey Berland, the Archbishop of Bordeaux, and Walter Colles, the Constable of Bordeaux, were authorised to negotiate for a truce with the Earl of Armagnac and the Lord of Albret, two powerful southern French magnates whose lands bordered Gascony,  with the proviso that the Earl of Armagnac must not send men to fight for King Charles VII, and he must recall any who were already in the north (1, 2).

Nothing came of these negotiations if indeed they took place. A truce was not concluded (3).

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

(1) Foedera X, p. 673 (possible truce with Armagnac).

(2) PPC V, pp. 44-45 (possible truce with Armagnac).

(3) Vale, English Gascony, pp. 109–110.

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

Bayonne

Roger Spicer, a Bristol merchant, had appealed to the mayoralty court in Bayonne against one Sandbate de Fargud. He in turn appealed to the Justices of Appeals in Gascony (Bordeaux?). The governor of Bayonne, Gemote Dalbag, was instructed to uphold the judgement of the mayoralty court in favour of Spicer. This appeal is not recorded in the Gascon Rolls (1)

(1) PPC pp. 11-13 (Spicer vs. Sandbate).

 

Foreign Relations

Brut Continuation F records visits to England while Parliament was in session by envoys from John IV, Earl of Armagnac, from Alfonso V, King of Aragon, from Prussia and from ‘Beam,’ (Bohemia) as well as from France and Normandy.

“And to this parlement come many dyuers straungers, somme of Aragon in Spayne, somme of Spruce, somme of Beam, somme of Fraunce and Normandy.  And ϸe Bisshop of Tyrwyn with dyvurs knyghtes and Squyers, come to this same parlement.    Brut Continuation F, p. 471

“And to that Parlyment come the Byschoppe of Tyrwynne ande the counselle of the Erle of Armanacke.     Great Chronicle, p. 173 and Gregory’s Chronicle, p. 180

“And to that parlement com ow[gh]t off ffraunce the chaunceler off ffraunce, and ther the kyng yaf vnto him the Bysshopriche of Ely. And to the seyd parlement com the counsell of the party of Armynak ffor to trete ffor the pees &c.                                  Chronicles of London (Cleopatra C IV) p. 142

See Louis of Luxembourg below for the ‘Bisshop of Tyrwyn.’

See Duchy of Gascony above for the Earl of Armagnac.

Portugal

King Durate of Portugal and King Henry had renewed of their trade treaties in February 1436. Favourable trading condition and protection were guaranteed to both countries.

See Year 1436: Portugal.

Bristol and Lisbon were the principal trading ports. The Council reminded port wardens that Portuguese merchants and sailors were under crown protection. In February 1437 customs officials in Bristol were ordered to observe the terms of the treaties (1).

In August 1437 King Durate ordered his subjects not to molest English merchants and offered to make reparation for any injuries, but piracy continued unchecked (2).

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

(1) Foedera X, p. 661 (Bristol).

(2) Foedera X, p.  675 (King Durate’s prohibition).

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

 The Hanseatic League

Henry Vorrath, Proconsul of Danzig, and ambassadors from the Hanse towns of Lubeck and Hamburg arrived in England towards the end of 1436 to negotiate a treaty for the revival of trade with the Hanse.  The issues were complicated: reciprocal trading rights and English piracy were the main points of contention, and the deliberations continued into the spring of 1437.

See Year 1436: The Hanseatic League

Vorrath’s instructions were to claim compensation for English depredations and piracy but not to concede any additional rights for English merchants trading in Danzig.  They would receive the same tax exemptions as those granted to the Hanse merchants trading in England, i.e. existing rights, but no new taxes (2, 3).

Paul von Rusdorf, the Grand Master of the Teutonic Knights had conceded limited ‘reciprocity,’ the right of English merchants to trade freely and settle in Prussia and elsewhere in 1428.

The Hanse’s privileges were restated and confirmed, together with exemption from any new taxes including tunnage and poundage. The English negotiators promised to pay the debt owed by King Henry IV under his charter of 1409 in instalments, but Hanse claims of indemnity for more recent English piracy and damages were rejected despite, or so Vorrath claimed, his clear evidence of the justice of their demands.

See Years 1428 and 1430: The Hanseatic League.

A Valuable Treaty?

The treaty was finally signed on 22 March 1437 but not ratified until 7 June (1). It was never confirmed by Prussia or recognised by Danzig.

Two eminent economic historians offer diametrically opposed interpretations of the value and benefits of the treaty to England.  M.M. Postan described Vorrath as ‘probably the greatest statesman among contemporary leaders of the Hanse’ for obtaining the treaty by making concessions regarding English trading rights in Danzig, contrary to his instructions. ‘The treaty . . . . attained the furthest limit of Hanseatic concessions to England.’  There is no record that Vorrath actually sealed a grant of special privileges for English merchants over and above what was contained in the treaty, but both sides accepted that the agreement embodied ‘full privileges’ (4).

Harold Lloyd disagreed.  ‘This is the very opposite of the truth.’ Lloyd argued that the clauses covering English trading rights are ‘hardly less vague than those enshrined in earlier treaties, while those about taxation, though new, are blatantly self-contradictory’ (5).

The English merchants agreed with Lloyd. Letters from Vorrath of 15 May and 18 June reported that he had concluded an agreement, but there were difficulties in sealing it. He explained and excused the lapse of over two months between signature and ratification by claiming that although he had done all he could to fulfil his instructions, the negotiations had taken place while Parliament was in session, and English merchants ‘of the northern coasts’ opposed to the treaty, had lied to Parliament and to the Council to prevent, or at least delay, the signing and he suggested that any English merchant coming to Danzig should be arrested in reprisal (6).

The English mercantile lobby, admittedly strong, opposed a treaty that confirmed the Hanse’s customary and ancient trading rights, without obtaining those same rights for Englishmen. ‘Reciprocity’ was flouted by the Hanse towns led by Danzig, and there were no guarantees that the Grand Master, or the municipal authorities would enforce regulations in favour of English merchants. It seems probable that they preferred to carry on trading as they had always done without a treaty, sometimes violently, and to continue to protest at the preferential treatment accorded to the Hanseatic League.

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

(1) CPR 1436-41, p. 62 (treaty ratified).

(2) Foedera X, pp. 666-670 (terms of the treaty).

(3) PPC V, p.  26 (amended agreement with the Hanse).

(4) Power and Postan, English Trade, pp. 118-120

(5) T.H. Lloyd, ‘A reconsideration of two Anglo-Hanseatic treaties of the fifteenth century,’ English Historical Review, 102 (1987) pp. 919-923

(6) PROME XI, Appendix, p. 235, citing Hanserecesse von 1431-1476 ed. G. von der Ropp Vol 2 (Leipzig 1878). Translation by Dr Hannes Kleineke (Vorrath’s letters).

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

Florence

The Great Council granted a petition from the Florentines for one year. What it was for is not specified but it probably related to a request for licences to export English wool not via Calais.  A proviso that the Florentines must pay ‘all manner of customs, subsidies and devoirs’ suggests wool.

See Year 1438: Wool exports

(1) PPC V, p. 67 (Florentine petition).

Spain

Two envoys from King Alfonso V of Aragon, Pere Grau and Pere Jofre, were issued letters of credence in August 1436 to ensure that they would be received by the English Council. Nothing is known of their mission (1); they may have been sent to gather information on conditions in England and report on the young King Henry who was due to come of age in 1437.

In November letters of safe conduct were issued to a ship from Catalonia currently docked at Southampton (2).

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

(1) Ferguson, Diplomacy, p. 201 (envoys from Aragon).

(2) PPC V, p. 73 (ship from Catalonia).

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

Loans to the Crown

Finance for the war in France could only be met, as it had been throughout Henry VI’s reign, by heavy borrowing.

In April the Council ordered that the names of all the lords spiritual and temporal who had lent money to the King should be ascertained (1). By 1437 this would include most, if not all of them.

A list of council members who agreed to lend money to the king was drawn up on 16 April, but some at least were wary, they either imposed conditions for their loan or requested adequate security for repayment (2).

List in PPC V                                                                          List in Appendix

Henry Chichele, Archbishop of Canterbury   500 marks.                  Same

John Kemp, Archbishop of York                   £200                            Same

Ralph, Lord Cromwell [Treasurer[ 250 marks = £166 13s 4d          Same

John Cornwall, Lord Fanhope        250 marks                                   Same

John Lord Tiptoft                           250 marks                                   Same

Earl of Suffolk, 250 marks, provided other earls did the same.         Same

Two other earls contributed but fell short,

Earl of Northumberland, £100                                                            Same

Earl of Huntingdon        £100                                                             Same

Walter, Lord Hungerford £100                              crossed out in appendix list

William Lyndwood [Privy Seal] £100                                               £50

Thomas Bourchier, Bishop of Worcester £100                                  Same

John Stafford Bishop of Bath, Chancellor  £100                                 Same

Marmaduke Lumley, Bishop of Carlisle    100 marks                       Same

Sir Ralph Rocheford, Knight of the body   100 marks                       Same

Robert Whittingham, Treasurer of Calais  £100                                 Same

Thomas Beckington,                                      £40                               Same

John Lowe, Bishop of St Asaph                      £10                              Same

TOTAL: £1,983

In July loans were solicited from the clergy: letters were to be sent all bishops, archbishops and deans to lend money to the king ‘in his necessity’ on unspecified securities (3).

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

(1) PPC V, p. 6 (names of those who had lent money to the king).

(2) PPC V, pp. 13-14 and Appendix pp. 313-314 (council loans).

NB: The list in the Appendix is not dated but it is obviously a copy of the list of 16 April, with one variation: Lord Hungerford’s name is crossed off.

(3) PPC V, p. 42 (loans from the clergy).

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

Repayment

On 10 May the Council ordered the Treasurer, Lord Cromwell, to borrow 2,500 marks to pay the wages of 800 men at arms and 2,400 archers serving in France and to assign repayment for the loan on the tax of a fifteenth granted by Parliament, due at Whitsuntide [19 May]. Several warrants were passed for the Treasurer, presumably in connection with this loan (1).

Cromwell reported in June that he had paid £7,000 or £8,000 from the Exchequer for the wages of the Calais garrison which should be recovered from the subsidy of one mark on each sack of wool sent to Calais by English merchants, as granted by Parliament (2).

The Council decreed that Robert Whitingham the Treasurer of Calais should be consulted on arrangements to recover the money advanced by the Exchequer over the last two years; it was needed as security to solicit further loans to the crown (3).

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

(1) PPC V, pp. 24-25 (loan for soldiers’ wages).

(2) PPC V, p. 38 (Exchequer had advanced money to Calais garrison).

(3) PPC V, pp. 42-43 (money to be repaid and used for loans).

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

Cardinal Beaufort

Cardinal Beaufort had requested to be excused from peace negotiations with the French, claiming that King Henry had promised him ‘reste,’ a release from his duties, and that he was no longer needed in Council since Henry would soon assume his personal rule. The Council disagreed. They refused to allow him to leave England to visit to the Pope in Rome, citing the dangers of the journey. His presence, and his advice would be needed if the peace commissioners succeeded in reaching an agreement with the French (1).

The real reason for the refusal was probably more self-interested: the king needed money and the Cardinal was the most reliable source of loans.  In Council on18 April, with Beaufort present, ‘the ij article of my Lord Cardinal is graunted.’

What the ‘second article’ was is not stated, but the reason for granting it is: Beaufort agreed to lend 10,000 marks and to defer repayment of the 14,000 marks he was still owed until Christmas 1437, he would also return some of the crown jewels he held as surety (2).

In June he was granted a general pardon for retaining the crown jewels given as security for his loan of 1424 (3). King Henry was to say that he trusted that all the jewels would be returned to the crown once repayment for them as pledges had been completed (4, 5). And an assignment on Convocation’s grant of taxation to repay the 10,000 marks made in July 1435 ‘for which the lords of the council had entered obligations’  (6, 7).

