1440

1440

Henry VI

ANNO XVIII-XIV

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.

King and Council

William Lyndwood. Sr John Steward. Sir Ralph Grey. Edmund and Jasper Tudor. Bury St Edmunds. The Bishop of Llandaff

King Henry and Eton College

Alien priories and Eton College.

The Papacy

Indulgences. Piero da Monte. William Croyser.

Cardinal Kemp

John Kemp, Archbishop of York became Cardinal priest of Santa Balbina.

Parliament  

Alien Hosting. Poll tax.

London

Food. Storm. Hangings. Murder. Single combat. Sanctuary. Richard Wyche,

Portugal

King Afonso and King Henry exchanged complaints of piracy by English and Portuguese ships.

Hanseatic League

English merchants and traders complained of their mistreatment in the towns of the Hanse.

Frederick III, Holy Roman Emperor

Frederick, Duke of Inner Austria?  was elected as King of the Romans in February 1440 but owing to political differences and disputes he was not crowned emperor by the pope (Nicholas V) until 1452.

Dieterich, Archbishop of Cologne

A treaty between England and the Prince Archbishop of Cologne.

The Duchy of Gascony

The Earl of Huntingdon, the king’s lieutenant in Gascony. Gaston de Foix. The siege of Tartas. Sir Thomas Rempston, Seneschal of Gascony.

The Duke of Gloucester’s Accusations

Gloucester accused Cardinal Beaufort and John Kemp of betraying England and King Henry and demanded their dismissal from Council

Peace Talks

The peace talks with the French, due to take place at Calais in May 1440 did not take place.

Netherlands

The trade treaty or intercursus with Flanders negotiated in September 1439 was widened to include the duchies of Normandy and Gascony and the Pale of Calais. Negotiations for a similar treaty withe Holland, Zeeland and Friesland continued.

The Duke of Orleans

Charles Duke of Orleans was released in November and returned to France.

The Duke of York

Richard, Duke of York was appointed the king’s lieutenant in France.

War in France

The Council in Rouen. John, Lord Talbot.

Harfleur

John Beaufort, Earl of Somerset.  Edmund Beaufort, Earl of Mortain.

King and Council

The Proceedings records only nine council meeting for 1440.  One in February in King Henry’s presence at Reading while parliament was in session. One in May, two in June. One   in July, one in September, one in October, one probably in November and one in December.

 William Lyndwood

 William Lyndwood, Keeper of the Privy Seal, had attended the Congress of Arras in 1435; he received £100 from the Exchequer for his expenses. In May 1440 the Exchequer  demanded that he ‘account for’ i.e. refund the money. Lyndwood petitioned the king that he was owed more than this, but he would forgo his claim to any additional payment if the king would quit him of the Exchequer’s claim and grant the £100 to him as a reward.

Lyndwood wanted letters to the Treasurer and Barons of the Exchequer to discharge him, his heirs and executors of any liability pertaining to this claim ‘for ever.’  In September 1440 in what appears to be a private audience with King Henry at Kennington, with only Adam Moleyns who drew up Lyndwood’s petition present, the king granted Lyndwood’s request (1).

(1) PPC V, pp. 116-117 (Lyndwood’s petition).

Sir Ralph Grey

Sir Ralph Grey had been appointed constable of Roxburgh Castle in 1435.  In June 1440 he indented to continue as constable of Roxburgh from the date of the expiry of his last indenture (midsummer 1438) for another six years (1).

See Year 1436: Scotland, Roxburgh.

See Year 1437: Scotland, Berwick and Roxburgh.

There are numerous entries in Documents Relating to Scotland vol. IV between 1436 and 1440 for money or tallies issued to Ralph Grey for wages, repairs, and munitions for Roxburgh (2).  His notional wage was £1,000 p.a. in time of peace and £2,000 in time of war.

Grey did not fulfil his contract; he went to Normandy with the Duke of York in 1441 and became captain of Mantes. He died in France in 1443 (3).

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

(1) PPC V, p. 120 (indenture).

(2) Documents Relating to Scotland IV, pp. 223-234 (assorted accounts)

(3) Bell, Curry, The Soldier, p. 92 and 237 (to Normandy).

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

The Tudor Brothers

Queen Katherine’s two sons by Owen Tudor, ‘Edmund ap Meredith ap Tudor and Jasper ap Meredith ap Tudor’ had been placed in the care of Katherine de la Pole abbess of Barking after the queen’s death in 1437.

Katherine de la Pole was the sister of William de la Pole, Earl of Suffolk, steward of the royal household. Over the next two years, until the end of February 1439, the abbess received £50 for their upkeep.  After that no further payments were made, and in November 1440 she petitioned for £53 12s. to cover their costs up to 31 October 1440 (1).

(1) Foedera X, p. 828

Bury St Edmunds     

King Henry stayed at the rich Benedictine Abbey of Bury St Edmunds from Christmas 1433 to Easter 1434 as the guest of the Abbot, William Curteys.

See Year 1433: Austerity measures

Curteys petitioned the king in 1440 for protection against unnamed ‘misdoers’ who appear to have used violence to disrupt the abbey’s law court and infringe the abbey’s franchise.  An hereditary steward was supposed to protect the abbey’s inhabitants, but the unnamed man did not live at Bury St Edmunds or perform his duties as he should. Curteys requested the king to empower William de la Pole, Earl of Suffolk, who had protected the abbey in the past, to ‘supporte, maynteyne  and defende’ the abbey and discipline the ‘mysdoerys and opresseres.’  The petition was granted (1).

(1) PPC V, pp. 124-125 (Suffolk to protect the abbey).

John Bloxwich, Bishop of Skalholt

John Bloxwich, the absentee bishop of Skalholt (and Holar) in Iceland, first engaged in semi-illicit trade with Iceland in 1436 through a special licence issued to him by the Council. Presumably his ecclesiastical status enabled him to obtain further licences in 1437, 1438, and 1440 (1).

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

See Year 1438: The Bishops, the Bishop of Holar.

To evade the trading restrictions imposed by the King of Denmark who was also King of Iceland, English merchants shipped profitable cargoes to and from Iceland on the bishop’s behalf while he remained in England. The Council profited from this arrangement as full duties had to be paid on the cargoes. The licence issued in 1440 refers to Bloxwich as King Eric’s confessor! Was the King of Denmark complicit in the trade he had forbidden, or was this a claim invented by the shady bishop?

“Licence for John Secheford and John Candeler to lade two ships with 100 quarters of wheat and other victuals and cloth, take them to Iceland, after paying all dues, unload them there for the use of the bishop of Scalhelte, load them again with goods to be received from the said bishop and his deputies, and bring them back to England” (2).

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

(1) Foedera X, p 762 (licence).

(2) CPR 1436-1441, p. 386 (cargoes).

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

Henry VI and Eton College

King Henry celebrated the assumption of his personal rule by founding a college at Eton (1).  In September 1440 he enfeoffed twelve feoffees with all the alien priories in England ‘in the king’s hands’ together with ‘the rents farms, issues, and profits of all such priories etc as are in the hands of farmers or tenants for term of life or years; and all apports, pensions and portion sometime belonging to the said houses abroad and now of the king, to hold from Easter last, and the premises so in the hands of farmers or others as these fall in’ (2, 3).

‘Appointment during pleasure to fulfil the king’s intent and will:’ Henry Chichele, Archbishop of Canterbury, John Stafford, Bishop of Bath and Wells, John Lowe Bishop of St Asaph, William Aiscough Bishop of Salisbury (Henry’s confessor) William de la Pole, Earl of Suffolk steward of the household) , John Somerset (Henry’s physician) Thomas Beckington (the king’s secretary, John Hampton, James Fiennes, (household men) Richard Andrew (Warden of All Souls, Oxford), Adam Moleyns (clerk of the Council) and  William Tresham (Speaker of the Commons).

The enfeoffment was part of the financial arrangements required to found the College of Eton (4).

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

(1) Bekyngton, Correspondence II, pp. 279-285 287-290.

(2) Foedera X, pp. 802-803 (alien priories).

(3) CPR 1436-1441, pp. 454  and 471(alien priories).

(4) Wolffe, Henry VI, pp. 135-136 citing PRO [NA] E 28/65/4 (for Eton).

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

The Papacy

William Croyser

A safe conduct for four years was issued in September to the papal nuncio William Croyser, Archdeacon of Teviotdale and his companions, to travel through England to and from Scotland on papal business (1, 2).

