1438

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.

The Council

Council meetings for 1438, the first year of Henry VI’s personal reign, are chaotic. The minutes for meetings from mid-May to October are missing.

King Henry VI

The Council reprimanded King Henry for his irresponsible generosity.

The Magnates

The Westmorland Inheritance. Lord Hungerford. The Duke of Gloucester, The Duke of Bedford. 

The Duke of York requested repayment of a loan. Henry Chichele Archbishop of Canterbury was assigned £1,000 as repayment of a loan.

The Church

Robert Neville became Bishop of Durham. William Ascough became Bishop of Salisbury. Robert Praty became Bishop of Chichester. Louis of Luxembourg was awarded the temporalities of the bishopric of Ely.  John Spencer, a Benedictine monk, was pardoned. John Scurlag and Thomas Chapman claimed to be the Treasurer of Limerick Cathedral.   

London

Food shortages, famine and storms. Two murders recorded in the chronicles.

Lollardy

The burning of a heretic resulting in a rising in Kent.

 Owen Tudor

Owen Tudor was apprehended and brough before the Council.

Scotland

A nine-year truce was signed with Scotland.

Wales

A copy of the Statues of Wales was compiled for King Henry.  A list of resident lords in the Marches of Wales was drawn up.

Ireland

Lionel, Lord Welles was appointed the king’s lieutenant in Ireland.

The Duchy of Gascony

The Council in Bordeaux appealed to the English Council for military and financial support. French armies invaded Gascony in the spring and summer of 1438. The Council in Bayonne was awarded the right to hold judicial assizes.  

A Letter to Cardinal Beaufort

King Henry sought Cardinal Beaufort’s advice on a number of topics under discussion by the Council

Death of the Emperor Sigismund

The Holy Roman Emperor Sigismund died on 9 December 1437 at the age of seventy-nine while on his way from Germany to Hungary.

Albert of Austria

Albert, the Hapsburg Archduke of Austria, succeeded Sigismund as Holy Roman Emperor. He was elected in March 1438, but died of dysentery in 1439.

Imperial Electors  

The Council corresponded with the Imperial Electors and with the independent princes of Germany seeking alliances against Burgundy and France.

The Princes of Germany

Defensive alliance with princes of the Germanic states. 

The General Council of the Church

Pope Eugenius transferred the General Council to Ferrara in Italy but the Church Fathers meeting at Basel refused to move. They suspended the pope in January 1438.

Calais and Guines

Guines and Calais continued to be of major concern to the Council.  John Holand, Earl of Huntingdon was sent with an army to reinforce the defence of Calais.

 Edmund Beaufort and the County of Maine

A second army under Edmund Beaufort, Count of Mortain was sent to campaign in the county of Maine 

John Beaufort, Earl of Somerset

The Earl of Somerset was finally released from captivity in exchange for Charles D’Artois Count of Eu.

 The War in France

An army under Lord Talbot campaigned successfully in Normandy but a naval attempt to recover the port of Harfleur was defeated by a French fleet.

Peace Talks

The projected peace talks with Duke of Orleans and the Duke of Brittany as mediators, never took place. The French refused to attend.

Cardinal Beaufort and the Duchess of Burgundy  

Trade and treaty negotiations promotedby Cardinal Beaufort and Isabelle, Duchess of Burgundy, at the end of 1438 were the preliminary to a peace conference held in 1439.

The Council

Council meetings for 1438, the first year of Henry VI’s personal reign, are impossible to reconstruct accurately. As in 1437 the record in the Proceedings is chaotic. Only two   meetings for January and four for February are dated, with a number of undated duplications. None for March or April. Ten for May plus three undated.

The same information is repeated on differing dates, and some entries are so brief as to be meaningless. For example: ‘A writ of subpoena for Browe’ recorded under 12 February.   Browe is not identified and the reason for the subpoena is not given (1).

 (1) PPC V, p. 92

Nicolas notes: ‘From the middle of May until October 1441 a chasm unfortunately exists in the original minutes of the Council which is but imperfectly supplied by the few records of its proceedings in other manuscripts in the British Museum.’             Nicolas, PPC V, Preface, p. xxxi.

King Henry VI

Council meetings continued to be held in the Star Chamber at Westminster, but councillors now travelled to hold meetings in King Henry’s presence, usually at the palace of Kennington.  When the king was not present messengers were sent to inform him of proceedings or to request his agreement.

King Henry began to exercise his patronage indiscriminately as soon as he assumed his personal rule, and an occasional reprimand was addressed to him by the Council.

Three entries in the Proceedings for February 1438 begin: ‘Remember to speak to the king.’ Henry had apparently granted a receivership for life, with permission to appoint a deputy; this was against council policy, receivers were not customarily permitted to exercise their receiverships by deputy.

Henry granted a pardon for the large sum of 2,000 marks to a customs official, presumably for default. He granted the stewardship of the royal castle of Chirk and Chirkland in Wales to Robert Englefield, thus depriving the crown of 1,000 marks (1, 2). The Council reminded him gently that he should not behave so irresponsibly (3).

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

(1) PPC V, pp. 87-89 (Henry’s grants).

(2) CPR 1436-1441, pp. 56 and 72 (Englefield).

(3) Watts, Henry VI, pp. 130-131 (for conciliar constraint on the king).

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

Thomas Haseley

Thomas Haseley, a clerk in chancery, petitioned for a grant or an annuity on the strength of his services to King Henry V.

Hasley claimed that he been forced by illness to resign as the second clerk of Parliament in 1416 and so had not received the annual wage of £10 due to him. In 1422 he had tracked down and arrested Thomas Payne, who had escaped from the Tower of London where he was being held on suspicion of heresy and treason, as well as apprehending other escapees. According to Haseley, Henry V was so grateful to him for apprehending Payne that he granted him an annuity of £40 but died before this was enrolled. (1).

See Year 1422: The Temporary Council for Thomas Payne.

In the same year, 1422, Haseley had arrested (singlehanded?) two ships in the Thames loaded with woollen cloth and other merchandise which had sailed without paying customs duties.

In March 1438 Haseley was awarded ‘for good service to the king, his father and grandfather, the £40 annually granted by Henry V, assigned on the subsidy on woollen cloth exported from Bristol, even though Haseley was receiving £10 a year for life out of the hanaper and 6d a day out of the revenues of Oxfordshire and Berkshire (2). King Henry issued a general pardon to Haseley in May 1439 (3).

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

(1) PPC V, pp. 104-107 (Thomas Haseley’s petition was first printed in Excerpta Historica (pp. 144-145). Nicolas included it in the Proceedings and assigned it a date of 1438 on the strength of a grant to Haseley in the Calendar of Patent Rolls for March).

(2) CPR 1436-41, p. 188 (annuity).

(3) CPR 1436-41, p. 276 (pardon, 1439).

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

John Belsham and William Wolf

In November 1438 while King Henry was at Eltham, one John Belsham accused Sir William Wolf of high treason in the king’s presence. High treason was tried by the Constable of England in the court of chivalry but there was no Constable of England after the death of the Duke of Bedford in 1435 (1).

Henry commissioned the king’s knight, Sir Henry Brounflete to act as temporary Constable of England and convene the court of chivalry to try the case (2, 3).

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.’  In 1437 the Council had ordered the assembly of a fleet of ships ‘for the defence of the sea.’ Wolfe was among those paid for providing ships and their crews.

The accusation of treason may relate to the provision of shipping as in his defence Woolf stated, ‘that he has always been a true liegeman and has faithfully served the king at home and overseas, as all the lords know.’

See Year 1437: The War in France, the Navy.

Either the court of chivalry was not convened, possibly there was some irregularity in the appointment of Brounflete as Constable, or it failed to pass judgement. Wolf was remanded to the court of chancery and his friends were obliged to enter into recognisances on his behalf.

Did King Henry overreact to a charge of treason?  The Council decided to settle the matter by inquest. Five commissioners and the sheriff of Suffolk were appointed in 1439 to investigate.

Wolf petitioned against unlawful arrest and cited malice and revenge as the reason for Belham’s false accusation. According to Wolf, Belsham was the criminal. He had murdered a pregnant woman, Alice Lowell.  Alice’s husband Maurice Lowell and their son John Maurice, Wolf’s servant, had testified with Wolf against Belsham.  Wolf alleged that this was not the first time Belsham had been indicted, he was known to have committed felonies and robberies on previous occasions.  Wolf asserted that he and the Lowells should not be convicted without due process of law and asked for an acquittal according to the common law and statutes of the realm (4).

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

(1) Bellamy, Laws of Treason, p. 146 (Belsham vs. Wolf).

(2) Foedera X, p. 712 (accusation of treason).

(3) CPR 1436-1441 p. 265 (Henry VI commissioned Brounflete).

(4) CPR 1436-1441, pp. 316-317 (commission in 1439).

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

Buckfast Abbey

The crown derived substantial revenues from tin mining in Devon and Cornwall.

It appears that in a dispute between Thomas Roger Abbot of Buckfast, and some miners, a judgement was found in favour of the abbot. ‘The king’ will send ‘new men’ (miners or royal officials?) to investigate the case on the king’s behalf, and perhaps reverse the judgement (1).

(1) PPC V, p. 87; repeated p. 91

 Lancashire

Several unnamed men of Lancashire failed to appear before the judges at last quarter sessions (after Michaelmas, 29 September 1437). They were summoned in February 1438 to appear before the Council in the third week after Easter (1).

(1) PPC V, p. 93

Norwich

‘Item: to ordeine for þe good rule of Norwich’ (1).

The rioting and unrest in Norwich requiring the Council’s intervention in 1437 may have resurfaced in 1438, unless this is a misplaced reference to the dispute of 1437.

See Year 1437: Norwich

(1)  PPC V, p. 92

Wool Exports

In February the sheriff of Yorkshire was ordered to send ‘in all haste’ two men who had exported wool without paying customs duty to appear before the Council (1).

In March John Chirche, a factor of the king of Portugal, was licenced to export 60 sacks of Cotswold wool (2, 3).

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

(1) PPC V, p. 91 (non payment of customs).

(2) Foedera X, p 684 (Chirche).

(3) DKR 48^th Report, p. 323 (Chirhe).

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

Florentines

The Great Council had granted a petition from Florentine merchants in October 1437 for  a licence, probably to export English wool other than through the Calais staple which was closed to them. The trade ban between England and Flanders meant that they could not transport wool bought in Calais across Burgundian territory.

‘The Florentynes saufconduyct’ recorded in the Proceedings for 12 February 1438 may be a confirmation of the earlier grant (1).

In May the Treasurer was instructed to issue a letter ‘to make [allow?] the Florentines to go in all haste etc.’ (2)

Geo Luke of Florence (Giorgio da Lucca) received a licence to ship wool from England to Antwerp and from there by sea to Lombardy. In October safe conducts were again issued for certain merchants of Florence trading with England’ (3).

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

(1) PPC V, p. 92 (Florentine safe conduct).

(2) PPC V, p. 94 (Florentines to leave England).

(3) DKR 48^th Report, pp. 322 and 324 (Giorgio da Lucca).

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

The Magnates

The Duke of Bedford

At the end of June 1438, three years after his death, the Council issued a pardon to the executors of the Duke of Beford’s will for all outstanding debts and obligations under its provisions: to Cardinal Beaufort, Louis of Luxembourg, Lord Cromwell, Sir Robert Whittingham, Sir Andrew Ogard and Sir John Fastolf (1).

(1) Foedera X, p. 704

The Duke of Gloucester

The Duke of Gloucester was Constable of Dover Castle. On 13 May Gloucester, the Earl of Suffolk, the Treasurer, and the Privy Seal, approved Lord Fanhope’s bill for the repairs to Dover Castle, and passed John Hotoft’s bill, unspecified  (1).

Gloucester’s representative requested the Council, in Gloucester’s absence, to assign Gloucester 2,000 marks that were due to him:

“The consail of my __ Gloucester desired in my lords name to have þe ij^ml marcs in certain [ . . . .]  assignement [. . . . ] of ij^ml þt [….] þe same.”

Note in the margin: The bille shal be se ye on [……….]  (2).

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

(1) PPC V, p. 98 (Fanhope’s bill).

(2)  PPC V, p. 101 (request for 2,000 marks).

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

The Westmorland Inheritance

The quarrel over the Westmorland inheritance between the two branches of the Neville family as heirs of Ralph, first Earl of Westmorland who died in 1425, began with the coming of age in 1429 of Ralph Neville, who inherited the title from his grandfather.

Many of the extensive Neville estates accumulated by Ralph I should have passed with the title to Ralph II, but Ralph I had willed them to his second wife, Joan Beaufort, the dowager Countess of Westmorland and their eldest son, Richard Neville, now Earl of Salisbury. Ralph II claimed that he had been cheated out of his inheritance by Countess Joan and her      son.

See Year 1435: The Westmorland Inheritance.

Their feud was in abeyance by royal command while Salisbury and his brother Lord Fauconberg were serving the king in France.

See Year 1436: Lord Fauconberg.

Salisbury returned to England in 1437 and became a member of the king’s council. The feud resumed, and in February 1438 Countess Joan and Ralph, Earl of Westmorland were summoned to appear before the Council after Easter to settle their quarrel, ‘a covenant to be made between them’ (1).