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

(1) PPC V, p. 9 (Permission to go abroad refused).

(2) PPC V, p. 16 (Beaufort to lend 10,000 marks).

(3) Harriss, Beaufort, p. 285 (pardon).

(4) Foedera X, pp.  670-671 (general pardon for jewels).

(5) PPC V, pp. 33-34 (pardon for retaining jewels).

(6) PPC V, p. 41 (repayment to Beaufort of 10,000 marks).

(7) Harriss, Beaufort, p. 285, n. 32 (‘Beaufort now secured repayment of the loan of 10,000 marks made in July 1435 for which the lords of the council had entered obligations’).

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

John Beaufort, Earl of Somerset 

What was Cardinal Beaufort’s reason for offering a loan and deferment of payment until the end of the year?  His nephew, John Beaufort Earl of Somerset was not currently under consideration as a possible king’s lieutenant in France because he was still a prisoner in France. But if an exchange of Somerset for Charles d’Artois, Cout of Eu, could be arranged within the eighteen months of the Earl of Warwick’s indenture, the Cardinal’s ambitions for his nephew to succeed Warwick could be realised (1).

Somerset had been captured at the Battle of Baugé in 1421. He was in the custody of Marie, Duchess of Bourbon.

See Year 1427:  The Earl of Somerset and the Duke of Bourbon.

Charles d’Artois, Count of Eu, had been captured at Agincourt. He had been transferred into the custody of John’s brother Edmund Beaufort, Earls of Mortain’s in 1435.

See Year 1435: The Count of Eu

Cardinal Beaufort had persuaded King Henry, and the Council to allow Somerset, through his attorneys, to purchase Artois from the crown for £12,000 in order to arrange an exchange (2).

Henry VI was old enough to lift Henry V’s ban on Artois’s release, provided the Council approved. Was this the Cardinal’s quid pro quo for his loan?

Some kind of negotiation took place, and in October 1436 and Somerset petitioned the Council for a safe conduct for Gilbert de la Fayette, a marshal of France, nominated by Duchess Marie’s son Charles, Duke of Bourbon, formerly the Count of Clermont, to meet English negotiators in Paris or any convent city in Normandy (3).

Gilbert de la Fayette was a loyal member of King Charles VII’ s council; he had fought at the Battle of Baugé when Somerset was captured. The Duke of Bourbon may have had a sense of irony.

At the end of April 1437 the Council issued a licence to Edmund Beaufort and  Somerset’s representatives, John Middlestrete and Thomas Sutton, to take Artois ‘calling himself Count of Eu’ to France to open negotiations (4).

A safe conduct was issued to Gilbert de la Fayette in December, ‘to take the Earl of Somerset and the Count of Eu to the domains of the French king;’ it was the first step towards Somerset’s release (5).

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

(1) Harriss, Beaufort, p. 279-280 (Cardinal’s efforts to obtain Somerset’s release).

(2) Jones, ‘Beaufort Family,’ p. 41 (purchase of Artois from the crown).

(3) Foedera X pp. 655-656 (Somerset’s petition).

(4) Foedera X, p. 664 (Mortain to take Eu to France).

(5) DKR 48, p. 320 (safe conduct).

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

Edmund Beaufort, Earl of Mortain

Did Council hope for further financial support from the Cardinal in the interests of his nephews? They reviewed Edmund Beaufort’s indenture of 1436 when he had been diverted from his original commission ‘to serve the king in Anjou and Maine’ to go to the defence of Calais. Perhaps the original indenture could be re-issued?  (1,2).

See Year 1436: Edmund Beaufort, Earl of Mortain.

Cardinal Beaufort had paid for his army then and might do so again. But the Cardinal did not want Edmund to form part of the Earl of Warwick’s army, he wanted Edmund to go to France independently in his family’s interests.

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

(1) PPC V, p. 15 (Mortain’s previous indenture).

(2) Jones, ‘Beaufort Family’ thesis, pp. 98-99.

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

Louis of Luxembourg

Louis of Luxembourg, the English Chancellor of France, and Archbishop of Rouen from 1436 (1), came to London early in 1437 while Parliament was in session to discuss the reorganization and the finances of the Council in Rouen, and to secure his own future.

“And to that parlement com ow[gh]t off ffraunce the chaunceler off ffraunce, and ther the kyng yaf vnto him the Bysshopriche of Ely.”  Chronicles of London, (Cleopatra C IV) p. 142

Louis informed the Council through Cardinal Beaufort that he did not want a Frenchman to become the king’s lieutenant in France. Presumably he meant that he wanted a high-ranking Englishman and not a former member of the Regent Bedford’s Grand Conseil. There is no evidence that the Council had considered this. After the Congress of Arras in 1435 and the fall of Paris in 1436, the English had few adherents left in France. Even the Luxembourgs, with the exception of Louis himself, had gone over to King Charles VII.

Harriss suggested that Louis and Cardinal Beaufort joined forces to prevent the appointment of the Duke of Gloucester, but this, while not impossible, is unlikely. If Gloucester had wanted the position, he could have demanded it 1436, and he would probably have got it, but Gloucester did not want it. He wanted recognition of Henry VI as King of France, and if this meant war so be it, but he was not prepared to conduct the war himself.

Louis requested that the Council in Rouen should be strengthened by the appointment of John Kemp, Archbishop of York, the former Chancellor of England, and of Normandy under Henry V, and William Alnwick, Bishop of Lincoln (2).

In June Louis presented his ‘articles’ (requests) to the Council, one of which was for money to be assigned to him as Chancellor of France. An entry under 5 June in the Proceedings reads: ‘An article to be made ‘how that the money shall be employed’ (3).

Apparently in June, although the date in the Proceedings is uncertain, Louis was to be requested to assign twenty archers to one Louis Despoye and pay their wages for six months out of money assigned to him.  If he could not, the cost would be met the English Exchequer (4).

Louis was allocated £5,057 6s 8d at the Exchequer; £3,724 tin July, to be paid to him by three merchants in Rouen, and a further 2,000 marks in advance of the 12,722 marks, 2s 11¾d for the wages of the 800 men at arms and 2400 archers serving in France (5, 6).

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

(1) Papal Letters VIII, pp. 227-228 (Pope Eugenius confirmed the election of Louis of Luxembourg as Archbishop of Rouen).

(2) PPC V, p. 7 (recommendation of Kemp and Alnwick).

(3) PPC V, p. 28 (Luxembourg’s articles)

(4) PPC V, p. 41 (archers to be hired in Rouen).

(5) Issues of the Exchequer, p. 432 (£5,057 6s 8d to Luxembourg).

(6) Harriss Beaufort, p 285 n. 33: (‘on 8 and 17 July £11, 906 to Louis of Luxembourg for his standing force of 800 men at arms and 2,400 archers at the rate of £8,500 per quarter.  Citing E 403/728).

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

Bishop of Ely

Louis was granted an annuity of 1,000 marks from the Exchequer in May (1, 2), possibly by King Henry, but it was soon realised that the Exchequer could not meet the commitment, and a way round it had to be found.

The solution lay with the bishopric of Ely which lay vacant after its bishop, Philip Morgan, died in 1435.  King Henry and the Council chose Thomas Rudbourne Bishop of St David’s to replace Morgan, but Pope Eugenius claimed that he had not been informed of this, and in 1436, at the request of the dean and chapter of Ely cathedral, he had conferred the see of Ely on Thomas Bourchier, Bishop of Worcester, which he thought would please King Henry.

It did not. The Council refused to recognise the pope’s right to nominate, as against confirm, a new bishop even though Eugenius wrote to King Henry and the Duke of Gloucester (whom he believed to be the decision maker in council) in April 1437, urging them to accept Bourchier, since as pope he could not go back on his word, and promising to translate Rudbourne to Ely as soon as a suitable vacancy made it possible to move Bouchier (3).

It may have been these letters that suggested a volte face by King Henry. In June, a month after the grant on the Exchequer was made, Henry wrote to Eugenius to apologise for changing his mind. He no longer recommended Thomas Rudboune; he wished the Pope to agree to the appointment of Louis of Luxembourg, as an administrator for the see of Ely for as long as the see remained in the king’s hands..

This was a euphemism to allow the temporalities of Ely to be paid to Louis in lieu of the grant on the Exchequer, plus his grant of £1,000 from the exchequer in Rouen, which Louise agreed to surrender. He was awarded 250 marks from his 1,000 marks grant for the period from Easter to St Jonh’s Day before the grant lapsed (4). And in December the Exchequer paid his attorney, Gervase Vulre, £500 from the temporalities of Ely (5, 6).

Henry requested Eugenius to accept the substitution and allow Louis to hold Ely in commendam (simultaneously) with the Archbishopric of Rouen, claiming that Louis’s services to the king’s cause in France had resulted in many sufferings and losses, and that Rouen was a poor see, which was not entirely true. The king’s letter even claimed that Ely would be a ‘proper provision’ for Louis, as the king’s kinsman! (7).

Acquiring an English bishopric was Louis’s insurance; so that he could escape to England and live in comfort and safety if things went badly wrong for the English in France. He had probably requested it in his ‘articles’ to the Council.

It was unusual to award an English bishopric to a foreigner, even a naturalised one, who was already a bishop and an archbishop in France. Archbishop Chichele objected; he refused to confer the temporalities on Louis (8). The Council thought it advisable to write to Cardinal Orsini, Cardinal Branda, the Bishop of Bayeux, and the Bishop of Trau seeking their endorsement of Louis.  These were heavy guns brought to bear on influencing the pope (9). Cardinal Beaufort may have been responsible for the exceptional favour shown to Louis. After the Duke of Bedford’s death did Louis transferred his allegiance to Beaufort as the patron most likely to advance his career? He had seen Beaufort’s influence override that even of Bedford during King Henry’s visit to France in 1430/31.

The temporalities of the bishopric of Ely were awarded to Louis in July (10). Pope Eugenius gave in eventually. He needed England’s support against the Church Fathers at Basel, and in October 1437 he issued a decree annulling the translation of Thomas Bourchier ‘because the pope had learned that [it] would not be to the utility of the said two churches’ (11).

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

(1) Foedera X, p. 666 (annuity to Luxembourg, Bishop of Morinensi, i.e., Thérouanne).

(2) CPR 1436-41, p. 55 (annuity).

(3) Papal letters VIII, pp. 230-231 (Bourchier and Rudbourne).

(4) CPR 1436-41, pp. 60 and 65 (grant of temporalities in exchange for annuities).

(5) PPC V, p.  42 (£500 from Ely).

(6) Issues of the Exchequer, p. 433 (£500 from Ely).

(7) Bekyngton, Correspondence I, pp. 4-8 (Henry VI to Eugenius).

(8) Harriss, Beaufort, p. 272 and 279.

(9) Bekyngton I, pp. 8-11 (Henry VI’s letters to bishops).

(10) Foedera X, p. 671 (grant of temporalities).

(11) Papal Letters VIII, p. 252 (Pope annulled translation of Bourchier).

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

Louis was also rewarded in other ways. He became a naturalized English citizen (1). The park keepers of Pleshey, Amptill, and Windsor were instructed to deliver venison to him, one deer from Pleshey, one from Amptill and two from Windsor (2).

William Aleyn, who was probably Louis’s retainer, agreed to carry gold to France on the king’s service. In June an order was issued to Aleyn (for the payment?) of Luxembourg’s expenses (3).

Louis returned to Rouen at the end of July, possibly in the company of Lord Willoughby who sailed for France with the advance guard of the Earl of Warwick’s army.

See Lord Willoughby below

“And that same yere at lammas went the chanceler of ffraunce in to Normandy, and the lorde of Willeby with an c. sperys and the bowys therto.” Cleopatra C IV,  p. 143

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

(1) PPC V, p. 38 (payment for his denization in June).