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

(1) Foedera X, pp. 762-763

(2) Documents relating to Scotland IV, p. 234

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

Bishop of Llandaff

John Wells, Bishop of Llandaff died in 1440 and permission to elect a new bishop was issued on 17 November (1). King Henry recommended Reginald Boulers, Abbot of Gloucester to the pope as Wells’s successor, but Boulers, either voluntarily or under pressure, refused the appointment. Henry then endorsed Nicholas Ashby; he was elected by the chapter of the church in February 1441.

Henry requested Eugenius to sanction the election and reminded the pope that he had not always complied with the king’s wishes in the past and trusts he will do so this time (2).

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

(1) Foedera X, pp. 833-834 (permission to elect).

(2) Bekyngton, Correspondence I, pp. 27-28, 31-32 (Boulers and Ashby).

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

Piero da Monte

Representatives from Pope Eugenius IV had been in England from November 1439 to June 1440 to sell papal indulgences.

See Year 1439: Indulgences

In June 1440 the Council licenced Piero da Monte, the ubiquitous papal collector in England, to purchase letters of exchange to send the money to Pope Eugenius (1).

The acidulous cleric Thomas Gascoigne, writing in the 1450s roundly condemned the pope, da Monte, and the high prices they demanded. He repeated the accusation three times, as was his custom:

“In that year (1440) Eugenius IV published great indulgences throughout Christendom. The pope’s collector in England who received the money for the letters of indulgence granted was Master Peter de Monte, a proud Lombard. When he left England with the enormous sums collected by these sales, he swore by the Body of Christ in the presence of Master Vincent Clement that Pope Eugenius should never have the money he collected unless he would first send him bulls appointing him archbishop of Milan” (2).

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

(1) Foedera X, p. 764 (letters of exchange)

(2) Gascoigne, Loci e Libro Veritatum, pp. 123, 124, and 126 (accusations).

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

Cardinal Kemp

John Kemp, Archbishop of York led the English delegations to the peace congress at Arras in 1435 and the peace conference at Oye in 1439.  Pope Eugenius was impressed by what he saw as Kemp’s efforts to make peace, a cause he had long advocated. Without apparently consulting Kemp or King Henry, Eugenius created Kemp Cardinal Priest of Santa Balbina on 18 December 1439 in commendam with the archbishopric of York (1).

 “And that same yere the archebisshop of York was made a Cardenall.”  Chronicles of London (Vitellius A XVI) p. 154

“The Archbishop of York was made Cardinal under the title of Saint Balbine.” Benet’s Chronicle, p. 188

Piero da Monte informed King Henry in January of Pope Eugenius’s intention to create Kemp a cardinal and Henry thanked the Pope (2). A licence for Kemp to receive a cardinalate was issued at the council at Reading on 4 February while parliament was in session (3, 4). Pope Eugenius had requested Kemp’s presence in Rome, and in March Henry assured him that Kemp would come ‘as soon as possible’ but that he was also sending other English clerics to Rome (5).

The precious insignia failed to arrive. King Henry wrote in July to express surprise at the delay. He explained that it was not Kemp’s fault that he could not travel to Rome at present because of the dangers he would face along the way. Henry admitted that his safe conducts did not always afford protection (6).

Harvey suggests that the reason for the delay was Pope Eugenius’s attempt to lure Kemp to Rome. He wanted more high-ranking Englishmen in attendance at the papal court (7). He had failed to entice Cardinal Beaufort to take up residence in Rome, but Kemp would make an acceptable substitute.

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

(1) Papal Letters IX p. 46 (Kemp made cardinal).

(2) Bekyngton, Correspondence I, pp. 50-52 (Henry VI to Pope Eugenius).

(3) Foedera X, 758-760 (licence to receive a cardinalate).

(4) Bekyngton, Correspondence I, pp. 41-47 (Henry’s confirmation and his reasons).

(5) Bekyngton, Correspondence I, pp. 39-41 (Kemp will go to Rome soon).

(6) Bekyngton, Correspondence I, pp. 48-50 (insignia delayed, kemp unable to travel).

(7) Harvey, England and Papacy, p. 168 (reasons for the delay).

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

 Louis of Luxembourg

Pope Eugenius created Louis of Luxembourg, Archbishop of Rouen and Chancellor of Lancastrian France a cardinal at the same time as Kemp.

Although not as high profile in peace negotiations as John Kemp (he did not attend not  the Congress or Arras in 1435 or the peace conference  at Oye) Louis was influential in council at Westminster and indispensable to the council in  Rouen. The pope knew Louis was a favourite with King Henry who had specifically requested Eugenius to endorse the somewhat irregular presentation of Louis to the see of Ely in 1437.

See Year 1437: Bishop of Ely.

Henry’s licence to Louis to become Cardinal Priest of Quattro Santi Coronati is dated to February 1441 in the Foedera, but the document had no year, it refers to Kemp as having been made a cardinal, and it belongs with the authorisation to Kemp in February 1440. Pope Eugenius created them both as cardinals on the same day in December 1439.

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

(1) Papal Letters IX, p. 47 (Louis made cardinal).

(2) Foedera X, p. 481 (misdated)

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

Parliament


Parliament reconvened at Westminster for its second session on 14 January 1440. It sat until 15/24 February.

“Also þis yer the parliament was hold in London. And emoved after cristemas to Redyng.”   Bale’s Chronicle, p. 114

“And also in this same yere began the parlement at Westm’ at Mighelmesse and lasted to Cristemnsse, and enyorned til after the feste to Redyng in Berkschire, and so it lasted there til Schroftyd, and there endyd;”     

Chronicle of London (Harley 565) p. 126 and Chronicles of London (Cleopatra C IV), p.146

“And this same yere, on the morne after Seint Martyns Day, Kyng Henry the Sext held his parlement at Westminster, and it endured there vnto Cristmasse next and might not acorde.  And the morowe after xij day the Kyng and his lordes removed it to þe towne of Redyng ; and þere the parlement was holden and ended, to the welfare of the King and of the Reame, as we trust and hope in oure Lord God, in tyme coming.”  Brut Continuation F, p. 474

“And the same yere, the xij day of Nouembre, began the parlement atte Westm’, and that endewred vnto the xi day of Decembre next folowyng; and then it was enjourned vnto Redyng ; and there it began the thursday  after the xij day, the xiiij day, of Janyver.  Chronicles of London (Vitellius A XVI) p. 153

Anti-Alien legislation  

Legislation to tax and restrict the trading rights of foreign merchants was enacted during the second session of Parliament at Reading (1). The term ‘alien’ applied to anyone not owing allegiance to Henry VI, particularly foreign merchants. ‘Lombards’ was a collective term for all Italians, and ‘Easterlings’ were members of the Hanseatic League.

‘Hosting’ laws required alien merchants to have all their trading activities supervised by an English host to ensure that they used the money they received from the sale of their imports to purchase English goods (2).

The legislation was not new. It had been compulsory in London since 1327, and legislation to enforce it was passed in 1404.  The parliament of 1413 decreed ‘that all aliens should be placed under hosts, as Englishmen are with them.’  Similar decrees were passed in 1416, 1425, 1427 and 1432, the latter imposing fines on mayors and corporations who failed to comply with the regulations.  The 1439 act went further.  Alien merchants were to have hosts appointed for them by the mayor of their city of residence within a week of their arrival, but this part of the act was not enforced and was never renewed.  The law concerning the Lombards going to host was to remain in force for eight years (3).

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

(1) PROME XI, pp 292-393

(2) J.L. Bolton, ‘London and the anti-alien legislation of 1439-40,’ in Resident Aliens in Later Medieval England,’ ed. W. Mark Ormond, N. McDonald, and C. Taylor (2017).

(3) R. Flenley, ‘London and foreign merchants in the reign of Henry VI,’ English Historical Review XXV (1910). 

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

“In the which parliament was ordeyned that the lumbardes shuld goo to host for VII yer: and that all maner alienes enherite in the land shuld yerely pay a tribute to the kyng and that the see shuld be kept for enymyes which ordennces toke noon effect.”   Bale’s Chronicle, p. 114

“and at the whiche parlement was ordeyned that  all marchauntes strangers shulde gon to oost with Englysshmen withinne too days after they be comen into the lond, in what partie of the lond soevery thei be to selle there marchaundyse, and bye ayen withinne viij monthes after there comynge, and gon ageyn withinne the same terme;  and in case that eny of ther marchaundyse leve unsold at there partynge, they to have it with them withoughten eny custom payenge, and the goodes that they bye and selle shall yeven to there hoost for every xxs. worth, ijd  except the Estirlynges. 