On the same day, 12 February, the Earl of Salisbury ‘was spoken to’ regarding his Wardenship of the West March.  He had resigned as warden in 1435 in order to go to France with the Duke of York, but it appears the Council was anxious to have him back. Would he agree to become ‘captain of the Marches towards Scotland’? (2).

Salisbury was not named in the February summons, but as Countess Joan’s eldest son and heir he was very much a part of the feud. The protagonists appeared in London in late April to answer to the Council’s summons; both sides agreed to submit to arbitration, as they had in 1434/35, this time by four members of the Council: John Kemp, Archbishop of York, William Alnwick, Bishop of Lincoln, Lord Hungerford, and William Lyndwood, the Privy Seal, with judges John Cotesmore and William Godrede. They were to reach agreement by Acencion Day, 22 May.

A note in margin beside a list of councillors present on 17 May reads:  . . . . e day to hier Nevilles answer etc. (3).

On 28 May Westmorland and Salisbury pledged recognizances of £4,000 each to abide by the decision of the arbitrators. The recognizances included Ralph II’s brothers John and Thomas Neville on the one hand, and Countess Joan, and her other sons, William, Lord Fauconberg, Geroge, Lord Latimer, and Edward, Lord Bergavenny on the other (4). The arbitration, whatever it was, proved unsatisfactory and at some time in the last six months of 1438 the half-brothers came to blows.

King Henry was celebrating Christmas at Kenilworth when he received reports of the fighting. Insurrection, and the killing of innocent people horrified him.  In-fighting between his magnates, verbal or physical, always distressed Henry. He wrote to Chancellor Stafford (another peace-loving man) to express his ‘great displeasure.’ Henry declared that breaking the laws of the land and disturbing the peace must not be allowed to continue lest they led to further outrages.

The Chancellor was to summon all the participants to appear before the king on 14 January 1439 to answer for their misdeeds. In the meanwhile, the Chancellor was to forbid them and their servants to continue fighting. They were to keep the peace and obey the laws of the land on pain of the king’s severe displeasure (5, 6, 7).

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

(1) PPC V, p. 90, repeated on p. 92 (summons to Joan and Ralph).

(2) PPC V, p. 92 (Salisbury to become Warden of the Marches).

(3) PPC V, p 102 (marginal note).

(4) CClR 1435-1441, pp. 178-179 (recognizances, May).

(5) Excerpta Historica, pp. 1-3 (Henry’s letter of 28 December 1438).

(6) CCLR 1435-1441, p. 199 (summons to both sides to appear before the king).

(7) James Petre, ‘The Nevills of Brancepeth and Raby, Part I ,1425 to 1469: Nevill v Nevill,’ Ricardian 5, no. 75, (December 1981), pp, 418-435.

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

Walter, Lord Hungerford

Lord Hungerford was one of the arbitrators in the Westmorland dispute.  An entry assigned to 16 May is obscure: ‘the Lord Hungerford to have a testimonial ‘to my Lord [of] Warwick and other people that he hath do his homage’ (1).  Why would Lord Hungerford, an ex-treasurer of England and longtime servant of King Henry V and Henry VI have to do homage, and why was the Earl of Warwick in Rouen to receive a testimonial that he had done so?  Did Henry VI grant Hungerford lands, or perhaps an official position, in Normandy?

(1) PPC V, p. 101 (Hungerford).

The Duke of York

The Duke of York requested immediate payment of 1,150 marks owed to him for an advance he had made to the Earl Suffolk in Rouen during York’s term as king’s lieutenant from 1436-1437.

The Council regretted that there was no money to meet York’s demand. Instead, crown jewels for the equivalent value would be pledged to him. Appropriate jewels would be selected by two representatives, one for the king, and the other for York. Repayment of the 1,150 marks would be made by Michaelmas 1438 and the following Easter,1439.  If repayment was not made by that time York would be entitled to keep or sell the pledged jewels.

A memorandum from King Henry, dated 23 February at Windsor, confirmed the arrangement (1).

(1) L&P II Preface p lxxi-lxxii (Duke of York’s loan).

Two deaths

Anne, Countess of Stafford, and John Franke, Keeper of the Rolls of Chancery died in 1438. The note of Franke’s death in the Great Chronicle (p. 173) was added by John Stow.

“And the same yere deyde the Countasse of Stafforde, and the Clerke of the Rollys, Mayster Jon Franke; and he was holde one of the rycchyste men that deyde many dayes be-fore.”                                     Gregory’s Chronicle, p. 181

Countess of Stafford

Anne, countess of Stafford, made her will and died in October 1438 (1). She was the daughter of Thomas of Woodstock, Duke of Gloucester, the youngest son of Edward III.  She married Thomas Stafford, and then his brother Edmund, Earl of Stafford. Her son, Humphrey, Earl of Stafford, was a member of King Henry’s council. Anne married, as her third husband, William Bourchier, the English Count of Eu. Their son was Henry, Viscount Bourchier.

(1) Complete Peerage, XII A, p. 181.

John Franke

 The Keeper (or Master) of the Rolls was the senior chancery clerk with six clerks working under him (1). John Franke was appointed Keeper of the Rolls of Chancery during pleasure on 28 October 1423 (2).

He was reputed to be one of the richest officials in the country. He left an endowment of £1,000 to the provost and scholars of Oriel College, Oxford, and to found a chantry in his hometown of Trent in Somerset (3).

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

(1) Brown, Governance of later Medieval England, p. 45 (Keeper of the Rolls).

(2) CPR 1422-29, p. 139 (Franke).

(3) CPR 1436-41, p. 497 (Franke).

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

The Church

John Spencer

John Spencer, a monk in the Benedictine Abbey of Mulchenay in Dorset was recommended to Pope Eugenius for a benefice, and Eugenius bestowed the parsonage of the church of Howeton, co. Dorset on him.

One of the unnamed men who had recommended Spencer took out a suit against him for accepting a benefice unlawfully without royal consent. As a result, he was outlawed, and his goods escheated to the crown. He petitioned for a pardon, without being charged a fine, as he did not know he had done anything wrong.  The petition is endorsed by William Phelip, Chamberlain of the king’s household (1).

King Henry pardoned Spencer on 8 January 1438 ‘for any offence against the Statue of Provisors committed by him in obtaining apostolic bulls to except him from regular obedience to his order’ (2).

Spencer’s predicament was not quite as straightforward as he made it seem. The record in the Calendar of Patent Rolls tells a different story.  On 31 January he was pardoned again, this time for ‘any felonies or rapes whereof he is indicted charged or appealed, and of any consequent outlawries.’ Was he an innocent victim or was there evidence for the serious charges brought against him? (3).

Spencer was evidently a man of some learning. He is described as a clerk, a bachelor in decrees, and a scholar in theology,  but as late parson of Howeton and late monk of Mechelney in a petition for a licence to allow him to  sue to the Pope for papal bulls ‘to admit him to any benefice with or without cure [of souls], which became available or shall be conferred on him by any patron, with powers of resignation and exchange, and to have such bulls brought into England notwithstanding the statute of 3 Henry IV, the statue of provisors, or others.’

This was a considerable concession; it appears that Spencer could count on patronage in high places. He was probably under King Henry’s protection. The licence was granted at King Henry’s palace at Kennington in September 1439 (4).

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

(1) PPC V, pp. 84-85 (Spencer’s petition).

(2) CPR 1436-41, p. 126 (Spencer’s pardon).

(3) CPR 1436-41, p. 130 (indictment of Spencer).

(4) CPR 1436-41, p. 337 (Spencer’s petition for a licence).

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

Treasurer of Limerick Cathedral 

The dispute between Thomas Chapman and John Scurlag over the position of treasurer of Limerick Cathedral dragged on for years.

John Scurlag, a chaplain, had been granted the office of treasurer of Limerick Cathedral in May 1427 ‘by reason of the temporalities of the bishopric of Limerick being in the king’s hands.’ The guardian of the spiritualities of the see was ordered to admit him (1).

Pope Martin V had ignored the provision of Scurlag and conferred the treasurer ship on Thomas Chapman, a clerk, described as ‘an abbreviator of apostolic letters,’ one of the many scriveners employed by the curia. Pope Martin died in 1431 before his letters could be issued and the position ‘remained reserved to Pope Eugenius.’

Chapman petitioned Pope Eugenius in 1434 claiming that Scurlag had retained the treasurer ship unlawfully for about ten years. Eugenius instructed his auditor, Laurence de Arecio, to investigate and pass judgement. If Laurence found, as he was clearly expected to, in favour of Chapman he was to award the position to Chapman. Eugenius dispensed him hold it for three years, its value not exceeding £40, notwithstanding the fact that he had ‘lately’ bestowed the canonry and prebend of Laughton in Yorkshire on Chapman, to a value not exceeding £60. Chapman had not managed to obtain possession of it (2).

Chapman complained in 1435 that ‘objections to his collation’ to the Limerick treasurer ship had been raised in England. Pope Eugenius wrote to John Kemp, Archbishop of York, urging hm to uphold Chapman’s claim. The English Council took no notice.

Chapman informed Eugenius that owing to the length of time the dispute had taken he was unlikely to succeed in his claim.

Eugenius persevered.  In January 1437 he wrote to the Archbishop of Cashel and the Bishop of Cork in Ireland, and more obscurely to the Archbishop of Hainault in Liege, to request their intervention. He informed them that the papal auditor had awarded the treasurer ship to Chapman, he had ordered the removal Scurlag and the induction Chapman and imposed perpetual silence on Scurlag. Despite papal authority, John Scurlag had obstinately continued to occupy the post (3).

Scurlag appealed to King Henry and the Council. He had held the treasurer ship of Limerick lawfully and peacefully until Thomas Chapman had ‘purchased’ papal bulls in Rome appointing him to the post. Chapman had ‘vexed and troubled’ Scurlag, citing him to appear before the court in Rome which was against the law and crown’s rights (under the Statute of Praemunire).

In July 1438 Chapman was ordered to withdraw his suit and to appear before the king in chancery by the following November to answer the charges against him on pain of £100 fine. In the meanwhile, the Archbishop of Cashel, the Bishop of Limerick and the mayor of Limerick were instructed by the Council to uphold the law and maintain Scurlag (4).

Chapman failed in his bid to oust Scurlag. His case is a typical example of the refusal of the papacy to recognise the Statute of Provisors which denied the papacy’s right to confer church benefices in England and Wales (and in this case Ireland). Involvement in the case at the highest ecclesiastical level is an indication of the papacy’s determination to interfere in quite minor ecclesiastical appointments, as well as a demonstration of the popes’ continuing inability to do so.

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

(1) CPR 1422-1427 dated 28 May 1427 p. 398 (grant to Scurlag).

(2) Papal Letters VIII, p. 498 (Chapman’s petition, Eugenius’s instructions).

(3) Papal Letters VIII, p. 619 (Eugenius confirmed Chapman’s claim).

(4) PPC V, p. 103 (Council’s instructions).

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

The Bishops

In April 1438, the temporalities of the great northern bishopric of Durham were restored to Robert Neville who had been translated from the bishopric of Salisbury (1). Robert was Cardinal Beaufort’s nephew. Neville and Beaufort influence was becoming more predominant at court and in council.

William Aiscough, the king’s confessor, became Bishop of Salisbury, probably on King Henry’s initiative. The temporalities were restored to him in July (2).

Henry had recommended Richard Praty, Dean of the Royal Chapel, to Pope Eugenius to become Bishop of Chichester after the death of Simon Sydenham. The Pope confirmed the election, and the temporalities were restored to Praty in July (3, 4).

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

(1) Foedera X, p. 698 (Neville, Durham).

(2) Foedera X, p. 705 (Aiscough).

(3) Foedera X, p. 706 (Praty).

 (4) Bekyngton, Correspondence I, p. 53 (Praty).

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

  Louis of Luxembourg

The winner in the temporalities stakes was Louis of Luxembourg. He had been named ‘perpetual administrator’ of the vacant see of Ely during his visit to England in 1437, a euphemism allowing him to collect the temporalities of the bishopric in lieu of a grant from the Exchequer which could not be met.

See Year 1437: Louis of Luxembourg.

Louis had returned to Rouen in 1437 but in April 1438 his proctor, Guillaume Erardi, collected the temporalities of the bishopric of Ely (1) and in May 1438 Louis was reappointed ‘perpetual administrator’ with all the rights and privileges enjoyed by its bishops. On 1 July a royal order instructed people living in the diocese to obey Louis as their bishop, and in October he was granted the right to plead (and defend?) his case in any court in England (2, 3, 4).

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

(1) Foedera X, p. 695 (temporalities to Louis).

(2) Foedera X, p. 702 (right and privileges in Ely).

(3) Foedera X, p. 708 (inhabitants to obey Louis).

(4) Foedera X, p. 710 (licence to plead in any court).

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

The Bishop of Holar

John Bloxwich, Bishop of Holar in Iceland, was resident in England. He had been granted permission in 1436 for English merchants to trade in Iceland on his behalf and bring the profits from his bishopric to England.  Bloxwich received a similar licence in 1437.

See Year 1436: The Council and the Papacy, John Bloxwich.