(2) PPC V, p. 28 (citizenship and venison).

(3) PPC V, pp. 25 and 31 (William Aleyn).

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

Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick

The Council’s chose Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick. Warwick was not royal, but his earldom dated back to the twelfth century, and he had impeccable credentials:  he was wealthy, he had been Henry V’s companion in arms and was renowned for his chivalry and piety. He had been Henry VI’s governor from 1428 to 1436.

Warwick was acceptable to everyone concerned, except perhaps himself.  His strong sense of duty made him accept, but only reluctantly. He was fifty-five, no longer a young man, and he thought his days of serving in France were behind him.

Warwick attended Council throughout the early months of the year while the appointment of a king’s lieutenant was under discussion, so the offer did not come as a surprise. The Council considered requesting Lord Beaumont, Lord Bourchier, and Lord Willoughby to join Warick. John Beaumont had been with the Duke of Gloucester’s expedition to Calais in 1436.  Henry Bourchier was the English Count of Eu. Henry V had bestowed the title on William Bourchier in 1419 and Henry Bourchier inherited it when his father died in 1420. Henry Bourchier was the Duke of York’s brother-in-law. In the end only Lord Willoughby, a veteran of the French wars, agreed to serve.

See Lord Willoughby below

Letters were also sent to Lord Welles who had led the advance guard of the Duke of Gloucester’s army to Calais in 1436 and was partially responsible for forcing the Duke of Burgundy to lift the siege (1).

See Year 1436: The Siege of Calais, Advance Party

On 17 April Warwick asked in Council for assurances that he would receive the same powers and authority as governor of France as had been granted to the Duke of York, and that adequate provision would be made to pay his retinue.  On the following day, 18 April, the Council confirmed Warwick’s ‘articles,’ his conditions for service. A week later on 26 April Warwick agreed ‘to go on the king’s service’ (1).

Nevertheless, it would take three months of discussion, negotiations, fund raising, and cajolery before Warwick was formally appointed as the king’s lieutenant on 16 July 1437, and even then, the Duke of York had to remain in Rouen  until Warwick arrived in November (2, 3).

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

(1) PPC V, p. 8 (Lord Welles).

(2) Foedera X, pp. 674-675 (Warwick appointed).

(3) PPC V, pp. 16-17 (Warwick as king’s lieutenant).

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

Warwick’s articles

Warwick’s articles ‘and the answeres thereto’ were read out in Council and assented to by him on 1 May. A more detailed copy of his memorandum, containing thirteen ‘items’ with the ‘king’s answers was read out at the royal manor of Kennington on 11 May in the presence of King Henry, the Duke of Gloucester, Cardinal Beaufort, the Archbishop of York, the Bishops of London and Lincoln, Warwick himself, and the Earl of Suffolk, Lords Hungerford, Scrope, Tiptoft, Willoughby, de la Warr and Welles, the Chancellor, Treasurer, and Privy Seal (1, 2).

1. What was the extent of his power and authority in France?

Answer: Exactly the same as the powers given to the Duke of York as king’s lieutenant in 1436.

2. How many men would accompany him and how would they be paid?

Answer:  the crown would finance 400 men-at-arms, and the appropriate ratio of archers, to add to the 800 men at arms and 2, 400 archers already in Normandy, to be paid for in money and merchandise.

3. What would Warwick himself be paid?

Answer: he will receive 20,000 francs a year [a franc = 3s 4d] plus payment for thirty men at arms and ratio of archers for his personal retinue.

4. Over what period would the crown commit to support him.

Answer: for eighteen months.

5. That Lords Beaumont. Willoughby and Bourchier, or at least two of them should be approached to join him.

Answer: Lord Willoughby had agreed to go, and one of the others would be asked to go too.

6. Request for artillery and military ordnance.

Answer: Warwick did not get the ordnance he asked for. He wanted 4,000 bows and was allocated 1,500. The 10,000 sheaves of arrows were reduced to 3,000. Four hundred gross strings, to one hundred gross, and 1,000 spear shafts to 400.  Additional spear shafts could be bought more cheaply in Normandy. Warwick wanted cannon, gun powder, and stones sent to the garrisons in France and Normandy.

The Council could not promise him any cannon, but the Duke of Gloucester had taken ordnance over to Calais and not all of it been used. It would be made available to him. He could take gun powder with him and order additional stores in Normandy. Further supplies of ordnance would be sent to him from time to time.

7. Whatever money was advanced to him in cash, for wages, for receipts, for reliefs or for commissions, for whatever reason, repayment was not to be claimed against him in the Exchequer, except for the annual rents from the ‘farms’ that he held of the crown, and these were to be set against the time he spent in the king’s service. A warrant under the great seal, was to be made to the treasurer and barons of the exchequer from time to time, ‘to respite the said processes.’ Answer: granted.
8. If any lands held in chief fell due to him by inheritance, his lawyers should be allowed to sue for livery of them on his behalf. His homage for such lands would be in abeyance until he returned to England, without any fines for the delay.

Answer: granted.

9. If he died on service or was too ill to carry out his duties, neither he, his heirs or his executors would be required to refund any money which had already been paid to him.

Answer: granted, provided that if any men had left his retinue, a claim could be made against them for repayment of their wages.

10. Permission for Warwick to grant lands to the value of £40 annually to the church of our Lady of Warwick to pray for his soul, and for the good estate of the king without having to pay the usual licence fee.

Answer: The king has granted this as it is desired.

11. Warwick claimed that he was due of £5,175 9s 11½d for his previous service in France. He had borrowed £1,106 13s 4d while defending Meaux for the wages of twenty men-at-arms and forty archers for two months; and he had borrowed further sums for King Henry’s coronation in Paris, during the time he was governor of King Henry’s household, and entertained on the king’s behalf in Rouen, and a payment to John Hotoft, treasurer of the household and treasurer of war.

Answer: the king wished that of the sums claimed by Warwick he should receive £1,000 in cash and the balance by assignments, or crown jewels as security, to be held by him for three years; a warrant would be issued to the treasurer to meet these terms.

12. ‘A grete and notable sum of money’ was still owed to him and the Calais garrison from his time as Captain of Calais; the Calais garrison was owed £7,480 18s. 3d. in unpaid wages. How would this debt be paid.

Answer: the debt was acknowledged. Warwick should list the names of the soldiers and the amounts due to them, to be certified in writing.

13.Warwick demanded the right to return to England free of any penalty if the terms of this agreement were not kept.

Answer: agreed, provided Warwick notified the Council of any breaches of the agreement and then waited six weeks for the Council to put the matter right.  If they did not, he was free to return home.

The entries in the Proceedings for 14 May are muddled. It appears there were two meeting of the Council at the Friars Preachers (Grey Friars) in London, one in the morning and another in the afternoon. They gave their consent to a bill confirming the Earl of Warwick as the king’s lieutenant in France. Cardinal Beaufort sent a ring via the Earl of Suffolk to the Council signify his assent (3).

Several warrants were issued to the Treasurer, among them, on 18 May, an order to pay Warwick the £1,1504 [10s crossed through] 7½d due to him: 1,000 marks [£666, 13s. 4d.] in cash and the rest in assignments or by sufficient pledges, deducting the £1,000 which Warwick agreed to remit to the king.  If the Exchequer could not meet this payment Warwick would receive crown jewels as a pledge for the balance owned, to be redeemed in three years’ time (4).

Thomas Derlying and Ralph Ingoldesby were to assemble ships at Portsmouth by 10 June to transport Warwick and an army to France (5).

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

(1) PPC V, p. 22 (Warwick’s preliminary articles).

(2) L&P II, Preface, pp. lxvi-lxxi (thirteen articles).

(3) PPC V, p. 27 (council meetings 14 May).

(4) PPC V, p. 25 (repayment of debt to Warwick).

(5) CPR 1436-41, p. 87 (shipping).

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

 Warwick and the Beauchamp inheritance

Warwick had years of experience serving the crown, and he knew the financial risks involved. One of these was a challenge in his absence to the ownership of property, and he considered a general protection insufficient.

Warwick had married Isabel Despenser as his second wife. She was the widow of his kinsman Richard Beauchamp Earl of Worcester, and mother of Elizbeth Beauchamp who had inherited the Barony of Abergavenny on her father’s death. As Lady Bergavenny Elizabeth claimed Abergavenny in her own right and that of her husband, but Warwick claimed Abergavenny in right of Isabel Despenser as Worcester’s widow, and he intended to hold on to it.

Elizabeth Beauchamp had married Edward Neville, a younger son of Joan Beaufort, Countess of Westmorland, while they were both children. Warwick was well aware of the lengths Countess Joan would go to acquire property for her family; she was quite capable of employing her formidable personality to influence King Henry while Warwick was in France.  Warwick knew Henry’s propensity for making ill-considered grants to anyone who approached him.

As early as 18 April Warwick had demanded that the Council send letters to Countess Joan.  The reason is not given, but the lordship of Abergavenny is the likely cause.  “The Countess of Westmorland was to be directed to conform to the “article” of the Earl of Warwick”  (1). This was not included in the articles of 11 May because it did not pertain to service in France.

The Council sent William Lyndwood, Keeper of the Privy Seal to King Henry at Copped Hall near Waltham Abbey with a ‘schedule,’ probably a copy of the questions and answers of 11 May with the additional conditions Warwick had laid down. Henry replied that he assented, provided the Council approved.

Lyndwood reported his interview with King Henry on 8 June and the Council assented ‘to certain matters for the surety of the Earl of Warwick concerning the lordship of Bergavenny, and for the pardon of Lord Willoughby’ (2). The Chancellor was ordered to accept the Lordship of Abergavenny in King Henry’s name for two years, plus one week, thus placing it under royal protection. Its custody was to be granted to such feoffees as Warwick chose to appoint; they would have licence to re-enfeoff Warwick and his heirs. Otherwise, Warwick would refuse to serve in France.

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

(1) PPC V, p. 16 (letter to the Countess of Westmorland).

(2) PPC V, pp 28-30 and pp. 40-41 (Warwick and Abergavenny).

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

Warwick’s Articles Confirmed

On 5 June the Council reviewed their agreement with Warwick at his request and amended the answers they had given him in May.

King Henry was not present at this meeting, and Warwick asked for confirmation that Henry knew of and assented to his ‘articles.’  John Kemp, Archbishop of York, said he believed that Henry had endorsed them on 20 May, but Warwick said he would not serve in France, ‘do unto the king service of war in France’ until all his conditions were countersigned by the king (1). After months of negotiation this was not what the Council wanted to hear.

On 13 June the Council agreed to arrange payment of the £1,000 in cash owed to Warwick, as outlined in item eleven of his articles and to give security for the balance. This was assigned on the revenues of South Wales over three years, and on the fine for the marriage of the Earl of Arundel, should this occur (2). Humphrey Fitzalan was the only child of John, Earl of Arundel, killed in 1435.  He was only eight in 1437 and the fee for his marriage would have been valuable, but he died in 1438.

On 15 June the Council confirmed yet again that Warwick would have the same powers in France as the Duke of York, and there is an undated entry that ‘the assignment of my Lord of Warwick is passed’ (3).

On 8 July Gilbert Parr, the keeper of the artillery in the Tower of London, was ordered to deliver military supplies to William Gloucester, keeper of the ordnance in Rouen. The record is defective; ‘ [v^c . . . . . de . . . .] xl.c.li  de saltpetre. One pipe of sulphur, 1,000 bows and 1,000 sheaves of arrows for the Earl of Warwick’ (4).

The entry in Issues of the Exchequer is dated 6 July: “To Gilbert Parr, in money paid to him by assignment for 13 barrels of saltpetre, weighing 5252 ½ lbs., price each pound 7d, purchased for the king’s use by the Treasurer of England:  £153 3s 8d (5).