Chronicle of London (Harley 565) p. 126-27 and Chronicles of London (Cleopatra C IV) pp. 146-147

“And in that parlement the comones desired that lombardes and aliens shuld be put vnto hoste ; but it was long afore it might be graunted ; and so it was graunted and not performed to grete hindryng and [so in the MS.] the merchanuntes of Englond, &cs.”  London Chronicles (Vitellius A XVI), p. 153

“The parliament held in this year ended at Reading.  In which parliament it was ordered that all foreign merchants must be hosted by Englishmen after arriving in England; and their merchandise must be sold, and they must leave again within eight months.”  Annales, p. 762

Chronicles: Gregory’s Chronicle, p. 182.  Short English Chronicle, p. 63.

 

Poll Tax

A poll tax of 16d. yearly for alien householders, and 6d. for non-house holding aliens was imposed by Parliament for three years (1).

The Commons intended the money thus raised to go towards putting ships to sea to patrol the Channel and defend the coasts and Calais, but the return was inadequate (2).

Parliament did not set a date for the commencement of the poll tax, and a memorandum signed by King Henry instructed the Chancellor to request the bishops in every diocese to obtain from the parish clergy the names of all householders liable for the tax. The same instructions were sent to the mayor and aldermen of London requiring the constables for each ward to supply the names of aliens living in their wards so that tax could be imposed. (3).

“Allso at that same parliament it whas ordered that the kynges vitall schuld be payd for and the cite of Calais to be made ayen.  And the see to be kepte with the v portys of Englond: and that euery household of duche pepil schall pay to the th by yere xvj d, and euery servaunt of hem shall pay vi d., be yere.”  Chronicle of London, (Harley 565) p. 127 and Chronicles of London (Cleopatra C IV), p. 147

And in this parlement was ordeyned that almoner of aliens should pay to the king , that is to wete euery householder what so euer they were, frensshmen, Iryssh, Gasgoynes, fflemynges, Duche or eny other nacion xvj d by the yere, except Walsshmen; and all the seruantes of the same nacions vj d. by the yere &c. Chronicles of London (Vitellius A XVI) p. 153

“And it was ordered that Calais should be repaired and the seas kept, and that Dutchmen living in England must pay 16 pence per annum and 6 pence for their servants.” Annales, p. 762

“And about the Feast of All Saints the king held a parliament at London in which it was ordained that all aliens whomsoever who were residents should pay an annual tax of 16 pence and non- residents to pay 6 pence.” Benet’s Chronicle, p. 186

“And that same yere alyens were putte to hy fynaunce to pay a certayne a yere to the kynge.” Gregory’s Chronicle, p. 182

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

(1) PROME XI, pp 253-254 (poll tax on aliens).

(2) Griffiths, Henry VI, p. 378: ‘The poll tax imposed on aliens for the first time in 1440 raised only a small additional sum during 1440-44 (£350 per annum)’.

(3) PPC V, Appendix pp 421-22 (instruction to clergy).

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

London

Food

Unlike the previous three years, when there had been famine in the land, Harley 565 and Cleopatra CIV record that food prices dropped in 1440-1441. Wheat, wine and salt were all cheaper than they had been.

“And in this yere was wyn, salt, and whete gret chepe in parties of Engelond.” 

Chronicle of London (Harley 565) p. 128 and Chronicles of London (Cleopatra C IV) p. 148

Storm

A bolt of lightning during a thunderstorm on the afternoon of 12 August 1440 caused havoc at the Star Inn in Bread Street, a thoroughfare from the market in Cheap down to the dock at Queenhythe on the river. Carts loaded with hay were either stored or had taken shelter down a narrow passage beside the inn. The hay caught fire, and the locals were afraid it would spread and cause further damage.  The heavy rain probably helped to douse the flames, and the sodden mess was dumped in Cheapside,

“Also this same yere on a Fryday that is for to seye the xij day of August, aboughte iij of the belle at afternoon, there fill a sodeyn thondyr clap with a gret reyn and a lyghtnynge, the whiche lyghtenynge entred in at a wynde and distroyd moche hey which was stuffed in a gret hous at the Sterre in Bredstrete; and the remenaunt of the hey was cast out and had in to Chepe, the quantyte of L cart full; and so, worchepyd be God, there was not moche more harme do, but palbrakyd sore therein and lost the hey.”  Chronicle of London (Harley 565) p. 126

“And in this same yere, the xij Day of August, ϸer fell such wederyng of rayn, thunder and lighting in ϸe after None ϸat it was hydous, and wonder to se; wherof the peple were sore agast; for the lightning fell in Bredstrete, on ϸe Inn ϸat is called the Sterre; and there it did moche harme, for it fell in a hey hous where ϸer was L cartfull of heye, and more; and it was all lost and destroyed, and was carried into Chepe; and had not been the high mercy and grace of God, and the grete Rayn, the peple dred it shuld haue brent moche of the Cite and destroyed moche good in that partye.”   Brut Continuation F, p. 476

On the following night, Friday the thirteenth, a goldsmith’s house near the cross in Cheapside adjacent to the Eagle (Inn?) burned to the ground, and a nearby tannery was damaged.

“Also on Fryday xiiij nyght after that, in the nyghtes tyme was a goldsmyth hous be syde the crosse in Chepe althernest the Egle brent, and al that was therinne; but it were the lesse and a part of the tannere at the Egle, and the good man of the Egle hadde moche harm as it was seyd.” Chronicle of London (Harley 565) p. 127

Sir Richard Woodville and a Spanish knight

 ‘Pierre Vast’ [Pedro Vasque] a Spanish knight errant, resident at the court of Duke Philip of Burgundy came to London to issue a challenge for an English knight to fight in honour of his lady.

Chastellain recounts that ‘Pierre Vast’, a Spaniard, had jousted with the Comte de Charnay in 1448 at ‘the Tree of Charlemagne’ in the Duchy of Burgundy before coming to London to meet Sir Richard Woodville, whom he describes as aussi de bonne estoffe (1).

Woodville was accounted one of the best ‘single combat’ men in England, but there was some doubt at first as to whether Woodville or Sir Christopher Talbot, another noted exponent of chivalry, would take the field.

A correspondent of the Pastons wrote that

‘. . . there is j-kome in-to Englond a knight out of Spayne with a  kerchief of plesaunce j-wrapped aboute hys arme, the qwych knyght wyl renne a cors with a sharpe spere for his souereyn

lady sake; qwom othyr Ser Richard Woodvyle or Ser Cristofore Talbot shall delyuer, to the wyrchip of Englond and of hem self, be Goddes grace’ (2).

Smithfield was a large area to the north of the City outside its walls, famous for the jousts that took place there. Woodville presented himself at Smithfield on 26 November 1440 and agreed to fight with axe, sword and dagger, in King Henry’s presence, but the king stopped the contest in the first round.

Henry ordered the Exchequer to re-imburse the sheriffs for London for the cost of preparing the lists (3).

“In the same yere, the morwe after seynt Katerine day, was a chalange in armes provyd afore the kyng, withinne lystes made in Smythfeld, between Sr Richard Wodevill, knight of Engelond, and a knight of Spayn, whiche knight for his lady love shulde fyghten in certeyn points of armes, that is to seye, with ax, swerd, and daggere; and or theri hadde do with the polax the kyng cried hoo [and there the kyng toke the bataile into his hand withynne iiij strokes and so was ended – in the Cotton MS].

Chronicle of London (Harley 565), the London Chronicles (Cleopatra C IV) p. 148  

“And in this yere, the xxvj. day of Nouembre, a knyght of Spayne chalenged Sir Richard Wodvyle, knyght, in certeyn poyntes and courses of werre, on foote, within listes, with polaxe, swerd and dagger.  And thys feet was doon in Smythfeld betwene these two knyghtes well and worthely, and bothe good men and worthy in their dedys of armes.  And so the Kyng, of his roiall mageste, cryed ‘hoo’, and toke their quarell into his gracious handes.”  Brut Continuation F, p 477

“And on 3 December, a Saturday, there was a duel in Smithfield between Sir Richard Woodville and a knight of Spain, and the Spaniard had the victory.” Benet’s Chronicle (p. 187)

Benet dates the encounter to a week later and unaccountably accords the victory to the Spaniard.

Chronicles: Bale’s Chronicle, p. 115.  Short English Chronicle, p. 63.  Gregory’s Chronicle, p. 183.

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

(1) Chastellain, Oeuvres III, p. 455 (Pierre Vast).

(2) Paston Letters II, ed. N. Davies, p. 22 dated 1 November 1440.

(3) Foedera X, pp. 828-829 (payment for the joust).