English officials did not know whether Bloxwich was Bishop of Holar or Bishop of Skalholt, or, as Bloxwich claimed, bishop of both (1). Two licences were issued for English merchants to ship goods to and from Iceland on his behalf in 1438: one in January to Bloxwich as Bishop of Skalholt and one in February to him as Bishop of Holar (2).

English trade with Iceland was restricted by a treaty with King Eric of Denmark but illicit trade was lucrative. The licences were subject to payment of all customs duties in England. Bloxwich, certain London merchants, and the crown all profited from the bishop’s shady trade deals.

In November as Bishop of Holar, John was licenced to bring the first fruits (income) from his bishopric to England. First fruits were payable to the pope. John could not obtain confirmation of the papal bulls making him bishop, which were held in London, until payment was made: ‘he being unable to obtain position of his bishopric or the bull appointing him for lack of payment of the first fruits to the apostolic chancery’  (3).

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

(1) Foedera X, pp. 682-683 (two licences 1438).

(2) Power and Postan, English Trade p. 170 (Iceland).

(3) Foedera X, p. 711 (first fruits).

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

The Archbishop of Canterbury

Henry Chichele, Archbishop of Canterbury was assigned £1,000 in anticipation on the marriage of Humphrey Fitzalan, Earl of Arundel to repay a loan to the king (1). The marriage never took place. Humphrey died in April 1438 while still a child.

The title passed to William Fitzalan, Humphrey’s uncle. Willam came of age and was granted livery of his lands in 1438 (2). He married Joan Neville, daughter of the Earl of Salisbury. Salisbury paid 2,500 marks in August 1438 for the marriage (3).  Did Chichele receive his repayment?

The Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield

It appears that William Heyworth, the non-political bishop of Coventry and Lichfield, agreed in May to loan money to the king ‘in his necessity’ on certain securities. Lacunae in the text make it difficult to be sure.

And ‘letters were to be sent to the Dean of St Paul’s [. . . . on the same subject?] (4).

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

(1) PPC V, p. 94 (Chichele’s loan).

(2) CPR 1436-1441, pp. 230-231 (Livery of lands to Arundel).

(3) CPR 1436-1441, p. 194 (Salisbury’s marriage payment).

(4) PPC V, p. 93 (Heyworth’s loan).

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

London

Food shortages and famine

Food was scarce and prices high from 1437 to 1439.  1437 was a year of epidemics, and in 1438 the harvest failed owing to exceptionally heavy rains during the summer.

Prices for wheat varied from 1s. 4d. to 3s. 4d. a bushel.  Red wine sold for 10d. to 12d., and sweet wines for 16d. a gallon.  Salt was 14d. a bushel.  Barley rose from 10d. to 12d. and rye from 16d. to 18d. a bushel.  Grains were more expensive outside London, and even relatively well to do people were forced to eat coarse bread, although, according to one chronicler, the bakers profited.

The poor were reduced to making bread of peas, beans and roots, and there were deaths from famine in the north.

“In the year 1437 the harvest was ruined by rain.  In the following year [1438] there was famine in England, and it lasted for two years. In some places wheat sold for thirty pence, in some places for three shillings, and in some places for forty pence.  And a measure of barley sold for two shillings and four pence.  And a measure of peas sold for eighteen pence. And in some places the common people gathered roots and ferns which they dried and ground into flour to make their bread, or so it was said.  But at last, in the following year, as measure of wheat sold for eight pence, thanks be to God.                                   EHL Waltham Annals, p. 352

“And all this yere duryng, was grete scarcite of corn; for a busshell whete was at xx d. and ij s., and in the last ende of the yere at xxvj d. þe busshell; and a busshell of rye was at xvj d. and xviij d., and barly at x d. and xij d.; and then was right feble brede made for þe comon peple; and a galon of rede wyne at x d., and all oþer swete wynes at xvj d., as Romney, Malvesyne, Clarry, Tyre; and flessh and fyssh was longe tyme at an high price, which was grete charge to all the comons þurghout þe Reame. 

And in all þe North Cuntre a busshel of whete was at xl d. the most part of þe yere.  And moche worthy peple deyed in the yere of pestilence, and of oþer commune peple of men, women and children, thurghout þe Ream, and principally at York and in the North Cuntre; on whos soules God haue mercy! amen!”  Brut Continuation F, p. 472-473

Storms

A thunderstorm in London in the last week of November 1438, damaged the roof of the Grey Friars, and blew down houses and trees, blocking the thoroughfare at ‘the ton side of old Change’ The storm lasted for an hour in the afternoon, and was so violent that it felt like an earthquake.

Brut Continuation F p. 473  dates it to St Clement’s Day, 23 November.

Cleopatra C IV and Annales date it to St Katherine’s Day, 25 November.

“This year on St Katherine’s day [25 November] there was a violent wind storm which did a lot of damage in several  places.   Annales  p. 762

And in this same yere, and the yere of grace M⁺CCCC xxxix^ti, on Seint Clementes day, betwene iij and iiij after None, þer fell such wedring of wynde and rayne, thondyr and lightnynges; and a grete smolke of the lightnynge, þat all peple were sore agast þerof, for þe hydous noyse þat was herd in the Reame.  And þerwith an erthquake, þat shoke all the grounde.  Brut Continuation F, p. 473

“And in that same yere abowte the ffest of Seint Kateryn vpon a Sonday at aftyr none, there ffell a grete wynde that dyd a moch harme in many placys; for in london it bere and rent awey mekyll of leede on the Gray ffreres in london. And allso it blew almost dovne the ton side of the old Change, of the wiche it whas vndersette, all howsyng with grete long trees, that nether horss ne cart myght passe thorow the street.  Chronicles of London (Cleopatra C IV) p. 145

The Old Change, or Old Exchange housed the building near St Pauls  where half pennies and farthings were minted.

Sergeants at Law

“And in that same yere, in the Moneth of Iuyll, were made vij Sergeaunte[s] of Lawe; and they held theire generall fest the day of Translacion of Seint Thomas [3 July] in the Bisshoppes Inne of Ely in Holbourne.   Brut Continuation F.  p. 472

Sergeants at law were highly qualified lawyers who had served an apprenticeship of sixteen years at the Inns of Court. Only sergeants at law could plead in the Court of Common Pleas (1). Judges were selected from their ranks and their numbers were limited to no more than twenty at any one time. A sergeant at law’s rank was equivalent to that of a knight (2).

Their inn was in Farringdon Ward Without, adjoining the Temple but they held their annual feast on 3 July, at Ely Place ‘for the large and commodious roomes thereof’ (3).

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

(1) Brown, Governance of late Medieval England, p. 136 (qualified lawyers).

(2) Thomson, Transformation of Medieval England, pp. 292-93 (ranks).

(3) Stow, Survey II, pp. 35-37 and p. 47 (location).

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

Two murders

“And in this same yere, and in the yere of grace M^l CCCC xxxviij, a woman of Highgate, þat was a tayllours wife, lete sle hir husbond; and þerfore she was Iuged to be brent at the Toure hill, þe Monday þe xxvij^th day of Ianuare.”  Brut Continuation F, p. 472

Also the same yere on William Goodgroom of London, corsour, for scleynge of a man of court in Hosyere lane, be syde Smythfeld, was hangen at Tybourne.   A Chronicle of London (Harley 565) p. 123

The wife of a tailor, living in Highgate, murdered her husband.  William Goodgroom, a horse dealer, killed a lawyer in Hosier Lane, in Farringdon Ward Without, (the site of the inn of the sergeants at law).  The woman was burned on Tower Hill; Goodgroom was hanged at Tyburn.

Lollardy

John Bismer was a gardener who lived in the parish of St Mary Axe, in London.  Gregory’s Chronicle calls him ‘John Gardyner’.

After receiving the host at communion, he removed it from his mouth and hid it in a cloth intending to take it away and burn it – a sure indication to the authorities that he was a Lollard. He was arrested on Easter Day [13 April 1438] by order of John Gilbert, Bishop of London and burned as a heretic at Smithfield on 14 May (1).

“And the same yere on Estyr day there was on John Gardyner take at Synt Mary at the Axe in London, for he was an herytyke; for whenne shulde have benne houselyd he wypyd hys mouthe whithe a foule clothe and layde the oste ther yn; and so he was takyn by the parson of the chyrche, and the xiiij day of May he was i-brent in Smethefylde.” Gregroy’s Chronicle pp. 180-181

“And in this same yere, on Esterday, a gardyner þat wonned at Seint Mary at Nax in London, receued þe glorious sacrament oure Lordes body, and toke it oute of his mouth, and hidde it in a clowte, and wold haue brent it.  And the parson took the sacrament, and receyued it reuerently, and brought it to þe high auter ageyn, and sent þe gardyner to prison.  And þe Bisshop of London and oper Bisshoppes and clergye sate vpon hym, and Iuged hym, for lollardry and erresye to be brent in Smythfeld.”   Brut Continuation F, p. 472

The antiquarian John Stow added a note on ‘one John gardenar’ to the Great Chronicle (p. 173) copied from Gregory or Vitellius A XVI.

(1) Thomson, Later Lollards, p. 148 (John Bismer/Gardener).

 A Rising in Kent

The coincidence of the dates may indicate that the burning of Bismer sparked a rising in Kent. The Lollard tradition survived in the towns of the Weald.  The rising at Tenterden, probably in May 1438, was sufficiently serious for an oyer and terminer commission to be issued on 1 June to enquire in the county of Kent touching insurrections, rebellions, felonies, lollardries, robberies etc.(1). Those indicted were imprisoned in London for a time but were returned to Kent for trial (2).

A writ of privy seal to the Abbot of Bury St Edmonds refers to ‘aswel lollardes as other robbers & pillers . . .gaderyng in the said Shire of Kent’ and names their leader as Sir Nicholas Conway. He was subsequently pardoned (3).

“And in this same yere, the xiij day of Iuyn, .v. men of the Cuntre of Tynderden in Kent, were founden and taken for heresyes and destroyers of the Kinges peple; and so they were brought to Maidston in Kent and there Iuged to deth, to be drawe, hanged, quartered, and theire hedes smyten of.”  Brut Continuation F, p. 472

“And the same yere the iiij day of June certayne men  of Kentte were a-reste at Maydestone for rysnyge, and v of hem were drawe, hanggyde, and quarteryde, and be-heddyde, and hyr heddys were sette on Londyn Brygge; and sum of hyr heddys at Cauntyrbury and in othyr certayne townys in Kente a boute in the schyre, for to cause men to be ware.”  Gregory’s Chronicle, p. 181

“And about Whitsun many Lollard insurgents against the government and holy church were captured in Kent and they were all beheaded in London.”  Benet’s Chronicle, p. 186

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

(1) CPR 1436-41, p. 200 (oyer and terminer commission).

(2) Thomson, The Later Lollards, p. 178.

(3) Thomson, ‘A Lollard rising in Kent: 1431 or 1438?’  BIHR xxxvii, (1964).

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

Owen Tudor

Owen Tudor had made a secret morganatic marriage with the dowager Queen Katherine. After Katherine’s death in January 1437, Owen was arrested on the Duke of Gloucester’s orders. Owen escaped from Newgate at the end of the year only to be recaptured early in 1438.

See Year 1437:  Katherine and Owen Tudor.

“This same yere oon Oweyn no man of birthe nouther of lyflode brake oute of Newgate ayenst nyght atte Sercheyng tyme thrugh helpe of his preest and wente his wey hurting foule his keper. But at the laste blessed be god he was taken ayen.”  Great Chronicle, p. 173

“And after, he was taken ageyn bi þe Lorde Bemond, & brought Ageyn to Newgate, which afterward was delyuered at large; & one of his sonnes afterward was made Erle of Richemount, Another Erle of Penbroke & þe third, A monk of Westmynster, which monk died sone after.”   Brut Continuation G, p. 507

The version in Brut G was compiled long after the event. Owen’s son’s, King Henry’s half-brothers, were not created Earl of Richmond and Earl of Pembroke until 1452.

Exactly when Owen escaped, or where he was recaptured is not known.  John, Lord Beaumont was paid 20 marks in March 1438 for his ‘costs and expenses’ for keeping Owen in custody after his arrest and for bringing him before the Council together with his servant and a priest who had aided the escape (1, 2).

On 24 March 1438 at council meeting held in Cardinal Beaufort’s chamber at St Mary Overy with the Duke of Gloucester absent, Owen was committed to the custody of the Earl of Suffolk as steward of the household, to be confined in Wallingford Castle (3).

He was transferred from Wallingford to Windsor Castle in July, ironically into the keeping of the recently appointed constable of Windsor, Edmund Beaufort (4, 5). Owen became a member of the king’s household, presumably because he won King Henry’s favour, which protected from further harassment. Henry pardoned the sheriffs of London, who were responsible for security at Newgate prison, for allowing Owen to escape (6, 7).

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

(1) Foedera X, p.  686 (Beaumont).

(2) Issues of the Exchequer, p.  435 (reward to Beaumont).

(3) Harriss Beaufort p. 79 n 34 (council meeting).

(4) Griffiths, Henry VI, p. 67, n. 72 (transfer to Windsor).

(5) CClR 1435-1441, p. 155 (transfer to Windsor).

(6) Foedera X, pp. 709-710 (sheriffs pardoned for Owen’s escape).