On 9 July the treasurer was authorized to issue a warrant for 750 marks [£466 13s 4d] for the period just past, Easter (31 March) to St John’s Day (24 June). Was it a payment to Warwick?  (6)

Warwick received a final reward on 11 July. He was granted the office of Constable of Bristol and the keeping of the forests of Kingswood and Filwood, and the park at Gillingham ‘with the usual fees and wages’ (7).

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

(1) Wolffe, Henry VI, pp. 89-90 (Warwick’s conditions).

(2) PPC V, pp. 31-33 (payment to Warwick).

(3) PPC V, p. 33 and p.  41 (York’s powers and his assignment).

(4)  PPC V, p. 42 (saltpetre).

(5) Issues of the Exchequer, pp. 431-431 (saltpetre).

(6) PPC V, p. 43 (payment to Warwick?).

(7) CPR 1429-1436, p. 80 (grant to Warwick).

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

Lord Willoughby

The Earl of Warwick had requested that John, Lord Beaumont, Robert Lord Willoughby and Henry Bourchier, the English Earl of Eu, should accompany him to France, but only Lord Willoughby responded positively.

Willoughby was a veteran of Henry V’s wars. He had fought at Agincourt. He was with the Earl of Salisbury at the battle of Cravant, and with the Duke of Bedford at the battle of Verneuil and was captain of Bayeux from 1430.

He campaigned in France during Henry VI’s coronation expedition of 14030/31 and became the English governor of Paris more by accident than design in 1435 but was forced to surrender the city to Charles VII’s army in April 1436, He retired to Rouen and returned to England.

Willoughby was granted a general pardon at Warwick’s request for all offences before 1 May 1437, and for retaining crown jewels pledged to him by Henry V as security for his war services ‘including wages of war, thirds and thirds of thirds of the ransoms of prisoners taken in war and all other gains of war due to the king, or to Henry V’ (1).  He compounded with the crown for what he was owed and was probably required to surrender the jewels.

“Also þe K’ hath granted þe p[ar]don for þe Lord Willoughby.  But first þ^t my said Lord Willoughby make a gen[er]alle acquitance unto þe K.”    PPC V, p. 34

Willoughby indented in May 1437 to serve with  sixty men-at-arms and 420 archers (2); he mustered at Portsmouth at the end of June and sailed in July (3). The ships that had been commissioned in May to transport the Earl of Warwick’s army may have taken Willoughby, and possibly Louis of Luxembourg, back to France.

“And in this yere, anon after Midsomer, the Lord Willoughby, and other lordes with hym, knyghtes and squyers, men of armes and archers, were sent ouer the see into Fraunce, forto strength , mayntene, and kepe the Kynges title and right ϸat he hadde in Fraunce and Normandy.”                                              Brut, Continuation F, p. 471

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

(1) CPR 1436-1441, p. 67 (general pardon).

(2) PPC V, pp. 26-27 (indenture, 14 May).

(3) CPR 1436-1441, p. 88 (Muster 25 June).

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

Peace talks and the Duke of Orleans

The impetus for renewing peace talks with France may have come from the young king, now within sight of his majority. The Duke of Brittany, Pope Eugenius and the Church Fathers at the Council of Basel had all urged King Henry to make peace.

The Duke of Brittany had written to Raoul Le Sage, Lord of St Pierre, a former member of the Grand Conseil, who had become naturalized in England, offering to act as mediator between King Henry and his ‘adversary of France’ and stating that he and Dunois, Bastard of Orleans would provide for the payment of half of the 10,000 marks or 20,000 nobles, (the equivalent of the King of Scots annual ransom) that the Council had demanded for ‘expenses’ to permit the Duke of Orleans to travel to France to meet Brittany (1, 2, 3).

Seven peace commissioners were named: John Kemp, Archbishop of York, William Alnwick, Bishop of Lincoln (Louis of Luxembourg’s nominees to become members of the Council in Rouen) the Earl of Warwick, the Earl of Suffolk, Lord Hungerford, Lord Tiptoft, and John Cornwall Lord Fanhope. Kemp and Suffolk agreed that an attempt to broker a peace should be made, although Suffolk doubted that it would succeed (4).

At the end of April, the Council, issued formal permission for the Duke of Orleans to travel to France to meet the Duke of Brittany, but only ‘on the receipt of the sum of money agreed upon’ (5).

Safe conducts for Orleans’s councillor, John de Saveuse (not John of Savoy as in the Proceedings) and twelve others to come to England were to be issued, and at Orleans’s request, on 10 May further safe conducts for Saveuse and eight of Orleans’s servants to return from France carrying gold, silver and other valuables (6, 7). Louis of Luxembourg, Chancellor of France, was authorised to extend the safe conducts if more time was needed for the envoys to cross through Normandy.

In a letter to the Duke of Brittany in July King Henry expressed his sincere desire to settle the conflict and promised to send the Duke of Orleans to some place near the marches of Brittany, accompanied by persons of high rank, who should be fully empowered to treat for and conclude a peace. The Duke of Anjou (sic) and Charles, Duke of Bourbon, formerly the Count of Clermont, were expected to attend (8). ‘Anjou’ is a scribal error (or genuine ignorance?) for the Duke of Alençon. René of Anjou had just been released on parole by the Duke of Burgundy and was preparing to go to Italy.

The Duke of Orleans was to be informed of King Henry’s initiative and provided with copies of the correspondence setting out ‘the sum agreed.’ His custodian, Sir Reginald Cobham, was to allow Orleans’s herald to confer with the duke (9).

So anxious were the Council to get their hands on the 10,000 marks that on 11 July they issued a safe conduct ‘in the largest wise’ for the bearer to come to England with a retinue of 100 people. They did not know where John de Saveuse was, or which route he was travelling. Louis of Luxemburg in Rouen was instructed to expedite any further safe conducts Saveuse requested (10).

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

(1) Beaucourt Charles VII, vol III, pp. 91-92 (negotiations for Orleans to go to France).

(2) McLeod, Orleans, pp. 219-221 (negotiations for Orleans to go to France).

(3) PPC V, pp. 54-55 (King Henry’s letter to Le Sage).

(4) PPC V, pp. 6 and 9 (peace commissioners).

(5) Foedera X, pp. 663-664 (permission for Orleans to meet Brittany).

(6) PPC V, pp. 13 and 14 and 24 (safe conducts for Saveuse to come to England).

(7) Foedera X, p. 665 (safe conducts for Saveuse in May).

(8) PPC V, pp.  52-54 (King Henry’s letter to Brittany).

(9) PPC V, p. 44 (Orleans’s herald and others to visit him).

(10) PPC V, p. 51 (instructions to Louis of Luxembourg).

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

The Great Council and the Duke of Orleans

When the Great Council met in October, the Chancellor reported that payment for the Duke of Orleans’s ‘expenses’ should have been received in May, but it had not arrived. The date had been postponed to July and then to the end of September when safe conducts for the men supposedly bringing the money were extended to January 1438.

The sum agreed for ‘expenses’ was a euphemism for the Council’s determination to extract a ransom from Orleans as the price of allowing him to leave England.  No matter how elaborate the embassy appointed to accompany him, it would not amount to 10,000 marks.

The Great Council decided to summons the Duke of Orleans for a meeting with King Henry. Sir Reginal Cobham was instructed to bring him to London and then to Sheen on Monday 28 October to discuss ‘matters respecting a peace with France.’

Could money for the men-at-arms and archers required to act as Orleans’s bodyguard (and to make sure he returned?) be made available to the Chancellor of France for him to recruit them in Rouen for the meeting in Cherbourg?  Some councillors thought this was a sound idea, it would be much cheaper than hiring them in England.

The Duke of Gloucester, Cardinal Beaufort and John Kemp, Archbishop of York objected strongly. They argued that if Orleans failed to meet his commitment to pay ‘the agreed sum’ of 10,000 marks (20,000 nobles) he would probably break his other promises too and there would be no point in sending him to France. Moreover, the ‘adverse party’ would take advantage of a perceived weakness and would demand more concessions from King Henry, ‘from appointment (agreement) to new appointment’ which could seriously damage the king’s reputation, it ‘should be so gret an hert to the king’ that it would undermine his position in future negotiations.

Apparently John of Saveuses and Jean Le  Fuzeliers, Orleans’s officers had offered part of the sum required for the duke’s ‘expenses.’ The Great Council debated whether the king should accept 12,000 nobles or break off the negotiations. Most of the councillors were in favour of accepting, provided the ‘adverse party’ (King Charles VII) or his ambassadors or the Duke of Brittany and ‘others’ would agree to come to Cherbourg.

The Treasurer Lord Cromwell warned of a possible default on the repayment of loans made to the crown. What should he do if the Exchequer had to finance the Duke of Orleans, and there was not enough money to meet both commitments? He was told that he would be advised.

In the end the Council postponed a decision, hoping against all expectation that the promised money would arrive from France (1). The discussions continued into 1438.

See Year 1438: Peace Talks, the Duke of Orleans

Orleans’s expectation of freedom was destined to be disappointed once again. John Chardon and John le Gautier, two of Orleans’s retainers, received safe conducts in November for four months to bring goods and ‘furnishing’ to him in England (2).

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

(1) PPC V, pp. 67-68 (Great Council discussion of Orleans).

(2) Foedera X, p. 679 (Orleans’s servants in November).

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

The War in France

The Navy

At the end of April, the Council agreed to assemble a fleet of ships ‘for the defence of the sea’ Five hundred men-at-arms and two thousand five hundred archers should be raised. They would be paid half in money and half in provisions (1).

On 10 May the Council ordered payment for six months, a quarter ‘in hande’ and a quarter ‘at the seaside.’  And on the following day warrants for payment were issued to the Treasurer to make payments in cash. Lord Carew, Sir William Wolf, and Thomas Neville were to be ordered to implement this decision (2).

Nicholas, Baron of Carew is probably the Lord Carew included in the list of West Country gentlemen to whom King Henry addressed letters in 1436 adjuring them to look to the defence of their coastline against the French.

Sir William Wolf had been commissioned to engage ships and men to transport food stuffs to Calais during the Duke of Gloucester’s expedition in 1436 ‘and to resist the king’s enemies both by land and sea.’ He may have had ships available (3).

Thomas Neville is unidentified.

John Holand, Earl of Huntingdon, the Admiral of England was presumably in overall command of the naval forces.  In June Robert Whittingham, the Treasurer of Calais was ordered to deliver a balinger which the Earl of Arundel’s executors had sold to the king after Arundel’s death in 1435 which the Earl of Huntingdon had then bought from the crown (4)

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

(1) PPC V, pp. 19-20  (assembling fleet).

(2) PPC V pp. 24-25 (provision for the navy).

(3) CPR 1429-1436 pp. 202 and 356 (William Wolf).

(4) PPC V, pp. 27-28 (balinger delivered to Huntingdon).

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

A failed attempt by La Hire and Xaintrailles to capture Rouen in 1436 had left the council in Rouen decidedly nervous.

See Year 1436: Rouen.

In January 1437, the Duke of York issued a warrant in King Henry’s name to John Stanlowe, treasurer of finances in Normandy, to employ four scouts ‘to keep watch by night outside the gates of Rouen and in the open countryside’ to warn of ‘ambuscades and approaches of the enemy.’ They were to be paid three sols and four pence livres tournois for each watch night from month to month. Guy de la Villette, sheriff of Rouen, was to make the payments and account for them to Lord Talbot as the chief military commander in Rouen (1).

(1) L& P II, p. 286 (payment to four scouts).

 Poton de Xaintrailles 

Professional war captains such as La Hire and Xaintrailles were invaluable to King Charles VII in prosecuting his war against the English. Xaintrailles had been captured in 1432 and released ‘to raise his ransom’ in 1433. King Charles was prepared to pay to get him back.

See Years 1432 and 1433 for Xaintrailles.