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

An Appellant and a Defendant

A less well reported encounter between two thieves took place at Tothill Fields in Westminster, another popular venue for single combat. The only account, in Harley 565 and Cleopatra C IV is the same. Presumably the ‘appellant’ gave evidence against the ‘defendant.’  The appellant won the fight in ‘three strokes’ (of an axe?).

“Also moreover in the same yere was a fighting at the Tothill between too thefes, a pelour and a defendant, and the pelour hadde the feld and victory of the defendant withinne thre strokes.” 

Chronicle of London (Harley 565) p. 128. London Chronicles (Cleopatra C IV) p. 148

Richard Wyche

Richard Wyche, a priest who had been tried for heresy as a Lollard under King Henry IV   was examined again by Convocation in 1419. After a short term of imprisonment he was freed in 1420 (1).

Formerly vicar of Deptford, Wyche was vicar of Harmondsworth by 1439 (2). He was apprehended by order of Robret Gilbert, Bishop of London in 1440, degraded at St Paul’s and burned on Tower Hill on 17 June with another man, whom Gregory’s Chronicle identifies as Wyche’s servant; Brut F names him as Roger Norman (or the Norman).

Wyche had a personal following in London, some accounted him a saint, and people gathered on Tower Hill to make offerings and erect a heap of stones with a wooden cross in his memory. His ashes were carried off as a memento, although Thomson doubts the veracity of the story in An English Chronicle that the Vicar of Barking made a profit by mixing powered spices with the ashes and strewing the compound in the place of the burning, to deceive people and enrich himself by their offerings.

The disturbances caused by Wyche’s death worried the civic authorities, always apprehensive of popular unrest. A royal writ issued a week after the execution ordered the mayor of London to keep the peace and to recall all absent aldermen to assist him if need be.

A month later the alderman Sir William Estfield was deputised by the mayor to take as many aldermen as he needed to Tower Hill to disperse the crowds that had gather there. On 15 July, a second writ forbade pilgrimages to Wyche’s grave because it was rumoured that miracles were being performed there, which, the writ stated, was untrue. The watch continued for six weeks after Wyche’s death, and according to Rawlinson B 355 animal dung was spread over the site to defile it.

Wyche’s death, and the manner of it made an impression on the chroniclers.

An English Chronicle has the longest account, it accuses Wyche of blasphemy, and of slandering the four orders of Friars, but whether because they were not permitted to admit a child under the age of fourteen to their order, or to accuse them of flouting this prohibition is not made clear.

Benet’s Chronicle does not name Wyche, but uniquely records his heresy: if priests could have two benefices, then men could have two wives.  If Wyche’s preaching was as radical and reformist as this suggests, it may account for his popularity.

The Great Chronicle and Brut G, say Wyche repented before he died.

“The xix yeer of kyng Harri, the Friday before midsomer, a prest callid ser Richard Wyche, that was a vicary in Estsexe, was brend on the Tourhille for heresie, for whoo[s] deth was gret murmur and troubil among the peple, for some said he was a good man and an holy, and put to deth be malice; and some saiden the contrary; and so dyuers men hade of him dyuers oppinions. 

And so fer forth the commune peple was brought in such errour, that meny menne and women wente by nyghte to the place where he was brend, and offrid there money and ymage[s] of wax, and made thair praiers knelyng as thay wolde haue don to  a saynt, and kiste the ground and baar away with thaym the asshis of his body as for relique[s]; and this endured viij daie[s], til the mair and aldermenne ordeyned men of arme[s] forto restreyne and lette the lewd pepl fro that fals ydolatrie, and meny were therfore taken and lad to prisoun.

And among othir was take the vicary of Berkyngschirche beside the tour of Londoun, in who[s] parishe alle this was done, that receyued the offering of the simple peple.  And for to excite and stire thaym to offer the more feruently, and to fulfille and satisfie his fals couetise, he took asshis and medlid thaym with powder of spice[s] and strowed thaym in the place where the said heretic was brend; and so the simple peple was deceyued, wenyng that the swete flauour hadde comme of the asshis of the ded heretic: for this the said vicari of Berkyngschiche confessed aftirward in prison.  And the said heretic cesid nevir vnto the laste brethe forto blaspheme and desclaundre the iiij ordris of freris, the whiche was no token of perfeccion ne of charite.”   An English Chronicle, pp. 56-57

“And in the year 1440 after the feast of Pentecost a vicar of Middlesex near Howndysley who preached against ecclesiastical pluralities was arrested and burnt in London.  He said that if priests could have two benefices then layman could have two wives. Benet’s Chronicle, p.187

“And In this mayers tyme a preyst named sir Rychard wych was brent at the Towyr hyll ffor certayn poyntis of heresy. Thys was vycar of a toun namyd hermettysworth In [ blank ] and took such Repentaunce that he dyed a trewe Crystyn man,

And for wordys which he spak beffore  his deth In sayyng that the postern Gate of the Towyr shuld shortly afftyr synk, as afftyr by casuelte It dyd.

Many unlernyd, as specyally women cam to the place of his execucuin, and there made an huge hepe of stonys & arerid a crosse of Tre, and made there many offeryngys and said that he wrougth myraclys, The whych errour contynuyd tyll the Shyrevis of london by the commaundement of the Chaunceler (henry Chiseley archbyshope of Cantorbery Chanselar)   & oþir Bysshoppis by fforce ffordid that Idolatry, but not wythowth Inprisonment of soom comer to þt place.  How well lastly It was ffordoon and a dunghyll made In the same place where the chyeff offeryng was.” Great Chronicle, pp. 174-175

“This same yere, Sir Richard, which was vicare of Hermetesworth, was degraded of his prestehode at Poules, & brent at Tour Hill, as for an heretike, vpon Seynt Botulphe day; how-be-it, at his deth he died A gode Cristen man; wherfor, after his deth moche peple come to þe place wher he was brent, & offred, & made an hepe of stones, & sett vp A crosse of tree, & held him for A Seynt, til þe Mair & shereves by þe commaundment of þe Kyng & of bisshopes, destroyed it, & made þer A dong-hill.  Brut Continuation G, p. 508

“In the 18th year Richard Wiche, vicar of Armetesworth, who had been convicted of heresies many years earlier had abjured them and done penance. Subsequently he relapsed and was condemned and degraded from the priesthood.  It was decreed by the legal authorities (i.e. the secular arm of the law) that he be burnt at Tower Hill on the Feast of St Botulph.  English Historical Literature (Brief Notes) p. 339

Kingsford’s note:  The description of him as vicar of ‘Armetesworth’ points to the derivation of this Chronicle from Brut G; usually he is styled Vicar of Deptford.

“And in this same yere, Sir Richard Wyche, vicar of Hermondesworth in Middlesex þat somtyme was vicar of Depford in Kent; and oon Roger Norman, of Normandy born, was take and brought before the Bishop of London, and tofore the clergie, in the Chapitre hous of Seint Paules; and there they bothe were conuicte in heresye. 

And then ther come a write from the Chauncellor to the Maire and Shirrefs of London, to do execucion on theym; and so they were brought to the Towre Hill on Seint Botulphes Day, and ϸere brent, bothe in oon tonne; and thus they ended theire lives in this world.  And ϸe peple ϸat sawe theym dye, had grete compassion on theym, for the confession and ende ϸat they made in theire good byleve, and thanked God of his sonde.”  Brut Continuation F, p. 476.

“In this year on St Botulph’s day, 17 June, before the Feast of the Nativity of John the Baptist, Sir Richard Wyche, vicar of Hermettiseworthe was degraded at St Paul’s and burnt at the Tower of London for his heresies.  A great many men and women, believing him to be a holy martyr, set up a cross at that place [where he died] and began to make offerings of money and wax images.  So that by order of the mayor and the sheriffs of the City, people were driven away by force and the place was defiled with animal dung to prevent further idolatry.  Six Town Chronicles (Rawlinson B 355) p. 101

Allso in that yere whas Sir Richard Wiche, wich whas som tyme vecory of Depford, whas takyn, and a nother secular man with him ffor heretykes, and were dampned. And the sayd Sir Richard whas disgrated, and after thei were both brent on the fryday be the morne at vi of the clok, the viiij day afore mydsomerday, at þe Tourhill; ffor the wich Sir Richard whas made grete mone among the comyn peple.  And grete wacche whas made ffor the offeryng that the pepill did ther for him in all the wardys of the cite of london.