(7) CPR 1436-41, p. 182 (escape pardoned).

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

Scotland

King James I had allowed the truce between England and Scotland to lapse in 1436.

See Year 1436: Scotland.

The Scottish envoys, Alexnder Seton Lord Gordon, Alexander, Lord Montgomery, Master John Methven, and John Vaus, commissioned by Queen Joan at the end of November 1437 to negotiate a renewal of the truce came south in the new year (1). They received a gift of four silver gilt cups valued at £41 6s 8d (2).

See A Letter to Cardinal Beaufort below.

On 20 March 1438 the Earl of Northumberland, Lord Tiptoft, and William Lyndwood Keeper of the Privy Seal were given powers to treat with them (3).

The Duke of Gloucester, the Duke of Norfolk, the earls of Salisbury, and Westmorland, John Lord Greystoke, Thomas Lord Dacre, Ralph Gray, John Bertram, Robert Ogle, and four others, with the admirals of the sea and the Wardens of the Marches, were named as conservators of the truce.  An equally long and impressive list of Scottish conservators included Archibald Earl of Douglas, James Earl of Angus, Alexander Earl of Crawford, James Earl of Avendale and Alexander Lord of Godon. (4, 5).

A truce for nine years from 1 May 1438 was signed on 30 March 1438 (6).

On 2 April Sir Robert Ogle and Sir John Bertram were commissioned to settle with the Lord Gordon and Lord Montgomery the bounds within which the garrisons of Berwick and Roxburgh could graze their cattle and collect forage and fuel (7, 8).

This was an old bone of contention. The Scots had claimed during negotiations in 1425 that the English did not respect the boundaries of the land surrounding Berwick and Roxburgh provided for under the terms of the truce. Thomas Langley, Bishop of Durham had dismissed the claim outright as false.

See Year 1425: Scotland, Truce Violations.

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

(1) Calendar of Documents Relating to Scotland IV, pp. 226-227 (Scottish commissioners).

(2) Calendar of Documents Relating to Scotland IV, p. 228 (gifts).

(3) Foedera X, pp. 684-685 (English commissioners).

(4) Foedera X, p. 687 (English conservators).

(5) Calendar of Documents Relating to Scotland IV, p. 228 (Scottish conservators and truce).

(6) Foedera X, p. 688 (truce).

(7) Foedera X, p. 695 (disputed grazing).

(8) Calendar of Documents Relating to Scotland IV, p. 229 (disputed grazing).

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

Sir Robert Ogle

On 15 May the Earls of Stafford, Salisbury and Northumberland, Lord Tiptoft, the Chancellor and the Keeper of the Privy Seal considered the appointment of a Warden of the East March, and how Sir Robert Ogle should be paid for past and present services (1).  He had acted as Warden of the East March during the Duke of Norfolk’s year in office which expired at end of March 1438.

‘Two days later, ‘R . . .  Ogles letter was read and passed [ . . . . . . . . . . ]’ (2).

Sir Robert Ogle, keeper of Berwick Castle, had been captured by the Scottish Wardens of the March when he led a raid across the border in 1435. He (or his father Sir Robert the elder) paid 750 marks for his release.

As Keeper of Berwick and sheriff of Northumberland Ogle was named as one of the conservators of the truce in 1438. He petitioned for compensation from the Scots for having to pay a ransom as 1435 was in time of truce.

See Year 1435: Scotland.

He was awarded, with the agreement of the Scottish commissioners, the cargo from a Scottish ship that had been seized at Newcastle for trading illegally (3). But it was found that owing to the usual muddle in the Admiralty court, the ship’s cargo had already been sold. The case dragged on until 1442 when a petition to settle the matter was presented in Parliament (4).

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

(1) PPC V, p. 100 (council debate on Ogle).

(2) PPC V, p. 102 (Ogle’s ‘letters’ lacunae).

(3) PPC V p. 93 and 99 (ship’s cargo).

(4) PROME XI, pp. 342-343 (petition to Parliament).

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

Safe Conducts

A safe conduct was to be issued for four months to Alexander Seton Lord of Gordon, who had taken part in the truce negotiations to ‘come and go’ to King Henry (1). The warrant was not issued until 1439.

See Year 1439: Safe conducts.

In November, at the request of Robert Mallorre [Malory] Prior of the Order in England, King Henry issued a safe conduct for one year for Andrew Meldrum of the Order of St John of Jerusalem in Scotland and John Kindecloch, his chaplain, to travel between Scotland and England on business for the Order (2, 3).

And a safe conduct for James Mure, a servant of Duncan Wemys one of the Scottish hostages who was still held in the Tower of London for King James’s ransom, even though James was dead (4).

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

(1) PPC V, p. 99 (Lord Gordon).

(2) Foedera X, p 711 (Meldrum).

(3) Calendar of Documents Relating to Scotland IV, p. 230 (Meldrum).

(4) Foedera X, p.  712 (Mure).

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

Wales

As part of the reorganisation of government now that King Henry had come of age, the Council considered how best to suppress lawlessness along the Marches of Wales (1).

Thomas Lewesham, King’s Remembrancer in the Exchequer, had been instructed to copy out the Statutes of Wales ‘in two rolls’ for King Henry’s use. Lewesham delivered them to the Chancellor in January 1438 at Kennington in King Henry’s presence and received £1 as a reward (2, 3).

Apparently, there was some uncertainty at Westminster as to who the resident lords of the Marches were, and a list of them had been drawn up. They were summoned to appear before the Council after Easter 1438, to decide who should be held responsible for maintaining the king’s laws of the border in one of the most turbulent regions in the kingdom (4).  The great magnates who were Lords of the Marches, the Staffords, the Beauchamps, the Beauforts, the Duke of York as inheritor of the Mortimer estates, and Duke of Gloucester, were all absentees.

Absenteeism was obviously a problem. In 1436 the Council had ordered the constables of Wales to ‘go home,’ and the chamberlains of North and South to stay at home. Local lords were ‘to stay in his own county’ and hold their manorial courts on the same given day (5).

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

(1) Griffiths, King and Country: ‘Wales and the Marches in the Fifteenth Century, and ‘Patronage, Politics and the Principality of Wales.’

(2) PPC V, p. 95 (delivery of the statutes of Wales).

(3) Issues of the Exchequer. p. 434 (payment for copying).

(4) PPC V, pp. 81-82 and p 92 (Council summons of 1438).

(5) PPC V, p. 3 (Council edict of 1436).

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

Ireland

There was no king’s lieutenant in Ireland after Sir Thomas Stanley’s indenture expired in April 1437. Richard Talbot, Archbishop of Dublin and chief justiciar had acted in the interim.

Messengers sent by Talbot to the Council in London caused a debate, and finally, some positive action. Talbot suggested the appointment of new councillors for the Irish council, was this a good idea, and if it was, should letters of intent be sent by the Council to those he named?  In the meanwhile, he was to be instructed to maintain the peace as best he could (1).

Lionel, Lord Welles

Lord Welles had attended the Great Council at the end of 1437, and he was probably still in London in 1438. In February he reluctantly accepted the appointment as the king’s lieutenant in Ireland (2, 3).

‘The king has persuaded [him] to undertake the lieutenancy of Ireland [provided] he still remained a member of the king’s household.’ Welles was thirty-one, his indenture was for seven years. His terms of service were spelled out, he would receive £4,000 in instalments for the first year for 300 archers to muster at Chester or Beaumaris (4). He was permitted to appoint a deputy to allow him to leave Ireland at any time he chose, presumably to ‘persuade’ him to go in the first place.

He was to keep the peace and enforce the laws; to issue pardons and take fines and ransoms; to summons the king’s lieges to take arms against rebels if necessary; to make land grants and take fealties to the king;  to appoint to royal offices except to the three great office of state  which were reserved to the king; to summon parliaments and councils in the king’s name; to issue protections and safe conducts;  to leave Ireland and appoint a deputy in his absence (5).

Welles mustered at Chester in April (6).

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

(1) PPC V, pp. 89-91 (debate in Council).

(2) Griffiths, Henry VI, p. 413 (Welles).

(3) Otway-Ruthven, Medieval Ireland, p. 370 (Welles).

(4) Issues of the Exchequer, pp. 434-435 (he received £666 13s 4d in February).

(5) CPR 1436-1441, pp. 140-141 (appointment and terms).

(6) CPR 1436-1441, pp. 198 and 200 (musters).

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

The Duchy of Gascony

The Council in Bordeaux had sent Bernard Angevin to England in 1437 to report on the state of the duchy and to warn the Council of its vulnerability. Angevin was still in London in 1438.

Financial commitment to the war in France meant that there was no money to spare for Gascony. The Council in Bordeaux had been reduced to borrowing what they could from English merchants there.

The Council requested a search of the records as to what Sir John Radcliffe had done with the £1,000 given to him in 1431 to raise military support locally in Gascony (1).

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

Bernard Angevin was allocated £1,000 in February to take back to Gascony and report from there how the money would be used (2).  He was appointed Chancellor of the duchy at the end of March (3).

On 12 April Angevin ‘the king’s chancellor and councillor in the Duchy of Aquitaine’ was granted the office of registrar, ‘with the profits, of the king’s court of Gascony’ (4).

In a naïve and undoubtedly vain attempt to recover a long lost debt, the Council appointed a commission in Bordeaux consisting of the Archbishop of Bordeaux ,Gaston de Foix count of Longueville, who was still England’s ally, Walter Colles, the Constable of Bordeaux , Bernard Angevin, now chancellor, a judge and two lawyers  (or a quorum of at least three of them) to demand the sum of 12,750 gold crowns, and 6,954 nobles of England that Jean, Count of Foix had received from Henry V.  Jean had died in 1436 and the request was to be made in King Henry’s name to Jean’s son Gaston IV, the current Count of Foix (5).

In July the Council empowered Walter Colles as Constable of Bordeaux to seize lands, revenues, and all other profits, ‘whatever they may be’, in Gascony that had been alienated in mortmain, i.e. granted to the church, without applying for an expensive licence from the crown. At the same time Colles was to respect local rights and customs (6, 7).  The two instructions might prove incompatible.

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

(1) PPC V, p. 92 (enquiry re £1,000 allocated to Radcliffe).

(2) gasconrolls.org C61 128 #17 (£1,000 to Angevin dated 23 February).

(3) gasconrolls.org C61 128 #19 (Angevin appointed chancellor of Gascony).

(4) CPR 1436-1441, p. 150 (grant to Angevin).

(5) gasconrolls.org C61 128 # 21 (attempt to recover money from the Count of Foix).

(6) Foedera X, p. 706 (Colles to seize lands held in mortmain).

(7) gasconrolls.org C61/ 128 #44 (lands in mortmain).

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

 Sir Philip Courtenay

There had been no king’s lieutenant in the Duchy of Gascony since Thomas Beaufort, earl of Dorset, in 1413-14. The appointment of Lord Welles to Ireland may have sparked a discussion on a lieutenant for Gascony.

‘Item: for the lieutenant of Gascony.’ In the margin: Philip Courtenay (1).

Sir Philip Courtenay of Powderham in Devon was the eldest of the junior branch of the Courtenay family, Earls of Devon.  He was thirty-four in 1438, a king’s knight, steward of the county of Cornwall, Master of the King’s hunt and surveyor of all the parks in the county and duchy of Cornwall (2, 3).

The laconic entry in the Proceedings is the only suggestion that the king and Council considered sending him to Gascony.  His rank was insufficient for the post.

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

(1) PPC V, p. 91 (lieutenant of Gascony).

(2) PPC IV, p. 284 (Courtenay’s appointment as master of the hunt).

(3) CPR 1429-1436, pp. 47 and 428 (Courteney’s appointments).

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

French Invasion

The incursion of French armies into Gascony in the spring of 1438 was unexpected, but it did not cause the alarm in Council felt over the threat to Guines and Calais.

King Charles VII entrusted overall command of the operation to the southern magnate the Lord of Albret who hoped to recover the territories he had lost to Sir John Radcliffe’s campaigns in the 1420s.

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

The écourchers Rodrigo Villandrando, and Guy, Bastard of Bourbon and their bands of mercenaries were sent to harry the northern borders of Gascony. Poton de Xaintrailles and a French army left Tours in May and invaded Gascony.

They took and garrisoned the key towns of Bazas, Tartas, and Tonneins as well as a few smaller towns in the Bordelais. Villandrando captured Tonneins and occupied Castelnau. Xaintrailles got as far as Soulac at the mouth of the Gironde.

They converged on Bordeaux and seized the suburb of Saint Severin. Lacking artillery, they could not besiege Bordeaux itself, but they succeeded in luring a detachment of the Bordeaux garrison into the open and 800 of them were killed. But the French had suffered casualties too, and by September their supplies were running low. King Charles ordered a withdrawal into Languedoc (1, 2, 3.)

The short summer campaign was violent and destructive, it damaged English prestige and disrupted the wine trade, England’s main economic interest in the duchy. The result was to reduce the income of the already cash strapped Council in Bordeaux.

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

(1) Beaucourt, Charles VII, vol III, pp. 14-15 (French army in Gascony).

(2) Sumption, The Hundred Years War V, Triumph and Illusion, pp. 599-600.

(3) Monstrelet II, p. 74 (for a different interpretation of Villandrando’s participation).