Charles paid 1,000 livres tournois to Xaintrailles in April 1432, as well as 4,000 écus for his marriage (1).

In May 1437 Charles ordered Mace Heron, the receiver general for Languedoc, to pay ‘our welbeloved’ Poton de Xaintrailles, master of horse, 4,200 livres tournois as part of the 6,000 reaulx (a reaulx was worth 3s 4d) which the king had granted to Xaintrailles to help him pay the charges for his imprisonment and the ransom (2).

The king also ordered a payment of 1,000 livres tournois to Jehan de Vendôme who ‘had long been kept in prison,’ to help with his ransom (3).

See Year 1434: John of Vendôme, vidame of Chartres

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

(1) Beaucourt, Charles VII, vol. III, p. 141, n 3 (earlier payment to Xaintrailles).

(2) L&P II, Preface pp. lxiv (payment to (Xaintrailles).

(3) L&P II, Preface p. lxv (Jehan de Vendome).

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

 Lord Talbot and Tancarville

While awaiting the arrival of the new king’s lieutenant, Lord Talbot pursued the war .

The Estates of Normandy had voted a tax of 190,000 livres tournois in December 1436 for the garrisons in Normandy and for the recovery of towns lost to the French, to be collected in two instalments in 1437 (1).

Pierre Baille, the receiver General of Normandy, and Thomas Hunt, controller of Normandy finances received £830 19s 3d livres tournois, from Guillaume Poisson, receiver of Carentan in April 1437. They assigned the money to Talbot in four instalments of ‘good silver’ to fund his campaigns (2).

The fortress of Tancarville had been captured by the French during the uprising in the pay de Caux in December 1435. Situated on a cliff overlooking the Seine between Caudebec and Harfleur, it had to be taken before Harfleur could be recovered.

Talbot laid siege to Tancarville in August with about 2,000 men,1200 from the garrisons and 800 raised personally, some from among discharged soldiers living off the land, thus supplying his needs and reducing brigandage in the area (3).

Talbot combined a naval blockade on the Seine with his army while keeping an extra field force in reserve to counter any threat from contingents of French garrisons in fortresses all around him. His tactics were successful, Tancarville surrendered in November (4).

“And that’s same yere the lorde Talbot leyd sege vnto the castell of Tankervyle in Caux standyng vpon Sayn [Seine] bank, wich sege lasted well a iiij monthes.  The wiche whas yolden vnto the sayd lord Talbot.”     Cleopatra C IV,  p. 143

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

(1) Beaurepaire, Les ètats de Normandie, p. 59 (tax).

(2) L&P I, p. 65 (payment to Talbot).

(3) Pollard, Talbot, pp. 72-73 (Tancarville).

(4) Jones, ‘Beaufort Family,’ p. 140 (Talbot’s tactics).

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

 Montereau

While Talbot was recovering Tancarville, French troops under the command of the Dauphin Louis besieged the town of Montereau one of the few strongholds still held by the English outside Normandy. The siege lasted from 24 August to 10 October when the French took it by storm.

Its captain, Thomas Gerard, negotiated for permission to march out to Rouen with his garrison and permission was granted à la requeste de Monseigneur le Daulphin (1, 2, 3).

Cleopatra C IV claims that the fourteen-year-old Dauphin was well pleased by Gerard’s capitulation, because Montereau was the first town that he had assaulted successfully in person.

“And whan that the sege whas leyd, the dolphyn of ffraunce, with all his lordys leyd sege vnto a riall tovne that whas callyd Motrewe-I-fort-Jon. [Montereau-faut-Yonne].  And the captayn therof whas named Thomas Gerard. And so that sege contynued well a quarter of a yere, and whas won with a sawte; and than he with drowe him with all his meyne vnto the castell, in the wiche he made his composisscion to have all his men and goodis sauffe vnto Rooen.  And with a good savf condite of the dolphyn; and the sayd Thomas Gerarde had good chere of the dolphyn, because that he whas the first Englisshman that euyr he beseged.  And so he cam dovne vnto Rooen with all his bagage and men sauff and sound.”  Chronicles of London (Cleopatra C IV) p. 143

Cleopatra C IV also records that the Duke of York wanted to lead a force to retrieve Montereau, but his initiative was vetoed by the council in Rouen. They argued that York’s commission had expired, even though the Earl of Warwick had not yet arrived. Despite York’s extensive powers as the King’s Lieutenant in France, he was not a free agent, he was overruled by the Council in Rouen and  Montereau was lost permanently (4, 5).

“And the duke of York that tyme beyng in the town of Rooen, and wold have resceyvd the sayd tovne of mustrew, but his counsell wold not counsell him therto, cause whi that the kyng had sent him his discharge of his leuftenauntship of ffraunce, and the Erll of Warwyk made leuftenaunt of fraunce in his stede. And ther fore whas not the towne of mustrwre rescewyd, but lost &c.”  Cleopatra C IV, p. 143

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

(1) G. Gruel, Chronique d’Arthur de Richemont. pp. 260-61 (Montereau).

(2) Bourgeois, p. 318 (Montereau).

(3) Chartier, Chronique I, pp. 236–238 (Montereau).

(4) Pollard, Talbot, p. 39 (York and Montereau).

(5) Johnson, Duke Richard of York, p. 30 (York and Montereau).

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

Montargis and Francois de Surienne

Dunois, Bastard of Orleans had captured the town and castle of Montargis in 1427. In July 1433 two free-lance war captains in English pay, Perrinet Gressart and François de Surienne, called L’Aragonais, repossessed it for the English and de Surienne became captain of Montargis.

See Years 1427 and 1433: The War in France, Montargis.

The Earl of Suffolk crossed to France with the Duke of York in 1436, bringing payment for captains holding towns and castles, among them de Surienne for Montargis (1).

De Surienne visited London in the spring of 1437 to claim the wages still due to him (1). In June the council ordered payment of £800 to de Surienne ‘for the wages of himself and his retinue’ up to Easter 1437 (2, 3).

In July he received a safe conduct to return to Montargis and was awarded £116 19s 2d in wages up to the previous Easter, and a warrant to the Chancellor to recommend him for the first lands that . . . . . [lacunae]become available?] (4).

The Exchequer paid de Surienne’s agent, Gueriner de Romare [Garnier de Tonnerre?]  £994 3s ‘which the lord king with the advice of the council commanded to be paid to the said Francois for the safe custody of the castle and town as was agreed and settled between the Earl of Suffolk and the said Francis’ (5).

Dunois laid siege to Montargis again in the autumn of 1437.  De Surienne held out for the best part of two months, but in December with no relief in sight, he sold out to Dunois in the time-honoured custom and agreed to surrender Montargis for a hefty bribe.  Under the peculiar arrangements of medieval warfare he remained at Montargis, technically holding it for Henry VI for almost a year until Charles VII came up with the money.  In November 1438 de Surienne honoured his commitment and marched out with the garrison (6). De Surienne was a mercenary. There was no disgrace in surrendering when no relief was forthcoming, and de Surienne continued in English employ, his skills as a war captain were well known.

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

(1) Bousset, Perrinet Gressart et François de Surienne, pp. 261-262 (Suffolk and de Surienne)

(2) PPC V, p. 29 (the entry dated 8 June is unclear: ‘for the safe keeping of the castle and town oyt hundred ‘sessan’ys and 37 shillings and 500 deniers  to Easter).

(3) PPC V, p. 34 (£800).

(4) PPC V, p. 44 (further payment to de Surienne authorised).

(5) Issues of the Exchequer, p. 432 (£994 3s payment to de Surienne).

(6) Sumption, Triumph and Illusion, p. 544 (surrender of Montargis).

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

Le Crotoy

 Burgundy’s failure to capture Calais still rankled and he had not learned his lesson. In October 1437, he sent men, ordnance, and supplies, to erect a siege tower at Le Crotoy, a port at the mouth of the Somme in Picardy, that had surrendered to the Regent Bedford in 1424 (1).

See Years 1423: The Siege of Le Crotoy

In November the Earl of Warwick, newly arrived in Rouen, sent Lord Talbot, Lord Fauconberg, Sir Thomas Kyriell, and Sir John Montgomery, to rescue Le Crotoy.

Talbot forded the Somme within sight of Le Crotoy and led his men into the plains of Picardy where they pillaged, looted and laid waste the countryside. The Burgundian besiegers took fright and abandoned the siege, leaving their artillery behind.

The Duke of Burgundy was at Abbeville to the northeast of Le Crotoy. Talbot challenged him to give battle, but the duke refused. Having raised the siege, Talbot and his men returned to Rouen with their booty early in December. Sir Thomas Kyriell captured a carriage – possibly a gun carriage – belonging to the duke and brought it back with him (2, 3).

“And in this mene tyme the duke of Borgoyn had besegid the castell of Crotey in pycardy with a m¹ men, and grete ordenaunce(s) of gonnes, the wich myght not be rescevyd by hem of Englond and (in) soo schort tyme.  Wherfore the Erll of Warwyk made ordenaunce(s) be the counsell beth for to rescewe the sayd place of Crotey; and sent theder the lord Talbot, the lord ffacombryg, Sir Thomas Keryell, Sir John Montgomery, and many other knyghtes and squyeris and good yemen to the nomber of vij m¹ men, and passed the reuer of Somme beside the tovne of Seint Wallery, [St Valery] for the passage of the bank takke [the ford at Blanche Taque].

The duke of Borgoyn hadde leyd gonnes a longe the Riuer side to kepe the Englisshmen that thei schulde not passe.  And at that, theras the lord Talbot passid, whas ther not passing a vi men perisshed in the watyr vp to the chynne. 

And whan that he whas passed the duke ffled vnto Abvile.  And the lordys that weryn ther of his party with him ffled echon; a v. c. men that weryn lefft in a bastyll, the wiche were take and slayn eury moder sonne. 

Allso the lorde Talbot rescevid that castell of Crotey, and rode forth in to Pycardy, and sent word vnto the Duke of Borgoyn that he schuld kom and fy[gh]t with hem, or ellis he wolde bren all his lond.  And so he did moch harme of fire, and brent many a stately village but natwithstandyng the Duke wolde nat com for to ffy[gh]te.  But stale ow[gh]t of Abvile be nyght, and went vnto Amyas ffor the more suer tovne. 

And so the lorde Talbot whas with in the contre of Picardy well a xx dayes or more.  And Sir Thomas Keryell had won the Dukys cariage, and brow[gh]t it with him in to Normandy.  And thei that weryn within the sayd castell of Crotey had moch vetayll, i-now to ffynd vi^c men withall a quarter of a yere and more, of that the duke had left behynd him whan that he ffled ffrom the sege of Crotey.”

                          Cleopatra C IV, pp. 144-145

The chroniclers Monstrelet and Wavrin give almost identical accounts of the action around Le Crotoy, but they do not agree with Cleopatra C IV (4, 5). According to Wavrin, Burgundy visited the siege in person, but he did not stay. Wavrin estimates Talbot’s forces at 4,000, and somewhat coyly says the duke ‘avoided’ battle; he does not mention a challenge from Talbot, or Sir Thomas Kyriell’s exploit.

Sometime in December, a ship commanded by Geoffrey Gawer was sent to Le Crotoy by the Council (on the orders of the Treasurer) to report on the town’s relief.  He and his crew of twenty men were retained at Le Crotoy to help man its defences after Talbot withdrew. They remained there for forty days, and during that time their ship, lying at anchor under the castle was burnt by ‘the king’s enemies and rebels,’ presumably marauding Burgundians. Gawer claimed 40 marks in recompense for his ship and £20 for wages for himself and his crew. He received £46 13s 4d from the Exchequer (6).

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

(1) Vaughan, Philip, p. 84 (Burgundy laid siege to Le Crotoy).

(2) Pollard, Talbot, p. 49 (Talbot raised the siege).