Chronicle of London (Harley 565) Chronicles of London (Cleopatra C IV) p. 148

Chronicles: Bale’s Chronicle, p. 114., Short English Chronicle, p. 63. Gregory’s Chronicle, p. 183 Chronicles of London (Vitellius A XVI) pp. 153-154

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

(1) J. A. F. Thomson, The Later Lollards pp. 148-150 (Wyche).

(2) Emden, Oxford III, p. 2101 (Wyche).

(3) London Letter Book K, ed. Sharpe, p. 239 (orders to the mayor of London).

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

Hangings

Men of Surrey hanged

There was a rising at Farnham in Surrey in 1440. Was it part of the disturbances that followed the death of Richard Wyche?    

“And the same yere there were men taken that were named Risers of ffernam in Sotherey; and some were hangid, and some were brent.”  Chronicles of London (Vitellius A XVI) p. 154

A False accuser hanged

A London man, a fuller from Shoreditch gave false evidence against men from Kent, but his accusations are not recorded. Was this too connected to Richard Wyche?

“And this same yere, a fuller of Shordiche apeched of treson many worthy men of Kent, bothe Squires, and oϸer worthy men of gentlemen; wherof he was attaint, and proved fals of his fals apechement; And so he was brought afore the lawe, and dampned to be drawe and hanged, and his hede smyten of, and sett on London Brigge, and his quarters set on iiij gates of London: and this was doon the iiijth day of Maye.”  Brut Continuation F, p. 476 

A False purveyor hanged

“Also in this same yere was a man drawen and hanged, behid, and quartered, and sett up at diverses places for he tok up bestes and all maner vitaill in the cuntre in the kynges name, and was but a thef, and so robbyd the cuntre with treson.” A Chronicle of London (Harley 565) p. 127. Chronicles of London (Cleopatra C IV) p. 147

Royal purveyors had the right to purchase food and other necessities at below market rates to maintain the king’s household. They frequently requisitioned goods without immediate payment.  The problem was compounded by ‘false purveyors,’ men who claimed to be in the king’s service but were really thieves.

The abuse of purveyance was widespread, as King Henry and the Council acknowledged.  They took steps to curb the practice and punish malefactors. The penalty was death.

Parliament presented protests against purveyance in 1440, and King Henry promised redress. Income from Duchy of Lancaster lands was assigned to the purchase of household necessities (1).

(1) PROME XI pp. 255-247

 Murder on the Thames  

 A ship from Flanders delivered a cargo of fish to the City of London during Lent. It was homeward bound down the Thames when it was boarded by two men, possibly bargemen. They robbed and murdered the Flemish crew, cutting their throats and throwing the bodies overboard before scuttling the ship to conceal the crime.  Gregory’s Chronicle labels the two men as traitors, because, as Brut F implies, their action violated the trade treaty between England and Flanders.

The murderers were apprehended and hanged in chains, with iron collars round their necks on a pair of gallows set up on the banks of the Thames between the Hospital of St Katherine and Wapping, just outside the City Walls to the east of the Tower. Pirates were hanged there at the low water mark and left until three tides had washed over them (1).

(1) Stow, Survey of London II, pp 70-71

The hangings took place on Tuesday, 19 April according to the Brut F, or 30 April according to the Chronicles of London (Vitellius A XVI.) Brut F has six men (not identified as Flemings) murdered aboard more than one ship. A Chronicle of London (Harley 565) has four men and a child, while Vitellius A XVI has only one Fleming who had sailed down river as far as Gravesend where he was killed and his ship burned.

“Also this yere were too bargemen hanged in Tempse beyownde seynt Katerines, for scleying of iij Flemynges and a child, beynge in a schip in Tempse of there contre, and weren homward; and there they hengen til the water hadde wasted them be ebbyng and flowyd, so the water bett upon them.  Chronicle of London (Harley 565) p. 125

“And this same yere, in the tyme of Lent, some vj persones with theire shippes from byyonde the see, with dyuers fyssh forto vitayle the Cite of London.  And when they were delyuerd, and goyng homeward, ϸer come a company of fals men, and pursued theym in a barge, and come vpon theym in the nyght, as they were aslepe in theire vesseles and rode by anker in Tamys, and slewe all þat were there in the shippes, and cutte þeir throtes and cast theym in the water, and after drowned theire shippes, – and the shippes sank in the water – for no man shuld espye theire falsnesse.  And so, within a while after, two of these theves were take and dampned, for theire trespassem ϸat they brake the Kynges trewes and peas, to be ledde to Seint Katerins byyonde the Toure of London, and ϸere a payre of Galowes to be sett vp, and hanged with cheynes and coolers of Iron, till they be wasted and spent.  And this was doon on a Friday, in the morning, ϸe xixth day of Aprell.” Brut Continuation F, pp. 475-476

“And atte Ester next after ther were certeyn men robbed a fflemmyng, that had brought hider fissh, as he was homeward beside gravesende in the Watyr; and they slewe hym and his men myschevously, and breynt ther vesseill. And the last day of Aprill there were ij of the same men, that robbed them, were hanged in the Watyr of the Tamyse beside Saynt Kateryns galowe; and so they hyng by strong cheynes for to yeve all othir thevis ensample.  Chronicles of London (Vitellius A XVI) p. 154

“Also in this same yere there were ij traytours hangyde on a payre of galowys that were made in Temys for the same purposse, be syde Syn Kateryns. Gregory’s Chronicle, pp. 182-183

Chronicles: Chronicles of London (Cleopatra C IV), p. 147.  Short English Chronicle, p.  63.  A Chronicle of London (J B I ) p. 173. Annales p, 762.

A Woman’s Murderer Hanged

A householder and his servant living in Hackey went into London to buy food and provisions. The servant returned to the house alone and went on the rampage. He murdered the man’s pregnant wife, ‘a damsel’ possibly the wife’s maid, and a young man. He robbed them and fled but was caught and brought to Westminster for trial. He was imprisoned in the Tower of London and dragged on a hurdle through the City streets to Tyburn where he was hanged.

“And in this same yere, and in the yere of grace M+ CCC xl., a seruant þat was with a man of Hakney, ij myle from London, come with his mayster to London, and bought vitayle and must for deynte, forto sende hoom to his wife, for she was grete with childe. 

And the fals creature, when he come hom, slewe ϸe wife and the child within her, and an oϸer damsel and a noϸer yong felawe ϸat was within his hous, and robbed theym.  And so he fledde, and wold haue goon his weye; but God wold not so; for murdour woll com oute; and so he was take and brought to London, and so to Westminster; and ϸere he had his dome, to be brought to ϸe Toure of London, and ϸere leide on a hirdell, and drawen thurgh the Cite to Tyburn, and ϸere hanged for his falshede.”  Brut Continuation F, pp. 474-475

Sanctuary

Philip Malpas and Robert Marshal, the sheriffs of London for 1439-1440 forcibly removed five men from the sanctuary of St Martin’s Le Grand, first to their prison of the Counters and then to Newgate.

The Dean of St Martin’s complained to King Henry and the king ordered the mayor of London to return the men to sanctuary. The account of their removal and subsequent treatment in the chronicles is based on the king’s letter.  It differs from the justification submitted to the mayor by the sheriffs (1).

St Martin’s Le Grand was a ‘liberty’ a large enclave within the City of London north of St Paul’s where the mayor and sheriffs of London had no legal jurisdiction. “As servants of the city the sheriffs removed escaped prisoners from the sanctuary and as servants of the king, they were instructed to restore them. In such cases the sheriffs expected the common council to indemnify them” (2).

Philip Malpas claimed in a petition to the mayor that he had sent an officer of the court, John Norburgh, to the gaoler of Newgate with an order to release one John Knight, a soldier, into Norburgh’s custody to be taken to the court at the Guildhall to answer for a debt claimed against him.

On the way from Newgate, ‘in the King’s highway,’ outside St Martin Le Grand, Norburgh and the escort were attacked by four men armed with daggers: Richard Morys, John Rede, William Janyuer and Christopher [or Thomas] Blackburn; they were known thieves and felons who had taken sanctuary in St Martins Le Grand. Thus they had broken the law of the land and infringed the liberties of the City of London.

They rescued John Knight and retreated to sanctuary.  Malpas did not admit in so many words that he had then invaded sanctuary and arrested all five men. He claimed the mayor and Common Council’s protection. The Dean of St Martin’s had threated to prosecute him, and he requested that the City should bear the cost of any fine the court imposed.

John Carpenter, ex clerk of the Common Council who was a specialist in sanctuary law was consulted, but as the sheriffs could not produce credible witnesses against John Knight, the decision went against them.