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

Bayonne

The mayor of Bayonne complained to the Council that the residents of Bayonne had been put to considerable expense by the French campaign in Gascony. They had repulsed Rodrigo de Villandrando and raised the sieges at Gamarde and Rion.

The Bayonne council had been forced to borrow from the merchants of Bayonne to employ 600 men-at-arms to fight the Castilian navy at sea. Castile was an ally of France. As a reward for their loyalty King Henry granted the governor and council of Bayonne the right to hold a judicial assize although the profits were to be used to meet the costs of the war (1, 2).

The governor of Bayonne also reported that the towns of Biarritz, Cape Breton, and St John de Luys, had made separate local truces with the Castilians in the past without consulting Bayonne.  King Henry sent letters to each of the three towns forbidding   them ‘to agree any truces or abstinence of war with the Spanish and other enemies without the agreement of Bayonne (3, 4).

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

(1) gasconrolls.org C61/128 # 16 (The Anglo-Gascons relieved Gamarde in July 1435.  TNA, E 101/191/7, no.26).

(2) Foedera X, p. 704 (grant of assize).

(3) Foedera X, p. 705 (prohibition of separate truces).

(4) gasconrolls.org C61/128, # 35, #36 (letters of prohibition).

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

A Letter to Cardinal Beaufort

During the first five months of 1438 the Council grappled with the questions raised during the Great Council at the end of 1437: the attempt to form defensive alliances with the princes of the Germanic states, the vexed question of Pope Eugenius versus the Church Council at Basel, and peace negotiations with France.

Cardinal Beaufort became increasingly influential in Council, and more importantly with King Henry after Henry assumed his personal rule. In a letter to Beaufort misdated by Nicolas, King Henry asked Beaufort’s advice and concurrence on the major decisions confronting the council. The misdating of this letter to 25 November 1437 has caused great confusion in the reconstruction of the Duke of Orleans’s position in late 1437.  A date of early 1438 makes more sense in the context of the 1438 negotiations.

NB: Nicolas misdated several entries in The Proceedings to 25 November 1437: ‘It is not certain that the following belong to the preceding minutes, but it is probable that they do.’ 

 Beaufort is listed as present in council on 25 November, but he was not there when this letter was written. It refers to the death of the Emperor Sigismund on 9 December 1437. The letter was recorded by the clerk of the council who was to carry it to Beaufort.

To my Lord Cardinal (1):

A token is to be sent to him from the king.

The King proposed to allow the Duke of Orleans to meet with his brother the Earl of Angouleme subject to the Cardinal’s agreement.

The Cardinal is requested to inform the Council of the nature and content of his correspondence with Queen Joan concerning the Scots delegation who were coming to England, and includes a query: should Robert Ogle, as captain of Berwick, be informed or not?  Queen Joan had issued a commission on 30 November to Scottish ambassadors to travel to England, to resume truce negotiations.

See Scotland above

To request the Cardinal’s advice and his instructions respecting Sir Thomas Rempston’s message to the king (unspecified).

The Cardinal is requested to nominate ambassadors to represent the king at the funeral of the Emperor, and to advise who should be selected to go to the General Council (at Ferrera?) as promised by King Henry.

The clerk of the council had with him a list of names, ‘of the lords temporal and spiritual.’  What the purpose was, and for which lords is not stated, but they may have been suggestions of suitable ambassadors, for Beaufort’s approval. Likewise, names of men to become guardians of the marches towards Wales, to be ‘ascertained.’

One Pierre Durant had petitioned the king for a money grant, what amount would the Cardinal suggest as suitable? Otherwise, the king would make the decision.

The Cardinal is to be informed that the Chancellor had endorsed the bill touching Bernard Angevin.

See Duchy of Gascony above.

(1) PPC V, pp. 81-82

 Death of the Emperor Sigismund

The Holy Roman Emperor Sigismund died on 9 December 1437 at the age of seventy-nine while on his way from Germany to Hungary.

On 5 February 1438 the Council ordered that funeral rites to honour his memory should be performed ‘in all haste’ in every cathedral church throughout England and Wales. A special service, with King Henry present, would be held at St Pauls early in May ‘on the Monday next after St George’s Day’ (1).  Clerics to represent Holy Church and lawyers to represent the Inns of Court were bidden to attend.

(1)  PPC V, p. 88 (funeral rites).

“Ande that same yere deyde the Emperowre of Rome, and hys termentte was solempnly holde at Syn Poulys at the cytte of London the iij day of May, there beynge the kynge and hys lordys.”   Gregory’s Chronicle, p. 180

In þe xvi yere of King Henry, died Sigismond, þemperoure of Almaign & Knight of þe Garter; whos entierment þe Kyng kept at Seynt Poules in London ryally, wher was made a ryall hercie; and þe King in his Astate, clad in blew, was at even at dirige & on þe morne at masse, &c.”  Brut Continuation G, p. 506

Sigismund was a Knight of the Garter, and an ally of England under the Treaty of Canterbury signed with King Henry V during Sigismund’s visit to England in 1416. Although envoys and letters were sent to Sigismund occasionally during Henry VI’s minority, the Emperor was peripheral to the English Council’s concerns. Sigismund had little or no interest in English politics.

The Princes of Germany

Albert of Austria

Albert, the Hapsburg Archduke of Austria succeeded Sigismund as Holy Roman Emperor in March 1438. He had married Sigismund’s daughter Elizabeth through whom he became King of Bohemia and Hungary (1).

“And after hym was elect & chosen Albert, Duke of Ostrych, which had wedded Sigismondes doughter, forto be Emperour; & also was Albert taken & receyved to be Kinge of Beme & of Hungarie bi reson of his wyfe; for he leftafter him none other heir.  Þis Albert was Emperour bot one yere, for he was poysond & died þerof.  Some say he dyed of A flixx; but he was A vertuouse man & A piteful, so moche þat al þe peple þat knew him said þat þe world was nat worthy to haue his presence.” Brut Continuation G, p. 506

Imperial Electors

The title of Emperor was not hereditary. The King of the Romans was elected by seven imperial electors, princes of the Germanic states. He became Holy Roman Emperor only after he had been crowned by the pope. Nevertheless, the title Emperor was freely used by the King of the Romans.

The English Council wrote to the Imperial Electors requesting them not to elect an enemy of the King of England (1). This was superfluous as the election of Albert of Austria, was a foregone conclusion. Did the Council fear the intrusion of the Duke of Burgundy, who had an eye on eastward expansion, and was perceived, by some of the Council at least, to be more of a threat than the King of France?

The king’s secretary, Thomas Beckington, was instructed to furnish John Kemp, the Archbishop of York with copies of recent correspondence between the Council and the Imperial Electors on the election of the new emperor and the replies received from the electors.

The correspondence in King Henry name with Pope Eugenius, the General Council at Basel and with the Archbishop of Cologne would also be examined, together with the last set of instructions given to Stephen [ . . . . . possibly Wilton? ] so that decisions could be made on what approach to take now that Albert of Austria had been elected.

Letters were sent to Louis IV Count Palatine of the Rhine. His father, Louis III, had died in 1436 but Louis IV still claiming the 1,000 mark annuity granted to his father by Henry V.  As one of the electors Louis IV could presumably be relied on in the upcoming election (2).

See Year 1423: Henry V’s Debts

Messengers to the Imperial Electors were to go by separate routes.  William Spryner and Master Adam Moleyns would travel separately carrying letters of congratulations on the election to Albert, and other matters to be named in their instructions.  (3).

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

(1) PPC V, p. 86 (letters to the electors dated February in the Proceedings).

(2) PPC V, p. 87 (Letter to Count Palatine).

(3) PPC V, pp. 96-98 (Nicolas printed two slightly different copies of the minutes of a May council meeting.)

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

The Council discussed sending envoys to take the Order of the Garter to Albert; to suggest a marriage alliance, and a renewal of the Treaty of Canterbury between England and the Emperor, made void by Sigismund’s death. A messenger concerning the marriage proposal was to be sent to Sir Hartung von Klux. Was the Council considering the suitability of a daughter of the Holy Roman Emperor as a bride for King Henry now that Henry had assumed his personal rule? (2).

Adam Moylens, and ‘a knight of Rhodes,’ were to travel to Aachen, where Albert was expected to be crowned, to congratulate him (3). Moleyns was well known to King Henry, he regularly carried messages, letters and documents between the Council and the King. He became clerk of the council in May, and there is no evidence that he went to Aachen. The knight of Rhodes would have been a member of the Order of the Hospitallers at St John’s Clerkenwell where the Great Council met in 1437.

The instructions given to the ambassadors going to the emperor should be conditional: if the emperor would agree to a marriage for his daughter with King Henry they would make one answer, but if he did not then another, ‘then thus, or else thus.’ If he refused, the envoys were to set aside claims of an alliance and marriage to concentrate on the larger issue of a reconciliation between Pope Eugenius and the Council at Basel (4).

An undated entry, assigned to 16 May, is for a warrant to be made to the Exchequer ‘for [certain causes] to leye xl li in the [. . . . .] that with certain messengers shall go to the emperor’: Present my lord Cardinal, my Lord [ . . . . Cromwell?] the treasurer of England (5).

‘Stephan etc . . . .  to go severally to the Duke of Ostrich’ (6)

There is no record that the experienced diplomat Stephen Wilton, who had been on embassy to the Archbishop of Cologne in 1436 was sent to Albert of Austria in 1438.  One John Blaton was paid on 13 Feb 1438 for going to the Duke of Austria, and there is an order to pay Stephen Zingell, also on 13 Feb 1438 ‘for returning to the Duke of Austria’ (7).

‘Item: to Cologne’ in the Proceedings under 11 February may be a reference to them (8).

It seems unlikely that an English embassy was ever sent to the peripatetic Albert who was constantly on the move, although messengers may have tried to locate him. Albert died in Vienna in October 1439 eighteen months after his election.

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

(1) Cambridge Medieval History, vol.VIII,  ed. C.W. Previté-Orton, p. 134

(2) PPC V. pp. 86-87 (alliance and marriage).

(3) PPC V, p. 89 (Moleyns) and p. 91 (ambassador to be sent, no name).

(4) PPC V pp 96-98 (instructions going to the emperor).

(5) PPC V, p. 101 (£40 for messengers to the emperor).

(6) PPC V, p. 89 (‘Stephen’ to go to the Duke of Austria).

(7) Ferguson, Diplomacy, pp. 210 and 212 (Blaten and Zingell).

(8) PPC V, p. 89 (Item: to Cologne).

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

The Princes of Germany

Five undated letters listed in the Proceedings with no details are assigned to 11 February 1438. Two of them are to the same recipients as the undated letters recorded under December 1437. They may be a follow up those sent to the Bishop of Seignen and Lord Walessey (unidentified) in 1437 or they may be a duplicate entry (1).

Albert, Duke of Austria (to congratulate him?)

Dietrich, Prince Archbishop of Cologne (to enlist his aid?)

The Bishop of Seignen (unidentified).

Lord Walessey (unidentified).

Hertonk (marriage proposal?).

The five letters were to be entrusted to Throckmorton or some other officer of the Treasurer of England being in London to be carried to Germany. ‘By the token that he send him a token for Bryan’ (2).

Hartung von Klux

The ageing Sir Hartung von Klux [Clux] had been an intermediary in the diplomatic relations between King Henry V and the Emperor Sigismund. Henry V had esteemed him highly and made him a Knight of the Garter in 1421 (2). Klutz was well versed in Anglo Germanic relations; he was the ideal intermediary to represent King Henry in a diplomatic approach to the emperor’s council.

The Council had cautiously opened negotiations with the princes of Germany for defensive alliances against the Duke of Burgundy and the King of France in 1436.

See Year 1436: Foreign Relation, the Princes of Germany

Annuities in return for alliances, called ‘mutual assistance,’ involved an element of risk: could the Exchequer meet the promised annuities, and what exactly did ‘mutual assistance,’ entail?  Despite diplomatic exchanges, the details of which have not survived, these questions had not been settled satisfactorily.

Dietrich, Prince Archbishop of Cologne, the most influential of the Imperial Electors, had been an ally of Henry V.  Henry VI wrote to Dietrich (called Theodoric in Henry’s correspondence with him) in February 1438 to express his regret that one of the archbishop’s messengers, Dankers Petersen, had been captured at sea by Breton pirates. Prudently, he had thrown the dispatches he was carrying overboard. King Henry assured the archbishop that the delay caused by this unfortunate incident would not affect England’s commitment to an alliance with Cologne (3, 4).

Henry requested Dietrich to use his influence to have the Treaty of Canterbury, England’s alliance with the Emperor, renewed now that Sigismund was dead. Dietrich replied in April that he was making every effort on King Henry’s behalf. Henry thanked him in July and, although the Minority Council had allowed Henry V’s payments to Dietrich to lapse, promised to add 2,000 nobles to Dietrich’s annuity.

Negotiations with Henry of Moers Prince Bishop of Munster and Gerhard of Cleves Count of Marck had stalled over questions of protocol and powers of procuration to negotiate treaties. In April 1438 Ysbrand de Merwyck and John Doweler were authorised to meet the Bishop of Norwich, the Bishop of Lincoln, and Lord Scrope to do homage by proxy to King Henry in return for an annuity (5, 6), but no treaty was finalised until 1439.