(3) Beaucourt, Charles VII, vol III, p. 12.

(4) Wavrin IV, pp. 227-241.

(5) Monstrelet II, pp. 58-59.

(6) Issues of the Exchequer, p. 435 (Gawer recompense for ship).

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

Richard, Duke of York

York’s indenture as the king’s lieutenant in France for one year expired on 1 May 1437. Early in April the Council thanked York for his services but ordered him and the other war captains in Normandy to remain in post until a new king’s lieutenant arrived (1). York did not return to England until the end of the year.

See Year 1436: The Duke of York.

York sent letters to captains of towns and castles in Normandy to inform them that he had been ordered to stay on and instructing them to do likewise.

To Thomas, Lord Scales, the Seneschal of Normandy who became captain of Vire, in 1436, although his deputy Sir Henry Norbury acted for him (3, 4). Scales’s term was due to expire ‘shortly,’ and York stipulated for one additional month with the same number of men at arms and archers. Scales was to take a muster so that payment of his and their wages could be paid.

Three of these letters, two dated to 20 June, and one dated 1 September, went to the captains of Vire and Tombelaine ordering them to stay ‘for a short period’ after their indentures expired (2).

To William de la Pole, the Earl of Suffolk who became captain of Tomberlaine in April 1429, or his lieutenant with the same instructions.  Tombelaine is a small island in the stretch of water between Mont St Michel (held by the French) and the coast of Normandy. It was usually under the command of the captain of Avranches (5).

These two letters were written in June. By September York’s administration in Rouen had realized that Suffolk was no longer captain of Tomberlaine, and York addressed a third letter in September to ‘the captain of Tomberlaine or his lieutenant,’ in which York says he will remain in Normandy throughout September and requests the captain of the town (whose name he does not know) to take the muster for the months of July and August.

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

(1) PPC V, p. 6-7 (York to remain in Normandy).

(2) L&P II, pp. 289–294 (Three letters from York).

(3) L&P II, ii, ‘Worcester’s Collections,’ p. 631 (Scales and Vire).

(4) Marshall, War Captains, p. 278 (Henry Norbury).

(5) Marshall, War Captains, p. 273 (captain of Avranches).

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

The Earl of Warwick to Normandy

The dates for the departure of the Earl of Warwick from England and his arrival in Normandy vary considerably in the chronicles. He first attempted to cross the Channel in August 1437, but he was driven back by storms.

Benet’s Chronicle says he embarked on 29 August and again on 8 September.

[Latin] “In the year 1437 about the Feast of St John the Baptist [29 August], the Earl of Warwick attempted to cross into Normandy with his wife, but while they were at sea there were such gales that his fleet was very nearly sunk, and they barely managed to return to the English coast.  Warwick then left his wife in England, and about the feast of the Nativity of the Virgin [8 September] he crossed again with 10,000 men.                         Benet’s Chronicle pp. 185-186

“Ande the same yere the Erle of Warwyke went into Fraunce the xxix day of Auguste; he schippyd at Portysmouthe.”          Gregory’s Chronicle, p. 180

Cleopatra C IV claims that Warwick made seven attempts to cross the channel against contrary winds before reaching Honfleur on 6 November.

“And all this mene tyme whas the Erll of Warwyk abydyng wynde and weder att the see side with all his ost more than xj wekis &c. And this same yere the vi day of Novembre the erll of Warwyk passed the see in to Normandy warde with a m¹ men of werre for to kepe the duche of Normandy, wiche hadde moch tribulacion vpon the see or that he might pass the see, for he whas vij tymes schipped or evyr he might passe in to Normandy; and att the last he londid at the tovne of humflewe [Honfleur] the viij day of Nouembre with all his men, and from thense he roode fforth to Rooen.”   

                              Cleopatra C IV pp. 142-143

The contingent of 1,000 men with him is confirmed by Annales (p. 762).  Benet’s figure of 10,000 men is inflated.

Chronicon Angeliae, (p. 17) also notes that he had been driven back by contrary winds.

Brut F dates his arrival to 1 November and adds that his son, Henry Beauchamp, Lord Spencer was with him

“And in this same yere, at ϸe Natiuite of oure Lady Seint Mary, [8 September] ϸe Erle of Warwik was ordeyned and comaunded ouer the see into Fraunce and Norma[n]dy, forto be lieftenaunt and gouernour in the Kynges name, with strenght of all ϸe partyes and landes ϸat the King hath byyonde the see, as in Fraunce, Normandy, and Gascoyne.”       Brut Continuation F, p. 471           

“and so the same tyme he toke his iourney with lordes, knyghtes and squyers, men of armes and archers, a royall and a worthy company and toke with hym ϸe lady his wife, and the yonge Lord Spencer, his sonne and his heire, and shipped in Goddes name, and toke the see.  And when they were forth in the see, there arose grete tempestes, stormes and wyndes; and then they stode in peril of deth; and so, as God wold, he was dryven ageyn into England costes, and were saved; and so, at Allhalowentyde next, the good Erle of Warwyk toke his shippyng ageyn, and passed ouer the see, and come with his peple to Roan in saufte, thanked be God!      Brut Continuation F, pp. 471-472 

A date between 1 and 8 November for his arrival in Rouen is accepted by modern historians.  A council minute dated 9 November 1437 notes that a letter is to be sent to Warwick ordering him to take a muster of the troops in Normandy. The date does not, of course, establish when Warwick reached Rouen, only that he was presumed to be there on 9 November.

Warwick was to appoint commissioners to take the general musters of English troops in the field and in the garrisons in France. If the numbers of men ‘in the field’ i.e. fighting men as against those on garrison duty, were below strength the king was to be notified immediately through Sir John Popham, the treasurer for war, and Par (?) so that reinforcements might be sent without loss of time.

This instruction is followed by a cryptic entry that it would be useless to transfer £24,000 to France if no Englishmen were there to receive it, ‘for to send over £24,000 to France ‘wer noon Englishmen to receive it, it wer but in vayn,’ is a mystery (1).

Did the Council consider that such as sum, which was well beyond the Exchequer’s means as Treasurer Cromwell kept reminding them, would be needed to bring the army in Normandy to strength?

Richard Curson, one of Warwick’s lieutenants, a professional soldier who had served under the Regent Bedford was to be ordered to examine the state of the country and hasten to the king with his answers and to the letters sent to the Earl of Warwick. Garter King of Arms was paid 20 marks to carry letters to Warwick (2).

The Council was naturally concerned for the safety of Normandy but orders such as advising the king if more troops were needed, and the reference to £24,000 was whistling in the dark. The Council had exhausted its resources in sending the Earl of Warwick to Rouen with an army.

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

(1) PPC V, p. 70 (Warwick to take musters, reference to £24,000).

(2) PPC V, p 73 (Curson to report on Normandy).

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

A Great Council

On 21 October 1437 a Great Council assembled at the palace of Sheen in King Henry’s presence and moved to the Hospitaller’s Priory of St John at Clerkenwell on 9 November.

The Duke of Gloucester, Cardinal Beaufort, Henry Chichele Archbishop of Canterbury, John Kemp, Archbishop of York, William Alnwick Bishop of Lincoln, Robert Neville Bishop of Salisbury, the Earls of Huntingdon Stafford, Salisbury, Northumberland and Suffolk, steward of the household. Lords Hungerford, Tiptoft, Welles, and Fanhope. William Phelip, chamberlain of the household.  Pho [Philip?] de Courtenay, Sir Henry Bromflete, Sir John Stourton and Lord de la Warr.  The Chancellor, John Stafford, the Treasurer, Lord Cromwell, and William Lyndwood, Keeper of the Privy Seal.

Three additional names are recorded as present on 24 October and were probably omitted from the original list, or they may have arrived a few days late: Thomas Bourchier, Bishop of Worcester, the Earl of Devon (in brackets) and the Abbot of Glastonbury.

Robert Gilbert Bishop of London, Thomas Broun Bishop of Norwich, John Whethamstede the Abbot of Bury St Edmunds. and Sir William Bonville are noted as present on 5 November, but a note in the margin indicates they too may have been present on 21 October.  The Duke of Norfolk appears in the margin of the 5 November entry (1).

Chancellor Stafford announced that the Great Council had been summoned to advise the king on three important subjects, the Council of the Church at Basel, the Duke of Orleans and royal finance (2). All letters to be sent on the authority of King Henry and the Great Council were to be examined and copies of them made (3).

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

(1) PPC V, pp. 65-70 (Council meetings at Sheen, from 21 October) to 5 November).

(2) PPC V, pp. 64- 66 (Chancellor’s statement).

(3) PPC V, p. 66 (letters from the council to be recorded).

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

An undated and indecipherable paragraph assigned to 22 or 23 October by Nicolas appears to be notes of topics to be discussed:

‘. . . . . . . .  [for’ Henri Bromflete and . . . . . .  . appoint . . . . . . . of . . . . . . .  [con]duyt of the Duke of Orleans  . . . . . . . that the King should agree to the . . . . . . . . ed to Saveuses and Fuzelier of the which credence the Chancellor of France . . . . . . . .d pees rake some other way etc.  . . . .  to the general council in the [best] manner [and] as precedents have passed before’ (1).

Was Henry Bromflete to be appointed with others to conduct the Duke of Orleans to France?   King Henry should accept the offer of payment submitted by Saveuses and Fuzellier (see below The Duke of Orleans). Did Louis of Luxemburg endorse the credence caried by Saveuses?  Or did he suggest some other way to achieve peace?  A communication to the General Council at Basel was to be prepared based on passed on precedents?

(1) PPC V, p. 67 (indecipherable. They may be shorthand notes taken by the clerk of early council meetings (see matching references below).

The General Council of the Church at Basel

Chancellor Stafford cited the Council of the Church at Basel as the first reason for calling the Great Council. The struggle for supreme authority between Pope Eugenius and the Church Fathers at Basel had not abated; they tolerated each other but remained hostile.

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

A projected union between the Catholic Churches in the West and the Greek Orthodox Churches in the East, promoted by Pope Eugenius was under discussion, the issue was not the meeting but the right to choose the venue and conduct the debates (which the Council thoroughly enjoyed) with the Greek delegates.

The Council at Basel was itself divided: a majority favoured remaining in Basel or failing that a meeting at Avignon or Savoy. A minority preferred a town in Italy as the Greeks were reluctant to travel north of the Alps. Feelings ran so high in Basel that the delegates almost came to blows.

Eugenius was delighted. Naturally he favoured Italy, and on 18 September he issued a papal bull transferring the Council to Ferrera where he was. The General Council, reunited in the face of this threat to their authority, warned Eugenius that they would suspend him within four months and depose him within six months of the issue of his last papal bull unless he cancelled his decree, the implication being that they would elect another pope (1).

They issued a monitorium (an admonition or condemnation) against Pope Eugenius which was likely to lead to a schism in the Church.

A cryptic entry in Brut Continuation G (dated tor 1435) refers to two miracles: The first was three suns seen in the sky at one time, a favourite augury, presumably relating in this case to the split between the Pope, the Church Fathers and the ‘neutrals’ at Basel.  I have found no other record of the second miracle, the holy maid who turned vegetarian.

“This same yeer wer seen thre Sonnes at ones & Anone folowed þe threfolde gouernance in þe chirch þat is to wete of Eugeny þe Pope, of the Counsel, & of þe neutralitie. 

About þis tyme was an holy maid in Holand called Lydwith which lyued onely bi miracle not etynge any mete.”   Brut Continuation G, p. 503

The possibility of a schism in the Church alarmed the English Council, especially the bishops who had supported the Council at Basel initially; but even they had instructed their delegates to steer clear of suspending or deposing the pope and electing his replacement. King Henry wished to have the advice of his council on how he should act

See Year 1434: General Council of the Church at Basel: Instructions to Delegates

The scandal of two popes hurling anathemas at each other was a recent memory; it had only been resolved by the Council of Constance in 1417 when both popes, and a third contender, were deposed and Pope Martin V was elected with the support of Henry V and the then Henry Beaufort.