The Dean wrote to the King and Council alleging violation of St Martin’s ancient right to offer sanctuary. There was a fine line between not upsetting the City authorities and so infringing ancient rights, and royal officers’ duty to arrest felons. King Henry was disposed to favour religious rights over secular ones. He ordered that the men should be returned to sanctuary.

“And this year on 1 September Philip Malpas and Thomas (sic) Marshal, the sheriffs of London, with their officers, went to St Martin Le Grand and took five men from sanctuary, namely John Knight, Christopher Blackbone, John Reed, Richard Morice and William Janyver ;  and  bound them in fetters and escorted them to their gaol (the Counters). But afterwards, on 31 October, they were returned to sanctuary by order of the king, and the decree of the judges.   Six Town Chronicles (Rawlinson B 355) p. 101.

“Also þis same yere þe shyreves of London sett out of Seynt Martyns þe Grannt, þe sanctuarey, fyve persones which afterward wer restored Ageyn to þe same sanctuarye by þe Kinges Iusticez.”  Brut Continuation G, p. 508

 Thys yere also ye first day of september the shyrevys ffett owth of Seynt martyns la graund v seyntuary men per fforce yt is to saye John knyght, Cristofer blackborne, John reed, Richard morice & william Janyuer, fast feteryd . But It was not long afftyr, Or they were thidyr Restorid by the commaundement of the kyngys Justycys the last day of octobar anno 1440.” Great Chronicle, p. 175

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

(1) London, Letter Book K, pp. 241-246 (King Henry’s letter.

(2) Barron, London in the Later Middle Ages, p 163 (sheriffs).

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

Portugal

Prince Pedro, Duke of Coimbra and Regent of Portugal for the child king Afonso V had sought confirmation from King Henry of the Treaty of Windsor, an old alliance between Portugal and England dating back to the fourteenth century.

See Year 1428: Portugal.

King Henry and King Afonso reaffirmed the trade treaties between their two countries in January 1440 (1) and in February Henry wrote to Afonso and to the Regent expressing his ‘great joy’ in renewing their friendly relations and wishing Afonso a prosperous reign (2).

But there was friction as well as friendship between them. Trade flourished, but so did piracy which was, of course, a serious breach of the treaty. English pirates raided Portuguese ships, and the Portuguese reciprocated.  “Portuguese and English preyed equally upon each other’s shipping in spite of royal injunctions that treaties should be kept” (3).

See Years 1437 and 1439: Portugal.

Afonso complained of English piracy in Portuguese waters. In particular, a ship and merchandise belonging to a Portuguese noble had been seized.  In May King Henry assured Afonso that when the names of the pirates were discovered they would be punished severely, and that an attempt to identify the pirate ship had been ‘partly successful’ (4).

Henry’s letter may refer to a commission of enquiry issued to the sheriffs of Devon and Cornwall in the preceding February. Sir Philip Courtenay, Sir William Bonville, and four other local men were instructed to investigate ‘evildoers’ who a year earlier had captured a ship carrying a cargo of wine belonging to Sir John Alar of Portugal. Restitution of the value of the wine was to be made to him (5).

In June it was King Henry’s turn to complain to Afonso on behalf of Sir William Bonville, who had investigated the previous incident. Bonville reported that his ship the Mary of Fowey had been pressed into service for the Earl of Huntingdon’s expedition to Gascony in 1439.  It had been seized by a Portuguese ship and taken to Lisbon with its valuable cargo, probably in reprisal, because the Earl of Huntingdon had seized a Portuguese vessel.  Henry requested Afonso to return Bonville’s vessel or make restitution (6).

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

(1) Foedera X, p.752 (trade treaties reaffirmed).

(2) Bekyngton, Correspondence I, pp. 205-206 (letters of congratulation).

(3) Power & Postan, English Trade, p. 222 (for quote).

(4) Bekyngton I, p. 190 (Henry to Afonso re piracy)

(5) CPR 1436-1441, p. 409 (commission of enquiry).

(6) Bekyngton I, p. 19 (Bonville’s vessel seized).

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

 The Hanseatic League

Relations between England and the Hanseatic League did not improve after the signing of a trade treaty in 1437.

See Years 1436 and 1437: The Hanseatic League.

English merchants complained throughout the early 1440s of mistreatment, of failure by the Hanse to implement the terms of the treaty. They importuned the council to take action.

King Henry wrote to Paul von Rusdolf, Grand Master of the Teutonic Knights in Prussia, requesting him to put a stop to the ill treatment of English merchants in Danzig. Danzig, an important member of the League, had not endorsed the trade treaty.

Henry also wrote to Lubek and other Hanse towns along the same lines, requesting redress for injuries done to English merchants. Attachments to Henry’s letters enumerate the complaints of three merchants from York, Hull, and Newcastle, the northern counties that had opposed the treaty in 1437, and merchants from King’s Lynn, Sandwich, Ipswich, ‘and others’ who had been imprisoned and plundered (3).

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

(1) Foedera X, p. 753-755 (letters of complaint).

(2) Postan, Medieval Trade, 269 (English merchants).

(3) Ferguson, Diplomacy, p. 97 (misread the Foedera and assumed an embassy was sent in 1439. The reference is to the commission of 1436 to treat with the Hanse).

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

The Netherlands

On the other hand, trade with the Netherlands improved. The trade treaty or intercursus with Flanders negotiated in September 1439 was widened (1).

See Year 1439: Treaty and Truce with Burgundy.

In February Thomas Kyriell, the recently appointed lieutenant of Calais, Stephen Wilton, who had been at Oye and had conducted earlier negotiations with the Four Members of Flanders, Thomas Chalton, a prominent London merchant and member of the Mercers Company  and William Ludlowe, were commissioned to negotiate for the inclusion in the treaty of the duchies of Normandy and Gascony and the Pale of Calais (2).

In May safe conducts were issued to Arnald de Ghent, Peter de Renesse, and Cornelus Baroen commissioners of the council of Holland, Zeeland and Friesland. to come to England (3).

An agreement negotiated by Stephen Wilton and John Church, the victualler of Calais, was signed in June and confirmed in July (4).

Meetings to iron out claims and conditions for reparations continued.  In October safe conducts were again issued to the three commissioners of the council of Holland, Zeeland and Friesland (5).

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

(1) Thielemans, Bourgogne et Angleterre, pp. 139-140.

(2) Foedera X. p. 761 (commission to Kyriel and Wilton).

(3) Foedera X, p. 769 (commissioners from Holland, Zeeland and Friesland, May).

(4) Foedera X, p. 791-794 (confirmation of the treaty).

(5) Foedera X, p. 805 (commissioners from Holland, Zeeland and Friesland, October).

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

Salt 

John Shiedame, a native of Zeeland, was licenced to bring sixty ‘persons’ (men and women?) into England to manufacture salt. Salt production in England was in decline. Salt was imported mainly from Spain and Portugal, but Zeeland produced salt and the licence to bring in sixty people may have been an attempt to revive the salt industry.

Salt was panned from deposits in Nantwich, Northwich, and Middlewich in Cheshire (wich=salt).

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

(1) Foedera X p. 761-762 (licence 60 persons).

(2) Postan. Medieval Finance, p. 169 (salt trade).

(3) Power & Postan, English Trade, p. 215 (salt trade).

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

Dietrich, Archbishop of Cologne

Negotiations with the Prince Archbishop of Cologne (referred to as Theodoric in King Henry’s letters) broke down in 1438. Dietrich sent envoys to London again in 1439, but no agreement was reached because the envoys did not have sufficient powers to negotiate an alliance.

See Years 1438 and 1439: The Princes of Germany.

Isbrand de Merwick, an envoy from the Bishop of Munster, who was returning home from London early in 1440, agreed to visit Cologne and convey King Henry’s regrets at the delay, and to deliver Henry’s promise that envoys would be sent to Cologne as soon as the present Parliament ended (1).

Hartung von Klux and William Swan had been appointed on 11 May to visit the Emperor Frederick and a week later on 19 May they were commissioned to go to Cologne (2).

King Henry apologised again to Dietrich for not keeping his earlier promise to send envoys, but he was now sending ambassadors with full powers. He assured Dietrich that the projected alliance would not bind the archbishop to make war on the Duke of Burgundy. Henry was more interested in encouraging the archbishop to do all he could to end the schism in the church resulting from the quarrel between the pope and the General Council at Basel than he was to form an alliance (3).

Dietrich sent two envoys to London in July.  John Lord Tiptoft, Adam Moleyns, clerk of the Council, John Stopingdon, Master of the Rolls, John Stourteway, chancellor of Bath and Wells cathedral, and Master William Swan, were authorised to conclude a treaty of alliance.