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

(1) PPC V, p. 89 and p. 81 (letters to German princes).

(2) Collins, Garter, pp. 58 and 300 (Klutz).

(3) PPC V, p. 86 (Henry to Cologne misdated to January).

(4) Bekyngton, Correspondence I, pp. 220-221 (letter to Cologne).

(5) Foedera X, pp. 698-702 (Bishop of Munster, Count of Marck).

(6) Ferguson, Diplomacy, p. 61-62.

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

The General Council of the Church

Pope Eugenius transferred the General Council to Ferrara in Italy to meet representatives of the Greek Orthodox church and discuss church union, but a majority of the Church Fathers still meeting at Basel refused to move and in January 1438 they carried out their threat to suspend the pope.

See Year 1437: The General Council of the Church at Basel.

King Henry had promised to send a delegation to the General Council, but there were difficulties: who should be sent, where should they be sent, and how would they be financed? Too many incomplete notes and numerous lacunae in the Proceedings make a coherent reconstruction of the council’s deliberations, recorded under February and May, almost impossible.

Two embassies were considered initially, one for Ferrara and one for Basel. Two bishops, an earl, two barons, two knights and two doctors of canon law were to be appointed. King Henry would be represented by four bishops and six abbots.

Then envoys should be sent either to Ferrara or to Basel, whichever venue the Greeks would attend, although no one seemed quite sure which it would be (1).

Lists of bishops and abbots who might be sent were drawn up on two different dates, they would nominate delegates rather than go themselves:

The bishops of London, Carlisle, Norwich, Saint David, St Asaph, Worcester, and Rochester; the abbots of Gloucester, Bury St Edmunds, Shrewsbury, Colchester, St Osney, Glastonbury, and the Prior of Norwich were to nominate a Master of Divinity, but how many would be chosen is not specified (2).

Two, three, or four of the smaller abbeys and priories were to be ‘entreated’ to send a cleric, and the Prior of St John of Jerusalem to send a member of his order (3).

Jean de Lastic, Grand Master of the Knights Hospitallers of Rhodes was to be requested to send a representative (4).

The Earl of Warwick was to select clerics from Rouen to attend, but they must keep the king informed of their deliberations (5).

Archbishop Chichele was instructed to call Convocation ‘in all haste’ to nominate delegates to go to Ferrara and to consider the Council’s request for a subsidy to pay their expenses (6). Convocation met at St Pauls from 28 April to 14 May and refused the Council’s request.

Various expedients discussed by the Council recorded in the Proceedings for February may belong to a later date. The Council’s advice to King Henry to prohibit Cardinal Beaufort to attend the General Council, for example, is more likely to belong in May when a delegation from the Council at Basel was in England (7).

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

(1) PPC V, p. 91 (envoys to Ferrara or Basel).

(2) PPC V, p. 90, and p. 92 (‘to þe consail general’ in the left hand margin with the list of names in a second column to the right. The Abbot of Glastonbury to send two Masters of Divinity).

(3) PPC V, p. 93 (the smaller abbeys to send a clerk).

(4) PPC V, p. 89 (Request to the Grand Master of Rhodes).

(5) PPC V, p. 89 (Letters to Warwick).

(6) PPC V, p. 87 (Convocation called).

(7) PPC V, p. 93 (prohibition to Cardinal Beaufort).

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

 Envoys from the General Council

Vericus, Abbot of Bonmont, a rich abbey near the Lake of Geneva, and Nicholas Loiseleur came from Basel bringing the Council’s reply to King Henry’s letter of 1437. The letter had been condemnatory, Henry had stated that the Council not Pope Eugenius was at fault.

See Year 1437: The General Council of the Church at Basel.

The envoys were given an audience with the king on 5 May. Cardinal Beaufort, the Duke of Gloucester, the Duke of York and the Duke of Norfolk were present.  Abbot Vericus attempted to divert attention from the condemnation of Pope Eugenius onto the question of peace. He stressed the Church Father’s commitment to peace and recommended that the Duke of Orleans should be sent to France to promote it.

Vericus asked King Henry to acknowledge the legitimacy of the Council of Basel and not send anyone to attend the pope at Ferrara. Henry Chichele, the Archbishop of Canterbury, roundly condemned the Church Fathers for threatening Pope Eugenius (1).

Henry had promised to support Eugenius, but he insisted that the envoys sent to him from Basel must be heard. A story told by one of them recounts that Cardinal Beaufort and others in London favoured the Church Fathers but Archbishop Chichele, a strong supporter of the papacy, interrupted the audience with the king and roundly condemned the Church Fathers for their treatment of the Pope.  Chichele had been silenced on the king’s orders (2). The story may or may not be true.

A draft of King Henry’s reply to the letters brought by the envoys from the General Council is recorded on 14 May, the formal letter is dated 25 May:

The king had received the envoys graciously even though, while they were on their way to England, the king learned that the Church Fathers had not extended the same courtesy to Friar John Heyne whom he had sent to them with his letters in 1437. Heyne had not been granted an audience.  The king was willing to overlook the insult in his earnest desire for peace, and to this end he will send his envoys with full instructions to the Council as requested, to set out his intentions in more detail to the glory of God (3, 4).

The envoys from in Basel left England in June.

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

(1) Harriss, Beaufort, p. 295 (an audience with King Henry).

(2) A.N.E.D Schofield, ‘England, the Pope and the Council of Basel, 1435-1449,’ Church History, vol 33, no.3 (1964), pp 261-267 (Chichele).

(3) PPC V, p. 100 (draft of King Henry’s letter).

(4) Bekyngton, Correspondence II, p. 53 (King Henry’s formal letter).

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

Pope Eugenius

Piero da Monte, Pope Eugenius’s agent was in England doing all he could to undermine the envoys from Basel, with, according to his own account, some success. Pope Eugenius believed that the Duke of Gloucester was the ruling power in the land. He had written to Gloucester in February to enlist the duke’s support. Eugenius urged Gloucester to keep King Henry up to the mark, to play on the young king’s well-known piety and remind him that it was his duty as a Christian prince and son of Holy Church to uphold the papacy.

Henry Benet, the clerk of the council, recorded the receipt of three papal bulls, a papal decree, and a credence brought by Robert Calvacanti, another of Eugenius’s agents. They were shown to the king.  Chancellor Stafford then ordered Benet not to accept any other letters of credence from Calvacanti (1).

Thomas Beckington, the king’s secretary delivered the reply to the pope’s communication to Benet together with two indentures (2).

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

(1) PPC V, p.100 (communication from the pope).

(2) PPC V, p. 102 (no further communications to be accepted).

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

English Envoys to the Pope and the General Council

If the ambassadors going to Germany to the new Emperor were to go on to the Council at Basel, should they receive a separate set of instructions?

The second part of the instructions to the ambassadors to the Emperor reads as if it was intended that they should go on to Basel: they were to listen carefully to the causes of the debate, they should not take sides but try to have the suspension of Pope Eugenius rescinded, and to attest that King Henry wished to avoid a schism in the church. The ambassadors could then go (to Ferrara?) for the treaty of reconciliation with the Greeks (1).

Henry attended council meetings at Kennington on 13 and 14 May (2). It was agreed that envoys to represent the king should be sent to Basel and to the Pope: one bishop, one earl, one baron, one knight and one cleric: either the bishop of Chichester, or Rochester or St Asaph, or Worcester, even though it had been agreed in the Star Chamber when Henry was not present, that only one abbot and one Doctor of Laws  (one bishop is crossed out) should go to Basel: the Abbot of Shrewsbury, the Abbot of St Osney,  Abbot of Gloucester or  Abbot of Colchester were considered.

‘The Bisshop of Seint Assaph hath graunted [. . . . ].       PPC V, p. 99

John Lowe Bishop of St Asaph or Richard Praty, Bishop elect of Chichester, would go to the Emperor and the Pope (in Ferrara). Thomas Broun, Bishop of Norwich, who had been considered as a possible envoy to negotiate with the French, said he would consult with the Duke of Gloucester, Cardinal Beaufort, and other council members.

Humphrey, Earl of Stafford and John Lord Beaumont had volunteered to go on embassy to the Dauphin. This is crossed out and ‘to do the king such service as he should command them’ is substituted, provided their finance and their security was guaranteed in their instructions.

It appears that Henry Percy Earl of Northumberland, was considered. He had attended the Church Council at Pavia in 1423. He agreed to go on condition that his lands and his livelihood would be protected. Lacunae in the text make it impossible to be sure of the correct reading. William, Lord Botreaux and Robert Shottesbrooke were short listed

Master Peter Partridge, who had been one of the more disruptive delegates to the Council at Basel in 1432 was to be summoned to attend Council as soon as possible (3).

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

(1) PPC V, pp. 96-98 (Nicolas printed two slightly different copies of the minutes of a May council meeting. It probably dates to 12 May the day before the meetings at Kennington with King Henry as it contains the note: ‘To morrow w^t þe K’).

(2) PPC V, pp. 98-99 (King Henry present at Kennington).

(3) PPC V, pp. 99 (possible envoys to the General Council and the Pope).

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

No English envoys were sent to Ferrara or to Basel.  The overall impression in the Proceedings is one of confusion and indecision, but the real deterrent to sending delegates was financial: there was no money at the Exchequer to meet the costs of a substantial embassy, and Convocation had declined to assume the expense of even a low-ranking delegation. English participation was unlikely to resolve the quarrel between the pope and the General Council or contribute to the reconciliation of the eastern and western churches. Only King Henry favoured sending delegates to Ferrara and to Basel, but Henry was never deterred by considerations of cost.

Calais and Guines

The Council was still concerned by the Duke of Burgundy’s threat to Guines. Suitable measures must be put in place against attack.  King Henry had sent commissions of array ‘to notable persons’ in every county to be ready to defend Guines [Calais is crossed out] but the response was disappointing, very few ‘captains’ were willing to go, even for a month (1).

The safety of the port of Le Crotoy was also causing concern, the Treasurer was to order timber ‘and other things’ to be sent to Le Crotoy (2).

But the defence of Calais was the top priority. Payment of the wages of the Calais garrison had been discussed at great length in 1437 and it appears that the Council wanted to examine a letter sent to the soldiers in Calais by the Great Council.  The Council also debated whether, if additional personnel were to be sent to Calais, a clerk of the market should be appointed? (3).

See Year 1437: Calais and Guines

Robert Whittingham had replaced Richard Buckland as Treasurer of Calais in 1436. He had apparently negotiated with the captains of castes in the Pale of Calais to renew or expend their service. In May the Council ordered indentures to be drawn up with them using the traditional form of agreement following whatever arrangements Whittingham had made (4).

Lord Tiptoft purchased 500 quarters of wheat, and 1,000 quarters of malt to send to Calais. Repayment was assigned on William Cantelowe, the victuller of Calais, from whatever monies he had received for food for Calais (5).

An obscure entry in the Proceedings records that Lord Tiptoft and William Lyndwood Keeper of the Privy Seal were assigned to adjudicate in a dispute between [. . . . .] and ‘Thurland’ over ‘certain goods’ taken to Calais (6).

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

(1) PPC V, pp. 90-91 (defence of Guines).

(2) PPC V, p. 101 (Le Crotoy).

(3) PPC V, p. 92 (letter to Calais garrison; a clerk for the market at Calais).

(4) PPC V, p. 101 (indentures with captains of castes in the Pale of Calais).

(5) PPC V, p. 94 (purchase of wheat and malt).

(6) PPC V, p. 101 (‘Thurland’).

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

John Holand, Earl of Huntingdon

The Earl of Huntingdon was appointed on 28 March to take command of a force ‘to rescue the castle of Guines besieged by the Duke of Burgundy’ (1).

The original intention appears to have been to send the Earl of Huntingdon to defend Guines and Calais (1), and the Earl of Mortain, who had recently married the Earl of Warwick’s daughter, to reinforce Warwick in Normandy.

Ships were commissioned at end of March to take the Duke of Norfolk (who did not go) and the Earl of Huntington to Calais and Guines; the ships were to return by St George’s day to take Edmund Beaufort and his army to France (2, 3).

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

(1) Foedera X, p. 686 (Huntingdon appointed).

(2) CPR 1436-41, p. 149 (shipping). (3) Foedera X, p.  685 (shipping).

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

Edmund Beaufort and the County of Maine

On 22 March 1438 Edmund Beaufort, Earl of Mortain, indented for six months’ service, with one banneret, two knights, 350 men-at-arms and 1,350 archers, but he was not destined to join the Earl of Warwick to defend Normandy.

On the same day, 22 March, King Henry created him Earl of Dorset, an English royal title, and he received the king’s commission as ‘captain and governor of Anjou and Maine’ for seven years, and captain of Alençon, a strategic garrison town in Normandy (1).

Mortain’s appointment was undoubtedly at Cardinal Beaufort’s request, to further his nephew’s career, but it may also have been at King Henry’s instigation. Henry had known Edmund Beaufort since childhood, and Edmund’s subsequent career strongly suggests that the king had taken a personal liking to him.