Who composed the lengthy letters in Latin in King Henry’s name?  Certainly not Henry himself. How far do they express the young king’s thoughts, and how far are their pronouncements put into his mouth and by whom? One suggestion would be Cardinal Beaufort, but Beaufort had other interests. The most likely candidate is Archbishop Chichele, an ardent papalist despite Pope Martin V’s cavalier treatment of him.  The letters demonstrate strong support for Eugenius and disapproval of the General Council, which match Chichele’s sentiments.

The letters are detailed but repetitive, they harp on the same theme: King Henry is outraged and astounded, a schism in the church cannot be tolerated, and the Council at Basel is grievously at fault for issuing a condemnation or censure against Pope Eugenius.  England will support the pope and the move to Ferrara.

The letter to Dietrich [Theodoric] prince archbishop of Cologne announced that King Henry had written to Pope Eugenius and to the Church Fathers at Basel. He will write to the Emperor Sigismund and the Imperial Electors in Germany. The letter condemned the threat to the Pope, the archbishop should do his duty, along with all Christian princes, and intervene.

The letter to Emperor Sigismund condemned the monitory and urged Sigismund to co-operate in any attempt to persuade the Council to withdraw their threat. The dispute over the venue for a meeting with the Greeks can surely be resolved (2).

There are two letters to Pope Eugenius, similar though not worded exactly, the one from Clerkenwell may be the same letter redrafted. King Henry supported the Pope’s decision to transfer the Council to Ferrara, and he has written to the Council at Basel to express this. He will send delegate to Ferrara.

The letter to the Council at Basel is condemnatory. The Council not Pope Eugenius is at fault. King Henry had supported the Council in the past but will do so no longer unless the threat to the pope is withdrawn. The Council should consult with other rulers, who were not fools; they too understood the danger of a schism. It would be a calamity too great to contemplate and would hinder, not help, the desired union with the Greek Orthodox Church. And it would end in Council’s failure to accomplish its laudable intentions (3).

A warrant was issued to the Exchequer to give 20 marks to John Heyne, a friar, who would carry letters from King Henry to the Pope, the Emperor, and to the General Council at Basel (4, 5).

Louis of Luxembourg wrote from Rouen requesting to be informed what conclusion the king had reached and what he planned to do about the schism in the Church (6).

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

(1) The New Cambridge Medieval History, ed. Allmand, pp. 71-72

(2) Bekynton, Official Correspondence II, pp. 83-86 (letter to Sigismund)

(3) Bekynton, Official Correspondence II, pp. 37-45 (to Basel); pp. 46-49 and 80-82 (to Eugenius); pp. 86-90 (to Cologne).

(4) PPC V, p. 82 (warrant to John Heyne).

(5) Issues of the Exchequer, pp. 433-434 (20 marks to Heyne).

(6) PPC V, p. 66 (Luxembourg’s letter).

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

Chancellor Stafford’s second reason for calling a Great Council was the Duke of Orleans.

See Peace Talks and the Duke of Orleans above.

The third reason for calling a Great Council was traditional: it was customary for kings to summon GreatCouncils to debate and advise on how best the cost of government should be met.

Calais

Although not mentioned in the Chancellor’s opening address, the defence of Calais formed part of the financial discussions.

A declaration of the state of Calais and its requirements, drawn up by the lieutenant of Calais, was presented to the Council by Henry Inglose (1).

Calais was discussed at a meeting on 5 November with King Henry, the Duke of Gloucester and Cardinal Beaufort present. It was agreed that provision should be made to pay Gloucester what was due to him as Captain of Calais. He was to receive one part of one quarter in cash and the rest in in kind, wheat, malt, barley, oats or oat malt were to be collected for shipment from Kent to Calais. Billets to be purveyed by an officer of the Hall (a member of the royal household) although the figure given, 300,000, is surely an error (2)

A week later 9 November at Clerkenwell the Council agreed that consultations should be held with the Duke of Gloucester on the best means of financing Calais in the future as cheaply as possible ‘that Calais might be kept with as little charge as possible’ (3).

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

(1) PPC V, p. 66 (state of Calais).

(2) PPC V, pp. 69-70 (payment and provisions to Gloucester).

(3) PPC V, pp. 70-71 (Gloucester to be consulted on Calais).

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

Concern for the safety of Calais sparked a rumour in London that the Duke of Burgundy planned to attack the castle at Guines in the west of the Pale of Calais. The rumour caused panic in the Council: would Calais itself be Burgundy’s next objective?

It is difficult to reconstruct the exact sequence of events from the fragmentary entries in the Proceedings, some of them misdated. Sometime between 9 November and 14 November while the Council was at Clerkenwell, John Sutton, Lord Dudley was appointed as the king’s lieutenant of Calais.

On 18 November the Council discussed what should be done to rescue Guines and defend Calais (1).  They faced two difficult and possibly unsolvable problems: the perennial lack of money and the increasing reluctance of men to serve in France; the dangers were the same, but the profits of war had dried up.

Cardinal Beaufort reported that King Henry had been informed of the danger of a foray against Calais and Guines by ‘he who calls himself’ Duke of Burgundy.’ Henry had requested that the council send commissions of array ‘to notable persons’ in every county to be ready to assemble when summoned, should this prove necessary.

The Earl of Salisbury said the array should be according to custom ‘the form of the statute.’

Sir John Stourton and the Treasurer Cromwell opined that commissioners ‘the worthiest in the shire,’ should array as many people as possible, even including men from the Inns of Court, at wages for one month. The commissioners were to report the names of the local captains.

The Chancellor said that the letters of privy seal to the commissioners should stress the importance of Guines for the defence of Calais, together with any other arguments that might motivate men to serve.

The Earl of Suffolk opined that the commissioners should inform the people that they would be serving the king under leaders that the king would appoint with wages for more than a month if the king so wished.

The Earl of Northumberland and Humphrey, Earl of Stafford, are listed as speaking but  their contribution is not recorded.

Commissions of array were to be issued in the shires, but the Council had just raised an army to accompany the Earl of Warwick and the response was likely to be poor.  Even the lawyers of the Inns of Court were to be arrayed.

In an effort to raise money, commissions were to enforce the making to knights. Knights’ fees were unpopular with wealthy gentlemen who did not wish to assume the costs and responsibilities of knighthood.

A separate minute, tentatively dated to 18 November by Nicolas, appears to be another shorthand list of expedients discussed by the council to raise awareness of the threat to Calais:

A search was to be made of previous correspondence concerning the rescue of Calais, and by whom. (Does this refer to the campaign of 1436?)

It was thought that if the names of the captains (of Calais?) were made known to the people, they would be more likely to rally to its defence.

Also, they would come more readily if they were offered (or given) a wage.

Letters were to be sent to the towns (to request loans or support for the commissioners of array?).

‘Noyse’ (publicity/ alarm) in the countryside would be beneficial (fears of invasion would encourage support for the council’s initiatives?).

The king has been informed (or is to be informed)  by the commissioners of array that ‘the gentlemen of this land betħ oute of arraye.’

Armourers and bowmakers in London were to be set to work.

‘The mayor  (of London?)  was to examine the king’s squires and knights, and establish what stuff  . . . . .ed (was?) needed? , , , ,  to make men ready.’

Lords, cities, and boroughs to be entreated if this happened (to make loans or supply men if the Duke of Burgundy attacked Calais?)

Men were to be made knights after the form of the statute (2).

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

(1) PPC pp. 73-74 (council discussion).

(2) PPC V pp 74-75 (measures to be taken?)

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

Sir Thomas Rempston

The incomplete record of a meeting in the Star Chamber on 15 November may refer to a decision to send a temporary lieutenant to Calais.

‘When the terme shall begunne . . . . .’ (the terms indenture?)  is followed by:

‘Thees Indentures to be made in the accustomed form (for military service) with clauses for musters and he (they ?) to have the third of the profits of war and the 30 (?) and the 30 archers (1).

Sir Thomas Rempston was commissioned on 19 November to go to Calais as the temporary lieutenant of Calais Castle (2).  The choice of Rempston seems odd, he was an experienced war veteran, but he had been captured at the Battle of Patay in 1429 and had only been back in England for two years after his ransom was paid.

See Year 1434: Sir Thomas Rempston’s ransom

Perhaps he hoped to recoup his fortunes by accepting the appointment. A gift to him of 1,000 marks by King Henry had to be covered by pledging crown jewels. The Exchequer paid him £666 13d 4d on 7 December for his services past, present, and future as a gift from the king (a bribe?) (3, 4).

A letter of credence was to be sent to the garrison at Calais, presumably instructing them to accept Rempston, but there is another entry in the same minute: ‘If the letter to Calais shal be re . . . . elled.’ (5).

Provisions for Guines and Calais were to be purchased. Six quarters of wheat for Calais and sufficient malt; three quarters of wheat to Guines and one quarter to Hammes and sufficient malt (6).

On 25 November, if the date is correct, Rempston was ordered to present the names of his retinue after they had been mustered. He and they were to be indemnified if their departure was affected by adverse weather conditions ‘by wind or water,’  Rempston and his company would not be penalised, they would be rewarded according to the discretion of the lords in council.

On the same day, 25 November, John Sutton, Lord Dudley, was instructed to go ‘in all haste’ to Calais. On his return he was to in indent as the lieutenant of Calais castle from the day of his original appointment by King Henry at Clerkenwell.

The uncertainly and confusion in the Council is reflected in an order to bring before the council copies of the indentures for service in Calais and the Marches from the time of King Richard II.

Gloucester was Captain of Calais and of Guines and their defence was his responsibility. The Council had provided for his wages, and for supplies for his garrisons at Calais and at Guines, and Parliament had voted money for archers to be sent to Guines. Gloucester attended council meetings in October and in November. Did he concur in the appointment of Lord Dudley as lieutenant of Calais and then the commission to Thomas Rempston? Gloucester had left the defence of Calais to his lieutenant, Sir John Radcliffe, in 1436. Did he expect Dudley to organise its defence until Rempston’s force arrived?

A letter from the king was to be sent to the Duke of Gloucester, who was not at the 25 November meeting: ‘For as much as ye know well we [ . . . . . . . .]’  was it to confirm what had been done, or to remind him of the danger to Calais and ask his intentions? (7).

The overall impression left by the Proceedings is one of confusion: the panic was real; the threat was not. Philip of Burgundy did not attack Guines.

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

(1) PPC V, p. 73 (terms and indentures?).

(2) PPC V, p. 79 (Rempston commissioned).

(3) PPC V, p. 79 (gift to Rempston).

(4) PPC V, pp. 79-80 (second reference to Calais dated 19 November).

(5) Issues of the Exchequer, p. 434 (gift to Rempston).

(6) PPC V, pp. 79-80 (provisions).

(7)  PPC V, p. 80 (Rempston muster, Lord Dudley, Gloucester).

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

King Henry VI’s Personal Rule

Chancellor Stafford did not announce the most important reason for summoning the Great Council, but it was uppermost in everyone’s mind as the Council prepared to perpetuate itself in another guise.

King Henry would be sixteen on 6 December 1437 and the purpose of the Great Council was to prepare the king to assume his personal rule.

On 12 November, at Clerkenwell, a list (schedule) of councillors to ‘advise’ King Henry was presented to the Great Council. All members of the current council were reappointed (1).

The Duke of Gloucester, Cardinal Beaufort, Henry Chichele, Archbishop of Canterbury, John Kemp Archbishop of York, William Alnwick Bishops of Lincoln, John Stafford, Bishop of Bath [Chancellor], the earls of Huntingdon, Stafford, Northumberland, Salisbury and Suffolk.  Lords Hungerford, Tiptoft, Cromwell [Treasurer] Sir William Phelip, William Lyndwood, Keeper of the Privy Seal.