But first they were to examine the extent of the powers given to Dietrich’s ambassadors. Were they sufficient to make a binding alliance? If they were, a copy of them was to be incorporated into the final treaty.

The archbishop was to do homage in the same format used for previous indentures (with Henry V), but with appropriate modifications. John Stafford, the Chancellor would take the ambassadors’ oath of fealty to King Henry. The archbishop would supply 300 fighting men in time of war, to be paid for by the English.

The rest of the agreement was to conform with the credence given to Arnold de Brempt, Dietrich’s envoy in 1439. The points raised are in English.  Brempt’s credence is in Latin with lacunae, and rates of pay are listed at the end (4).

See Year 1439: Dietrich, Prince Archbishop of Cologne for Brempt.

The treaty was drawn up in August and confirmed by Dietrich in December. The archbishop promised to become the king’s liegeman for the rest of his life. His ambassadors swore his fealty and homage to King Henry through John Stafford.

The archbishop would protect English merchants and travellers throughout his realms. In return Henry promised to protect Cologne merchants in England.

Henry would pay Dietrich a yearly pension of 600 marks with an additional 200 marks at Michaelmas for the next six years. Thereafter only 600 marks would be paid to the archbishop (5).

The signing of the treaty with Dietrich ended the efforts of the English Council to form alliances with the German princes. Henry’s correspondence with Dietrich, printed in Bekyngton’s Correspondence and couched in standard diplomatic Latin, is obviously not Henry’s own, but the emphasis on ending the schism in the church may be due to Henry’s personal input.

“After the conclusion of the treaty the frequency with which messages were exchanged between England and Cologne declined appreciably. . . .  it was not until the end of 1448 that Dietrich and the King of England resumed regular and frequent correspondence” (6).

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

(1) Bekyngton, Correspondence I, pp. 77-78 (letter from King Henry, promise to send envoys).

(2) Foedera X, pp. 770-771 (Klux and Swan to visit Cologne).

(3) Bekyington I, pp.  94-98 (Henry’s letters to Dietrich).

(4) PPC V, pp. 126-130 (misdated by Nicolas to 22 December which is the date of the confirmation of the treaty by Dietrich not the date of the appointment of the English commissioners).

(5) Foedera X, pp. 834-389 (terms of the treaty).

(6) Ferguson, Diplomacy, pp. 65-66 (an analysis and the quotation).

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

Frederick III, Holy Roman Emperor

The Emperor Albert II died in 1439 and was succeeded by his cousin, Frederick, Duke of Inner Austria.

Frederick was elected as King of the Romans in February 1440 but owing to political differences and disputes he was not crowned emperor by the pope (Nicholas V) until 1452. He married Leonora, a daughter of King Durate of Portugal.

“After Albert þe iij, Frederike was chosen Emperoure. This Frederike, Duke of Osterike, was long Emperoure & differred for to be crowmed at Rome because of þe Scisme; but after þat vnion was had, he was crowned with Emperial Diademe, with gret glorie & trivmphe, of Pope Nicholas þe Fourt; this was A man peseble, & of singluar pacience, nat hatyng þe chirch; he wedded þe King of Portyngale doughter &c.”  Brut Continuation G. p. 508

King Henry wrote in May 1440 to congratulate Fredreck om his election and to excuse his tardiness in sending envoys, blaming the dangers of travel (1).

Sir Hartung von Klux and William Swan were commissioned to renew Henry V’s Treaty of Canterbury signed with the Emperor Sigismund which was still in force when Sigismund died in 1437 (2, 3).

Frederick sent letters to England concerning the schism in the church. William Wells, Bishop of Rochester was in Calais with the English delates to the so-called peace conference with France.  In December King Henry commissioned him to go ad Partes ultramarianus and to take gold, silver, and jewels with him (4, 5). According to Ferguson his destination was Frankfurt in response to Frederick’s letters but “for some reason the Bishop of Rochester’s mission to Frankfurt seems to have been called off” (6). There is no apparent reason why Wells should visit Frederick. He was Pope Eugenius’s choice as bishop of Rochester (7) and was more likely to be sent to Eugenius or the Church Fathers at Basel.

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

(1) Bekyngton, Correspondence I, p. 107 (Henry’s letter).

(2) Foedera X, p. 769 (envoys to Frederick).

(3) Bekyngton I, p. 243 (envoys to Frederick).

(4) Foedera X, p. 834 (Frederick’s messenger received a reward of 130 écus in November).

(5) Foedera X, p. 841 (Wells’s commission).

(6) Ferguson, Diplomacy, pp. 116-117 (background to correspondence).

(7) Papal Letters VIII, p. 582 (papal provision).

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

The Duchy of Gascony

 John Holand, Earl of Huntingdon had been sent to Gascony as the king’s lieutenant in 1439.

See Year 1439: John Holand, Earl of Huntingdon.

The Estates of Languedoc voted a tax in October 1439 to resist Huntingdon. The Dauphin Louis was King Charles’s lieutenant in Languedoc and in January 1440 William Champeaux, Bishop of Laon, the treasurer of Languedoc, assigned 1,450 livres tournois to the Dauphin to employ Jean, Viscount of Lomagne, the Earl of Armagnac’s son, to take the field with his retinue against Huntingdon (1).

Huntingdon recovered the town of Bazas, captured by Rodrigo de Villandrando, Poton de Xaintrailles, and Guy Bastard of Bourbon, during the French invasion of Gascony in 1438.

See Year 1438 The Duchy of Gascony, French invasion.

Huntingdon restored Bazas to Gaston de Foix, Count of Longueville and capital de Buch, England’s principal ally in Gascony since the beginning of Henry VI’s reign. Gaston had been granted the custody Bazas and the provostship of the Bazadois by Sir John Radcliffe, the then Seneschal of Gascony, in 1425.

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

 King Henry confirmed the grant to Gaston in October 1440, for 40 shilling paid in the hanaper, by which time Huntingdon was probably back in England (2, 3).

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

(1) L&P II, ii, pp. 439-440 (tax grant to Dauphin).

(2) Foedera X, pp. 806-807 (confirmation of Huntingdon’s restoration of Bazas to Gaston).

(3) gasconrolls.org / C61_130 

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

Tartas

Huntingdon laid siege to the strategic town of Tartas held by southern magnate Charles d’Albret. It was the only town captured by the French during their invasion of the duchy in 1438 that had not been recovered.

Sir Philip Chetwynde had accompanied Huntingdon to Gascony. In July 1440, with supreme optimism, King Henry granted Tartas to Chetwynde even though he knew it was ‘in the handes and subjection of oure rebel and ennemy of the Lord d’Albret’ (1).

Unfortunately, Huntingdon was recalled to England sometime in 1440 before he could recapture Tartas. The date of his return is uncertain because he retained the title of the king’s lieutenant in Gascony. An army to accompany the Duke of York to France was being raised and it took priority over maintaining Huntingdon who could not afford to continue serving without adequate financial support.

Sir Thomas Rempston

Huntingdon left Sir Thomas Rempston to continue the campaign as Seneschal of Gascony.

In 1440 Rempston requested King Henry to confirm the great Benedictine Abbey of Sauve Majeure’s charter of rights, privileges, immunities, and protections, granted by Queen Eleanor of Aquitaine in 1199. The Abbot, Guiraut de Poudenx, had petitioned Rempston and submitted a copy of the charter. Silva Majori in the Foedera, was the forest that covered most of the region known as entre deux mers. The abbey was on the pilgrim route to St James’s shrine at Compostella.

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

(1) PPC V, p. 121 (grant of Tartas).

(2)  Foedera X, p. 772 (confirmation of charter by King Henry, June 1440).

(3) gasconrolls.org C61_129 (copy of the charter).

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

Bernard de la Planche, Bishop of Dax

Rempston and the royal officers in Gascony were instructed in July 1440 to uphold Guisiar de Lexegne’s [Guissarnaut de Laxague] claim to the bishopric of Dax which was held by Bernard de la Planche. [Bernet de Laplagre] (1).

Pope Martin V had translated Bernard de la Planche the Prior of Soulac as Bishop of Dax at the Minority Council’s request (2).  He visited England in 1430 and was appointed to the council in Bordeaux and to the civil judiciary in Bordeaux. He was selected as a delegate to attend the Council of the Church at Basel in 1434.

See Year 1423: Council of the Church at Pavia/Siena: The Delegates.

See Year 1434: General Council of the Church at Basel: English Delegates.