In effect Edmund became the English Count of Maine. Mortain’s commission gave him an independent command, separate from the Earl of Warwick, with authority over administrative and military matters; it also granted him the revenues of Maine, such as they were. Maine was the patrimony of the House of Anjou and Charles of Anjou, the French Count of Maine, was one of King Charles’s favourites. But Maine had been neglected after the Duke of Bedford’s death, and by 1438 only the capital, Le Mans, St. Suzanne and Mayenne were still in English hands.

“Ande the same yere the Erle of Mortayne was made Erle of Dorsette, and he was sentte unto Anjoye and Mayne.”  Gregory’s Chronicle, p. 181

“And in this same yere, the Erle of Morteyn went ouer the see into Fraunce by the Kynges comaundment and consayle, forto strenght and kepe in the Kinges name certeyn partyes in Fraunce and Normandy, with knyghtes, squyers, men of armes and archers.” Brut Continuation F, p. p 472

In May thirty-six barrels of salt petre were purchased to be sent with him for use in France and Normandy (2).

Mortain mustered at Poole in May (3).

Prisoners were to be moved from Poole north to Shrewsbury (4).  No reason is given, but it may have been to make room in Poole Castle for Mortain and his retinue.

There were not enough ships to transport his whole army and he was authorized to appoint a deputy to take command of whatever shipping was available and cross first. Possibly he delegated the task to Roger, Lord Camoys, as his senior captain (5).

As usual, the money for both armies came mainly from a loan made by Cardinal Beaufort:  £7,333 6s 8d ‘for the relief of Guines and for the army which shall hastily be sent to the realm of France and duchy of Normandy in the company of the earl of Dorset’ (6).

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

(1) Jones, ‘Beaufort Family,’ thesis, pp. 99-104.

(2) PPC V, p. 94 (salt petre) and p. 101. (A second entry, assigned to 16 May reads: ‘A warrant for the salt petre for Walsingham [to be sent] to the Exchequer).

(3) CPR 1436-1441 p. 197 (musters).

(4) PPC V, pp. 93-94 (prisoners moved from Poole).

(5) PPC V, p. 102 (insufficient ships).

(6)  Harriss, Beaufort, p.  281 (Beaufort’s loan).

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

 The Earl of Mortain in Maine

The traditionally accepted account of Mortain’s expedition, based on Cleopatra C IV, is that he landed at Cherbourg early in June and conducted a brief campaign along the Breton border. He took the castle at Saint Aignan-sur-Roe, garrisoned by 300 Scots, and Duke of Brittany’s town of La Guerche.

He then retired to his lordship of Harcourt in Normandy and Le Guerche was lost through ‘mysgouernaunce’ (negligence?) (1).

“And that same yere the kyng sent in to ffraunce, in the monyth of May, the Erll of Mortenwith iiij^c sperys and the bowys therto; the wich schipped at poole and landyd at Chirburgh in Constantyn [Cotentin].  And ther he did but lytell good. And than he leyd sege vnto a castell in Mayn callid Saint Anyan [Saint Aignan-sur-Roe].  And ther were ther inne a iij^c Scottes.  And ther he whan that place. 

And than from thense he went and leyd sege vn to a nother castell ij leges ow[gh]t of Seint Jelyan Dew Maunte [Saint Julien de Vouvantes] called Allegerache [La Guerche]. And that place whas sone lost ayen by misgovernance. And than sone aftyr the lord Camys  whas takyn prisoner afore seynt Jelyan Dew Maunte thorow mysgouernaunce.”   Cleopatra C IV p. 145

There is a question mark over the identification of the towns in C.L. Kingsford’s footnotes to the chronicle. Michael Jones suggests that La Guerche may have been La Guierche on the Sarthe north of Le Mans, as identified by Beaucourt: ‘an attack in Maine directed against ‘Guierche’ from the chronicler Berry Herald: la fortress de guierche pres le mans. Guierche was still in England hands in the following year, 1439 (2, 3).

Cleopatra C IV says that ‘Allegerache’ was two leagues (seven miles) from Saint Julien de Vouvantes and that Lord Camoys was taken prisoner there after ‘Allegerache’ was lost through negligence.

“In the year 1438 after Easter the Earl of Mortain crossed to Aquitaine and so into Gascony with 3,000 men of war.”   Benet’s Chronicle, p. 186

Benet is mistaken. Mortain did not go south to Gascony although French armies threatened Bordeaux in the summer of 1438. The chronicler may have confused Edmund’s expedition with that of the Earl of Huntingdon, who was sent to defend Gascony in 1439.

See The Duchy of Gascony, French invasion above.

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

(1) Harriss, Beaufort p. 282 (lordship of Harcourt).

(2) Jones, ‘Beaufort Family,’ thesis, p. 105, note 1 (identity of La Guerche).

(3) Berry Herald, ed. Courtevault, pp. 197-198 (identity of La Guerche).

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

 John Beaufort, Earl of Somerset

Cleopatra C IV claimed of Mortain’s expedition “And ther he did but lytell good.” But Mortain’s meagre campaign was incidental, his expedition had an entirely different aim. The real objective was Cardinal Beaufort’s determination to end years of negotiations for the release of Edmund’s brother John Beaufort Earl of Somerset.

Somerset was in the custody of the Dowager Duchess of Bourbon. The duchess’s son, Charles d’Artois, Count of Eu, was a prisoner in England. Gilbert de la Fayette, a marshal of France had been appointed to represent Bourbon interests in the negotiations and Mortain had been was authorised to take Artois to France to further the negotiations for an exchange: Somerset for Artois.

See Year 1435: The Count of Eu. 

 See Year 1437: John Beaufort, Earl of Somerset

Mortain was preparing to cross to France in April 1438 and Marshal de la Fayette received a safe conduct for three months ‘to arrange for the liberation of the Count of Eu and the Earl of Somerset’ (1, 2). As Earl of Dorset and captain general of Maine, Mortain had the status and the military presence to bring pressure to bear to complete the negotiations.  Events moved swifty: John Beaufort returned to England in the summer of 1438 after seventeen years in captivity. Charles d’Artois Count of Eu, returned to France after twenty-three years in England.

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

(1) Foedera X, pp. 697-698 (Fayette safe conduct).

(2) DKR 48^th Report, French Rolls, p. 321 (Fayette safe conduct).

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

The War in France

An army under Lord Talbot and Lord Fauconberg was based at Evreux at the beginning of 1438. More to keep their troops occupied than because two small fortresses posed any great threat, they captured Longchamp and Neufmarché (1). The Earl of Warwick, following the wasteful pattern of the war, ordered their demolition. The Treasurers in Rouen were instructed in King Henry’s name to hire labourers for the work and pay them by a local tax or from the treasury in Rouen (2).

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

(1) Pollard, Talbot, p. 50 (Talbot and Fauconberg).

(2) L&P II, Preface, pp. lxxiii-lxxv (Longchamp and Neufmarché).

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

Harfleur

As soon as Charles d’Artois, Count of Eu returned to France King Charles VII appointed him captain of the pays de Caux and commander of the French garrison at the port of Harfleur (1).

See Year 1435: The War in France after Arras, Harfleur

An unsuccessful attempt by the English to lay siege to Harfleur by sea at the end of August 1438 is obscure. According to Cleopatra C IV (the only English chronicle to record it) nine ships appeared off Harfleur but before they could attempt a landing a much larger French fleet arrived and deceived them by flying the flag of St George as they approached the harbour. The English ships, caught unaware, were either captured or sunk.

“And that same yere whas harflett kept with viiij Englissh schippes, the wiche were i-takyn and lost euery schipp; ffor ther cam vpon hem a xlij schippes with a iij m¹ men of werre, and beyng [beryng] the standard of Seynt Jorge  in the topcastell lyke Englissh schippes, where thorow that oure schippes were lost thorow treson.  And this whas done in the last ende of August.”  Chronicles of London (Cleopatra C IV) p. 145

The blockade by sea is confirmed by Berry Herald, but he credits the Marshal de Rieux who ‘raised the siege’ (captured the English ships?) before Artois arrived (2).

According to Monstrelet, who does not mention the ships, the garrison at Harfleur was under the command of the Marshal de Rochefort. The garrison at Harfleur refused to accept Artois as the new captain (possibly because the men had not been paid?) and they sent word to the English to ask for assistance (which seems unlikely). Lord Talbot and Lord Scales’s presence in the vicinity apparently made them think again about inviting in the enemy. There was a skirmish, some of Talbot’s men were taken prisoner, and the rest retreated to Rouen (3).

A possible reconstruction is that the Earl of Huntingdon, as Admiral of England (although his name is not mentioned), got tired of kicking his heels in Calais and led a small English flotilla to raid Harfleur. They were pursed by a larger French force (the 42 ships and 3,000 men in Cleopatra C V is surely an exaggeration) flying the English flag at their mastheads, which took Huntingdon by surprise. Pierre de Rieux, a Breton, may have commanded the French ships.

It seems unlikely that a French garrison would call in the English, they may have threatened to do so, but when they learned of Talbot’s close proximity, they settled down under their new captain rather than risk an encounter with him. Possibly there was a skirmish as recounted by Monstrelet, but this is speculation, to make sense of two otherwise garbled accounts.

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

(1) Beaucourt, Charles VII, vol III, p. 16 (Harfleur).

(2) Berry Herald pp. 197-198 (Harfleur).

(3) Monstrelet II, pp. 70-72 (Harfleur).

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

Peace Talks

The Great Council of 1437 left unresolved the question of whether to allow the Duke of Orleans to travel to France to meet the Duke of Brittany and act as facilitator in peace negotiations even though the money promised by Brittany and Dunois Bastard of Orleans to pay Orleans’s ‘expenses’ had not been received.

See Year 1437: A Peace talks and the Duke of Orleans

In January 1438 King Henry insisted that rather than allow the prospect of peace to founder, the Exchequer must fund Orleans’s return to France. The expense would be recovered when (or if) Orleans’s supporters came up with the money.

The meeting should take place sooner rather than later, and a message to this effect would be sent etc. lacunae in the text  [to the Duke of Brittany?]. The venue was to be the great port of Cherbourg where Orleans and the English envoys accompanying him would await the arrival of French negotiators. (1).

The Earl of Warwick, the King’s lieutenant in France and Louis of Luxembourg, the Chancellor in Rouen were anxious know what decision the Great Council had reached on the possibility of peace talks, and on the question of sending representatives to the General Council of the Church at Basel. What, if anything were they expected to do in either case? (2).

The Council discussed who should be appointed as ambassadors to treat with the French, and who should escort the Duke of Orleans to Cherbourg. A commission of array would have to be issued to raise 400 men-at-arms in the west country to act as an escort for Orleans (3).

The embassy would be smaller than the peace commission named in 1437. It should consist of a bishop, an earl, a baron and an ecclesiastic.  Various names were canvassed: William Alnwick, Bishops of Lincoln and Thomas Rudbourne Bishop of St David’s are crossed out and Thomas Brouns Bishop of Norwich is substituted in brackets. The Earl of Stafford, Lord Beaumont, the Dean of York, the Dean of Salisbury or the Dean of Exeter or the Dean of Lincoln or ‘Caudray’ (4).

The agreement of the Earl of Stafford and Lord Beaumont to join the embassy is crossed out in a subsequent minute, and ‘to do the King suche service as he wolle commande them,’ is substituted (5).

King Henry V’s instructions on precedence should be consulted, and the instructions given to the Earl of Suffolk on his last visit to France in 1436 should be examined (6).

A single short entry indicates that at this point the Council considered inviting Alphonso V, King of Aragon to send representatives to the peace talks: ‘who shal go to þe Kyng of Arragon for etc.’ but this suggestion was apparently never followed up (7).

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

(1) PPC V, p. 86 (King Henry insisted that Orleans should go to Cherbourg).

(2) PPC V, p. 87 (Warwick’s letters requesting information).

(3) PPC V, pp. 90 and 91 (who would attend the peace conference, who would escort Orleans, men at arms to be raised).

(4) PPC V, p. 95 (names of possible ambassadors).

(5) PPC V, p. 98 (Stafford and Beaumont crossed out).

(6) PPC V, pp. 96-97 (precedents to be examined).

(7) PPC V, 91 (King of Aragon to be invited).

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

Rouen

The Council decided that Sir John Popham, Lewis John, and Jean Rinel should go to Rouen (1). A pursuivant was to be sent to advise Louis of Luxembourg that Popham and Lewis John would arrive shortly and ‘lacunae in  the text . . . . . thereof to the Duc of . . . .’ [take a letter to the Duke of Brittany?] (2).

Possibly to save expense, while Popham and Lewis John were in Rouen they were to inspect and report on the ‘governance’ of the garrisons in Normandy and on ‘all other things’ (3). Their instructions were to be shown to King Henry for his approval. On a separate line is the cryptic statement: “In this matter there is more things” (4).

The Earl of Warwick had expressed concern over the proposed meeting with the Duke of Brittany and a reply was to be sent to him, possibly to clarify the reason why Sir John Popham had been chosen as the envoy to Brittany (5).

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

(1) PPC V, p. 86 and 87 (Popham and Lewis John to be sent to Rouen).

(2) PPC V, p. 88 (a pursuivant to be sent to Louis of Luxembourg).

(3) PPC V, pp. 88-89 (inspection of garrisons in Normandy).

(4) PPC V, p. 89 (Instructions to be shown to the king).