Four new members were added: Richard Neville, Earl of Salisbury (who is named in the list of councillors above), Thomas Rudborne, Bishop of St David, Robert Rolleston, Keeper of the Great Wardrobe, and Sir John Stourton (2).  They took an oath to advise the king truly and impartially, and to keep his counsel and their deliberations secret (3).

King Henry acknowledged the heavy burden of kingship, and accepted the need for a council based on the precedent of 1406 when a council was imposed on King Henry IV for one year during a financial crisis similar to that of 1437.

A memorandum recorded on 13 November stated that the king had appointed the members of his council and accepted the definition of his and their powers: to provide good government, justice for all, sound financial administration, and the continuing maintenance of his noble status in England and in France, so that he need not always attend to the business of government in person.  He reserved the right to exercise the king’s grace, to grant petitions, pardons, and appointments to benefices and royal offices.  The Council was to refer their decision on major issues (such as peace and war) to the king before coming to a final conclusion. In cases where the opinion of the council was divided, the matter. and the reasons for the divisions were to be referred to the king as final arbitrator (4, 5).

Provision for payment of wages for the lay members of the council was made. The King, ‘considering the costs [charges] and labours of the lords of his privy council that they shall have sufficient to attend at all times his said councils in recompense of their said costs, charges and labours has granted to them the rewards as follows:’ The Duke of Gloucester 2,000 marks; Chancellor Stafford 200 marks; the earls of Northumberland. Huntingdon, Salisbury and Suffolk £100 each with deductions for wages they received for any other offices granted to them by the king, provided they received the full £100 a year from all sources. The grants were for life, not just for their years of service as councillors. Although not a council member, Thomas Courtenay, Earl of Devon was granted £100 for the good service had done and would do.

Henry made additional grants ‘to his cousin’ the Earl of Stafford for life, 200 marks. To Lords Cromwell, Hungerford and Tiptoft, for life, 100 marks each. To Sir John Stourton, £40. These were confirmed in a council minute dated 14 November (6).

The Council had been grooming Henry for two years, since the Congress of Arras and the death of the Duke of Bedford in 1435, to take on the responsibilities of kingship. All his life Henry had been dominated of forceful characters, the Earl of Warwick, the Duke of Gloucester, Cardinal Beaufort, and surrounded by clerics, his bishops, his confessors and men such as William Curteys Abbot of Bury St Edmunds, who made a strong impression on him and encouraged his natural piety which in turn led to his unthinking generosity. Henry could be persuaded but not coerced, he had all the stubbornness of the weak willed. The Council may have looked to the future with foreboding.

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

(1) PPC V, p. 70 (Council for King Henry’s personal rule).

(2) PPC V, p. 71 (new members).

(3) PPC V, p. 72 (councillors’ oath).

(4) PPC VI, Appendix, pp. 312-315 (memorandum appointing councillors and defining their powers).

(5) Chrimes, Select documents pp.  275-276 (‘Appointment of Councillors and definition of their powers’).

(6) PPC V, p 72 (additional grants).

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

Modern historians’ opinions vary on the intentions and the significance of these arrangements:

Griffiths, Henry VI, pp. 275-277:  ‘Henry’s declaration in 1437 heralded the reestablishment after fifteen years of conciliar government of traditional royal rule in which the king’s councillors had an acknowledged part’ (p. 277).

Wolffe, Henry VI, pp. 87-92: ‘There are no grounds whatsoever for believing that the council of the minority was greedy to maintain itself in power and determined to preserve its supreme authority intact, conceding only a semblance of power to the young king. All the evidence points the other way’ (p. 92)

Watts, Henry VI and the Politics of Kingship, pp 133-135: that the ‘natural and flexible process of the taking of council had to be expressed and ordained in such a formal way seems to indicate that the initiative came from the lords themselves. Far from being the king’s declaration the schedule of November 437 was the latest response of the councillors to the continuing but still rather obscure predicament’ (p. 134)

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

 A King’s Gifts

Nicolas printed a list of King Henry’s New Years gifts for 1437; it is not strictly a council proceeding. It was first published in Excerpta Historica in 1833, (pp. 148-149). In an undated memorandum to the king, Sir William Phelip, chamberlain of the household, requested letters of privy seal to be directed to John Merston, keeper of the king’s jewels as a quittance for the jewelled items supplied to Phelip on King Henry’s instructions for delivery to the recipients of the king’s gifts (1).  Henry was at Eltham for the Christmas/New Year festivities 1436/37

The value of the gifts was always in hierarchical order, the most expensive to Queen Katherine, down to the keeper of the Great Wardrobe, Robert Rolleston. Of the eleven gifts listed, only three were purchased. The rest had been given at various times to King Henry and were being recycled from his personal jewels collection in John Merston’s keeping.

To Queen Katherine at Bermondsey. A gold tablet and a crucifix garnished with sapphires and pearls, purchased from the goldsmith John Paddersley for £40.

To Queen Joan at Langley. A gold tablet garnished with a sapphire, rubies and pearls that had been given to King Henry by the Duchess of Gloucester.

To Cardinal Beaufort at Esher a gold tablet with the image of the Virgin Mary garnished with three rubies and six pearls, that had been given to the king by Queen Katherine.

To the Duke of Gloucester at Greenwich. A gold tablet with an image of the Virgin Mary hanging from three jewelled chains that had been given to the king by the Earl of Warwick

To the Duchess of Gloucester. An ‘ouche’ (brooch or buckle) with three hangers, garnished with a ruby, a diamond and five pearls, purchased from the goldsmith Redmond for £40

To the Earl of Warwick in Wales:  A salt cellar of gold and jasper standing on a tray enameled with eagles and supported by two antelopes (a Lancastrian badge) garnished with six rubies six emeralds and thirty-three large pearls with a large peal and sapphire on its lid, given to the king by Robert Rolleston

To [Anne the dowager] countess of Stafford a hinged tablet of gold, with an image of the Annunciation of Our Lady garnished with red roses and with forty pearls hanging by a chain given to the king by the Bishop of Norwich

To the Bishop of Norwich at Eltham a round tablet of gold garnished with twelve garnets and twenty-four pearls hanging by a chain given to the king by the Abot of Westminster

To William Phelip himself ‘youre chamberlain’ a purse of velvet russet decorated with silver and gilt, purchased from Redmond the goldsmith for £5.

To Richard Praty, Dean of the royal chapel, a small gold tablet in the form of a book, enameled on one side with an image of the Trinity and on the other with the Virgin Mary and the Christ child garnished with four garnets, four sapphires, and twenty-four pearls given to the king by Lady Botiller.

To Robert Rolleston keeper of the great wardrobe two pairs of beads (probably rosaries) given to the king by the duke of Gloucester, taken from John Penycock , a yeoman of the robes.

The last item is not a Years Gift. King Henry was at Merston Priory on 1 November 1436 accompanied by the Earls of Warwick and Stafford to celebrate the feast of All Saints Day, with Henry wearing his crown.  Henry changed the title of Anjou Herald king of Arms to that of Lancaster Herald and presented the Herald with a silver bell. He gave another silver bell to an unnamed ‘person’ whom he created Collar Pursuivent.

Robert Rolleston, who had just become a member of the Council, was ordered to deliver the customary gift of robes to the Barons of the Exchequer for the Christmas festivities (2).

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

(1) PPC V, pp. 61-64 (list of jewels).

(2) PPC V, p. 83.

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

Bibliography 1437

Primary Sources

Annales Rerum Anglicarum in Letters and Papers Illustrative of the Wars of the English in France during the reign of Henry the Sixth, J. Stevenson, (ed.) 2 vols in 3, Rolls Series, 1864

Bekyngton, T., Official correspondence of Thomas Bekyngton / 2 vols ed. G. Williams, (Rolls Series, 1872)

John Benet’s Chronicle for the Years             1400-1460, eds., G.L. & M.A. Harriss, Camden Miscellany XXIV, (Camden Soc., 4th ser. IX, 1972), p. 185.

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

Brief Notes in Three Fifteenth Century Chronicles, ed. J. Gairdner (1880)

The Brut, or the Chronicles of England, F.W.D. Brie, ed,. Part II (1908)

Calendar of the Patent Rolls 1436-1441

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

Chrimes, S.B. & Brown, A.L., eds.  Select Documents of English Constitutional History 1307-1485 (1961)

A Chronicle of London from 1089 to 1483, ed. N.H. Nicolas and E. Tyrell, (1827)

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

Chronicon Angliae ed. J.A. Giles (1848)

‘The Dethe of the Kynge of Scotis,’ translated from a lost source by John Shirley, in Death and Dissent: two fifteenth century chronicles, ed. Lister M. Matheson (Woodbridge, 1999).

DKR, Forty-Eighth Report of the Deputy Keeper of the Public Records (1887)

An English Chronicle 1377-1461, ed., W. Marx (2003)

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

English Historical literature in the 15th century, ed, C.L. Kingsford, (Oxford, 1913)

Excerpta Historica (1833)

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

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

Gruel, G., Chronique d’Arthur de Richemont, Connétable de France, Duc de Bretagne 1393-1458 (1890).

Gregory’s Chronicle in The Historical Collections of a London Citizen ed. J. Gairdner

Incerti scriptores Chronicon Angliae . . .  ed. J.A. Giles, (1848)

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, 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 VIII, (1909)

PROME. The Parliamentary Rolls of Medieval England, 1275-1504, Henry VI 1432-1445, Volume XI, ed., Anne Curry (2005),

PPC. Proceedings and Ordinances of the Privy Council, 6 vols. ed. N.H. Nicolas, (1834-37)

Rotuli Parliamentorum, vol. V

Select Documents of English Constitutional History 1307-1485 ed. S.B. Chrimes and A.L. Brown (1961)

Short English Chronicle in Three Fifteenth Century Chronicles, ed. J. Gairdner (1880)

Stow, J., A Survey of London, 2 vols.  ed. C.L. Kingsford, (Oxford, 1908)

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,  6 vols, (Paris 1881-1891)

Beaurepaire, Ch. de, Les États de Normandie sous la domintion Anglaise (Evreux, 1859)

Bousset, A., Perrinet Gressart et François de Surienne (Paris, 1936)

Brown, M., James I (1994)

Chrimes, S.B., Henry VII (1972)

Clayton, D.J., The Administration of the County Palatine of Chester 1442-85 (1990)

Collins, H.E.L., The Order of the Garter 1348-1461 (2000)

Dunlop, A.I., The life and times of James Kennedy, Bishop of St Andrews (1950)

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

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

Griffiths, R.A., ‘Queen Katherine of Valois and a Missing Statute of the Realm,’                          in King and Country: England and Wales in the Fifteenth Century (1991)

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

Johnson, P.A., Duke Richard of York 1411-1460 (Oxford, 1988)

McLeod, E., Charles of Orleans, (1969)

Maddern, P.C., Violence and Social Order: East Anglia 1422-1442 (1992)

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

New Cambridge Medieval History, vol. VII, ed. C. Allmand (1998)

Pollard, A.J., John Talbot and the War in France, (1983)

Power, E. and Postan, M.M., Studies in English Trade in the Fifteenth Century (1933)

Roskell, J.S., Parliament and Politics in Late Medieval England III (1983)

Storey, R.L., The End of the House of Lancaster, (1966)

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

Vaughan, R., Philip the Good (1970)

Weiss, R. ‘The earliest account of the murder of James I’, EHR vol. 52, (1937)

Watts, J., Henry VI and the Politics of Kingship (1996)

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

Theses

Jones, M., ‘The Beaufort Family and the War in France, 1421-1450,’ Bristol PhD thesis (1982)

Marshall, A.E. , The role of English captains in England and Normandy 1436-61. Wales.  Swansea MA thesis (1975)

Online

www.historyofparliamentonline.org