(5) PPC V, p. 95 (correspondence with the Earl of Warwick).

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

The Embassy to Brittany

Sir John Popham, Jean Rinel, Giles de Durmont, Abbot of Fécamp, Thomas  Lord Scales, Andrew Ogard, Richard Harrington, Raoul Roussel, and Jean Rinel were empowered to treat for peace with France (1, 2). This was a low-level embassy. Unless they were joined by the Duke of Brittany and the Duke of Orleans they could not negotiate directly with the French magnates, they could only approach their counterparts in France to arrange the preliminaries.

Apart from Popham, they were probably already in Rouen which may be why they were chosen.. They had one thing in common, they had all served the Regent Bedford. Lord Scales, Andrew Ogard, and Richard Harrington were war captains in Normandy. The Abbot of Fécamp had been Bedford’s councillor and envoy to the Duke of Burgundy. Ralph Roussel was treasurer of Rouen cathedral, and Jean Rinel was a king’s secretary.

Popham left England for Rouen on 19 March. He and the Abbot of Fécamp, and Jean Rinel then travelled to Vannes in Brittany (3, 4). They met with Duke John of Brittany and Dunois, Bastard of Orleans. At the end of  May the Duke of Brittany confirmed his offer to act as mediator, in conjunction with the absent Duke of Orleans, to broker a peace or a truce with France. (5).

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

(1) Foedera X, p. 683 (power to treat with France).

(2) DKR 48^th Report, p. 322 (power to treat with France).

(3) L&P II Preface p. lxxv (Popham’s expenses).

(4) L& P II pp. 294-298 (Durmont’s expenses).

(5) Foedera X, p. 707 (discussions in Brittany).

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

The Duke of Orleans

Jean de Saveuses arrived in England in May with letters for the Earl of Suffolk from four French lords (1). Who sent the letters and what they contained is not known, possibly Dunois who would have used Suffolk as an intermediary possibly from the Duke of Bourbon who was supposed to attend the meeting with Brittany. Saveuses was allowed an interview with the Duke of Orleans

Sir John Popham had returned to Cherbourg by 23 June. He intended to cross to England and report on his mission but was told to stay in Cherbourg and await the arrival of councillors coming from England to continue negotiations.

But then on 9 July Orleans was transferred into the reliable hands of Sir John Stourton, a member of the Council (2) and summoned to Windsor for a meeting with King Henry on 17 July. He was informed that the negotiations had broken down. This was not the king’s fault, it was that of Orleans’s representatives: “through him or his people . . . and not through us.” The agreement reached with the Duke of Brittany and Dunois had not been honoured. The promises made for Orleans liberation had not been fulfilled, no money had been received, and Orleans could not now be sent to Normandy in the time agreed.  No more was heard of the Exchequer meeting Orleans’s travel expenses. King Henry had apparently lost his earlier interest in promoting peace at any price. The cost must be met by Orleans, it was lowered slightly, to 36,000 saluts (18,000 nobles) in gold, silver or jewels; an initial payment of 14,000 saluts (7,000 nobles) must be delivered to King Henry’s representatives in Rouen by 1 October 1438 (probably an impossible demand). King Henry must be satisfied that ‘his adversary of France’ would indeed send ambassadors to Cherbourg which was by no means certain.  If these conditions were met, Orleans could be sent to Normandy in mid-February 1439.  If Orleans was not released for any reason, whatever money had been received from Orleans’s supporters would be refunded by May 1439.

Orleans suggested that a truce should be proclaimed while peace plans, which would take time to prepare, were being drawn up (3).

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

(1) PPC V, p. 101 (letters from France). In the margin the last articles of Rempston. The entry is assigned to 16 May.

(2) L&P I, p. 432 (Orleans in Stourton’s custody).

(3) Foedera X, pp 707-708 (King Henry’s interview with Orleans)

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

The Peace Talks aborted

At the end of July, Popham, the Abbot of Fécamp, Sir Andrew Ogard, Sir Richard Harrington, Raoul Roussel, Jean Rinel, Sir Simon Morhier, John Stanlowe, the treasurer of Normandy, and various judges and doctors of theology attached to the cathedral at Rouen were empowered to open talks for a truce. (1).

A month later Jean Rinal carried letters from King Henry to inform the Earl of Warwick and Louis of Luxembourg that they were on their own. No members of the English Council would be coming to Normandy. King Charles had ignored the Duke of Brittany’s initiative and members of the Council, even those who favoured peace, were not prepared to risk kicking their heels in Cherbourg or Rouen waiting in vain for the French to arrive.

Sir John Popham recorded in his memorandum that Rinel ‘told hymme that there shold come no manne out of Engelonde like as the Kinge hadde wrytyn by the Pryve Ceilles, but broagte a new comcione . . . by the wheeche the Kyng ordeynte him and other for to bygynne a new trete with the Dolfynes parte for a trew to be taken bytwyne the Kyng and the said Dolfyne.’

The Earl of Warwick and Louis of Luxembourg did their best. They contacted Dunois to ask if King Charles VII (‘the Dauphin’) would name a time and place to negotiate.

Dunois replied on 20 September that ‘the Dauphin’ had agreed to consult his council, but there could be no immediate meeting.  King Charles would not treat for peace or a truce unless his own ambassadors were permitted to come to England and meet the Duke of Orleans, which was unlikely as long as England and France remained at war.  It was a delaying tactic; Charles did not trust the Duke of Brittany, or for that matter the Duke of Orleans, and he saw no reason to treat for a truce while the war was going well for him.

Warwick and Luxembourg informed Sir John Popham that there was no point to his remaining in Rouen and a relieved Popham arrived in London on 20 October.  He submitted a memorandum of his embassy and his expense account for 27 days, from 19 March to 20 October 1438 (2).

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

(1) Foedera X, p. 708 (procuration for peace talks, July).

(2) L&P II, Preface pp lxxix-lxxx (Popham’s memorandum).

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

 

 Trade Talks with Burgundy

Hugh de Lannoy, the Duke of Burgundy’s trusted councillor had urged Duke Philip to end the trade war with England: it was far too costly, and the embargo on trade made the duke unpopular with his Flemish subjects (1).

See Year 1436: Trade Ban

Lannoy was statholder of Holland and it was in this capacity that he and a delegation were granted a safe conduct to come to England to negotiate more favourable conditions of trade with Holland and Zeeland.

On 9 May while the Council was meeting with King Henry at Kennington, the Duke of Gloucester and the few members of the council still in London received Lannoy in the Star Chamber (2). He failed to obtain the concessions he sought, and the Four Members of Flanders demanded that the talks should continue with their interests represented (3).

On 25 August the Duke of Burgundy authorised Henri Utenhove who had accompanied Lannoy in May, to return to England.  A safe conduct for Utenhove and others to leave England and return was issued on 8 September (4).

Hugh de Lannoy continued to press his point of view. Did he finally persuade the Duke of Burgundy who decided to save face by employing the Duchess of Burgundy to negotiate with the English?

Thielemans suggests that Utenhove proposed to the Council that the commercial negotiations should be widened, and that the Duchess of Burgundy and Cardinal Beaufort should convene a conference to promote a general peace between England and France (5).

Cardinal Beaufort was more concerned to end to the trade war with the Duke of Burgundy and resume commercial relations with Flanders than he was with the release of the Duke of Orleans. The old Anglo/Burgundian alliance could not be revived but the Cardinal and probably Lord Cromwell as Treasurer, recognised that a truce with Burgundy was vital. The ban on the sale of English wool to Flemish merchants which had been in force since 1436 had damaged the economies of both countries.  The parlous state of royal finance had been one of the reasons for calling the Great Council in 1437, income to the Exchequer from customs duties on wool sales had fallen dramatically.

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

(1) Vaughan, Philip, pp. 102-107 (Lannoy’s memorandum of advice).

(2) PPC V, p. 95 (Lannoy’s reception in England).

(3) Thielemans, Bourgogne et Angleterre, pp. 116-117 (Lannoy in England).

(4) DKR 48^th Report, p. 325 (Henry Utenhove).

(5) Thielemans, p. 118 (suggestion to widen the talks).

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

Isabelle Duchess of Burgundy

It was well known that King Henry had not forgiven the Duke of Burgundy for deserting his English alliance at the Congress Arras in 1435. Duchess Isabelle, on the other hand was Cardinal Beaufort’s niece, the daughter of Philippa of Lancaster and the King of Portugal and so related to King Henry. It was widely believed in England that she favoured her English relations.

Possibly on Duke Philip’s instructions or possibly on her own initiate, influenced by Hugh de Lannoy, Isabelle made overtures to Cardinal Beaufort. On 21 November, at the Cardinal’s request, King Henry issued a safe conduct for Isabelle’s envoy, Sampson de Lalaing to come to England ‘bearing letters from the duchess’ (1).

Her initial approach was an offer to heal the breach between England and Burgundy, for both countries to lift the ban on trade with Flanders, imposed by the English after the Duke of Burgundy’s ill-fated attack on Calais in 1436 and reciprocated by the duke, to the disgust of his Flemish subjects who relied on the purchase of English wool for their cloth trade.

On 23 November, at the request of the daughter of the King of Portugal (not the Duchess of Burgundy), King Henry issued a procuration to John Kemp Archbishop of York, Nicholas Bildeston dean of Salisbury, Stephen Wilton, William Sprever Doctor of Laws, Robert Whitingham Treasurer of Calais, and John Reynwell Mayor of the Staple of Calais, to treat for the renewal of trade and mercantile intercourse with Flanders (2).

The same delegation, minus the Archbishop of York but with the addition of Sir Thoms Rempston the lieutenant of Calais, would treat with Holland, Zeeland and Friesland.

Separate powers, which would have been wider in scope, were issued to Cardinal Beaufort and the Archbishop of York, and to the Cardinal alone, the first indication that trade talks with the Low Counties could be widened into peace talks (3).

Henry granted Cardinal Beaufort the authority to issue letters of safe conduct to delegates coming to Calais for the negotiations (4).

Traditionally it has been assumed that Cardinal Beaufort used his influence to persuade King Henry to agree to resume negotiations with Burgundy, but it may have been the other way round.  Peace talks with the French had stalled after the Duke of Orleans was refused permission to travel to Cherbourg and King Charles VII rejected overtures from Louis of Luxembourg in Rouen to name a new time and place for them to resume. The canny Beaufort had opposed negotiating through the Duke of Orleans, but he realised that promoting peace was a sure way to increase his influence with the king.  As always, he had a  pressing economic motive. The trade ban with Flanders had drastically reduced sales of English wool and so diminished the crown’s income and his own.

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

(1) Foedera X, p. 716 (safe conduct for Isabelle’s envoy).

(2) Foedera X, pp. 713-714 (procuration to treat).

(3) Foedera X, pp. 714-715 (separate powers to Beaufort and Kemp)

(4) Foedera X, p. 716 (Beaufort to issue letters of safe conduct to Calais).

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

Bibliography 1438

 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)

Berry Herald, Les Chroniques du roi Charles VII par Giles Le Bouvier dit Le Héraut Berry, ed. H. Courteault et L. Clier  (Paris, 1979)

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.

The Brut, or the Chronicles of England, F.W.D. Brie, ed,. Part II (1908)

Calendar of Documents Relating to Scotland vol. IV ed. J. Bain (1888)

CPR. Calendar of the Patent Rolls, 1422-1429, 1436-1441

CClR. Calendar of the Close Rolls 14350-1441

A Chronicle of London from 1089 to 1483, ed. N.H. Nicolas and E. Tyrell, (1827)

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

DKR, Forty-Eighth Report of the Deputy Keeper of the Public Records (1887)

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)

Gregory’s Chronicle in The Historical Collections of a London Citizen ed. J. Gairdner

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)

Stow, J., A Survey of London, 2 vols.  ed. C.L. Kingsford, (Oxford, 1908)

Waltham Annals, English Historical literature in the 15th century, ed, C.L. Kingsford, (Oxford, 1913)

Secondary Sources

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

Bellamy, J.G.,   The law of treason in England in the Late Middle Ages (1970).

Brown, A. L., The Governance of Late Medieval England 1271-1461 (1989)

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

Complete peerage of England – l2 vols., (ed) G.E. Cokayne, (1910-1959)

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

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

Griffiths, R.A., King and Country: England and Wales in the Fifteenth Century (1991)

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

Otway-Ruthven, A. J., A History of Medieval Ireland (1980)

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)

Petre, J., ‘The Nevills of Brancepeth and Raby 1425-1499,’ The Ricardian 5 (1981)

Schofield, A.N.E.D., ‘England, the Pope and the Council of Basel, 1435-1449,’ Church History, vol 33, no.3 (1964),

Sommé, M., Isabelle, Duchesse de Bourgogne (1998)

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

Thielemans, M-R., Bourgogne et Angleterre 1435-1467 (1966)

Thomson, J.A.F., The Transformation of Medieval England, 1370-1529 (1983)

Thomson, J. A. F., The Later Lollards (1965)

Thomson, J. A. F., ‘A Lollard rising in Kent: 1431 or 1438?’  BIHR xxxvii, (1964)

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

Vaughan, R., Philip the Good (1970)

Watts, J., Henry VI and the Politics of Kingship (1996)

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

gasconrolls.org