Unfortunately for him Bernard then chose the wrong side: he backed the Council against Pope Eugenius V and in 1439 he recognised Felix V as Pope.  Eugenius promptly deposed him in favour of the wonderfully named, Garsias Arnaldi de Segea de l’Exègne, Provost of St Seurin. According to the editors of the Gascon Rolls the ‘de Sega’ is incorrect and his name was Guissarnaut de Laxague (2).

King Henry was a staunch supporter of Pope Eugenius in the quarrel between the pope and the council and he ordered Thomas Rempston as seneschal of Gascony to install ‘Guisiar de Lexegne’ as bishop of Dax.

Planche disputed his dismissal, and the case dragged on into the next year. In August 1441 Rempston defended himself to the king for not having obeyed orders: it was beyond his power to do so as there was an appeal from Planche against Laxague before the Pope; there had been disturbances in Planche’s favour in Dax, and he appeared to have had supporters in Bordeaux (3, 4).

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

(1)  Foedera X, p. 793 (instruction to install Laxague).

(2) gasconrolls.org  C61_129

(3) Foedera X, p. 850 (Rempton’s excuse).

(4) A. Dégert, Histoire des évéques de Dax (1899) pp. 222-227.

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

The Duke of Gloucester’s Accusations

Cardinal Beaufort and John Kemp returned from the peace conference at Oye in October 1439. Old animosities surfaced, and the stage was set for the next phase of the quarrel between the Cardinal and the Duke of Gloucester.

Gloucester launched a blistering attack on Beaufort while Parliament was in session. His accusations are not recorded on the parliamentary roll or in the Proceedings, they are known only from a copy transcribed at the end of the eighteenth century from a lost original and printed by Stevenson in Letters and Papers (1, 2). Another copy with considerable variations was printed in the chronicle of the Tudor historian Edward Hall (3).

Chronicles of London (Vitellius A XVI) p. 153, is the only chronicle to record that Gloucester’s charges against Cardinal Beaufort were submitted to parliament:

“In the which parlement were many Articles put ayens the Cardenall Bisshop of Wynchestre by the Duke of Gloucestre, the kynges Vncle.”

Gloucester addressed himself to King Henry throughout. He opened his case in fine style with a self-portrait: He was “son, brother, and uncle of kings. Duke of Gloucester, of Holland, Zeeland, and Brabant, Earl of Pembroke, of Hainault and of Flanders, Great Chamberlain of England.”

He began by rehashing an old wrong: Henry V had forbidden Henry Beaufort to accept a cardinal’s hat because of Beaufort’s overweening pride and ambition and because it would set a bad precedent. English bishops owing their allegiance to the king did not become cardinals owing their allegiance to the pope.

Nevertheless, Beaufort became a cardinal in 1427, and the pope had confirmed him as Bishop of Winchester at his request, which contravened the Statute of Praemunire. King Henry had been too young to be aware that Beaufort should have vacated Winchester on becoming a cardinal and that the income from Winchester should have come to the crown.  Beaufort had no right as a cardinal to a seat in Parliament, he could attend only as a bishop.

Beaufort had attempted to gain remittance of his taxes as bishop of Winchester. This had encouraged the clergy in Convocation to refuse to grant subsides so that the burden of taxation fell solely on the people. If Gloucester was speaking in Parliament, the Commons would have loved this.

Gloucester resurrected another accusation: Beaufort and his brother Thomas, Duke of Exeter, had stage managed the release of King James of Scotland and his marriage to their niece Joan Beaufort in order to make a member of their family a queen. Henry V would never have permitted it. Gloucester alleged that although Beaufort claimed to have had the backing of Parliament, some members of the Commons had told him that they had never heard of the proposal much less endorsed it. And it was well known that the King of Scots had not paid his ransom even though part of it had been remitted as Joan’s dowry.

Beaufort and Archbishop Kemp dominated the Council. Meetings had been held at the Cardinal’s residence without royal authority while Gloucester himself, the Duke of York, the Earl of Huntingdon ‘and others’ had been estranged from the king and kept in ignorance of policy decisions. Even the Archbishop of Canterbury who should have been the king’s spiritual advisor, was kept away from him.

Gloucester dealt in detail with Beaufort’s loans, claiming, with some justification, that the cardinal always demanded security for repayment. Beaufort had loaned money throughout King Henry’s minority on the security of crown jewels but when the treasurer tried to redeem them by repaying the loan Beaufort persuaded him to use the money to finance an army – and so he kept the jewels, and the debt remained unpaid.

Gloucester claimed Beaufort’s loans were always made too late to do any good, and the money was wasted. This was a personal, as well as a political grievance. Gloucester envied the cardinal’s wealth, his money underpinned the war in France, but Beaufort had not offered to finance Gloucester’s project of leading a large army into France in 1434.

The cardinal’s jewels and plate should have been forfeited to the crown because he had planned to take them out of the country illegally. But he had been allowed to recover to them for far less than their true value by offering a loan to prosecute the war. Beaufort had ‘persuaded’ King Henry to restore them by ‘giving’ some of them to the king.

Beaufort had monopolised the income from customs in the port of Southampton to repay his loans. This was detrimental to the Exchequer and to the king’s income. On the strength of these loans Beaufort was able to ship wool free of customs.

Beaufort had purchased crown lands, Chirk and Chirklands in Wales. He was to be given tenure by the following Easter but if for any reason the deal fell through King Henry would compensate him with Duchy of Lancaster lands in Norfolk valued at 700 to 800 marks a year. This was unprecedented!  No liegeman should hold the king to ransom, it was every lord’s duty to maintain, not to appropriate, the crown’s demesne. Crown lands should never be sold except to meet a dire emergency.  There speaks the son of a king!

Gloucester claimed had learned of the sale at the very last moment and he had agreed to it against his will because if he had not consented the cardinal would have refused to finance the Earl of Huntington’s expedition to Gascony.

Gloucester alleged that Beaufort’s great wealth did not come from the bishopric of Winchester. It came from bribes. He sold appointments in Normandy to unsuitable men for his own profit. Gloucester harped once again on the justice of seizing the cardinal’s wealth, which he had ordered. The ill-gotten gains should have been used to fund the war, instead Beaufort had been allowed to purchase a pardon and retain them.

Gloucester appears to have been wary of accusing Beaufort of nepotism with regard to his nephews John and Edmund Beaufort, both of whom were serving in France, but he singled out an annuity of 100 marks to Elizabeth Beauchamp, who was married to another of Beaufort nephews, Thomas Swynford. This had been paid even though she did not meet the terms of the endowment under Henry V’s will.  But he did point out that the Council in Rouen had complained to the king of the cost of the army sent under Edmund Beaufort.

So much for the past. Moving to more recent events Gloucester raised the vast expense of the English embassy to the Congress of Arras in 1435 led by Beaufort and Kemp. It had achieved nothing except to waste of money better spent elsewhere. While there they had betrayed English interests by allowing England’s ally the Duke of Burgundy to make peace with England’s enemy the King of France. The Duke of Bedford, had he lived, would not have attended Arras.

And as if they had not done enough damage to England’s interests in 1435, Beaufort and Kemp had arranged the peace conference at Oye in 1439. Gloucester declared himself at a loss to understand why.  Money that was urgently needed to defend English lands in France had been wasted.

The Duchy of Normandy could and should have been made stronger than it was now. But Gloucester’s offers to serve the king in France had been thwarted by Beaufort who had blocked Gloucester’s appointment as the king’s lieutenant in France and promoted his own nominees. As a result, territory in France and Normandy had been lost, and then what happened? The French had taken the town of Meaux and launched attacks against towns in Normandy.

See Year 1439: A Peace Conference at Oye.

Beaufort did not have the king’s best interest at heart. Archbishop Kemp had returned to England specifically to persuade King Henry to accept the enemy’s terms and abandon his rightful claim to be King of France in return for a long-term truce. This was intolerable. Gloucester had declared then and there that he would never agree to something so shameful, and he had reminded Henry that he had been crowned King of Frace in Paris.

Beaufort had facilitated a reconciliation between the Duke of Burgundy and the Duke of Orleans who were natural enemies because of the murders of their fathers when their continued enmity would have been in England’s interests. They had allowed Orleans to consult with ‘the adversary’ the French, which could only be detrimental to England.

Only one item in Gloucester’s indictment referred to the release of the Duke of Orleans, which he strongly opposed. Gloucester said it was well known that Orleans was about to be released on the advice of Beaufort and Kemp; envoys had come from France for this purpose, and Orleans had been brought to London.  It had been planned without consulting ‘the lords of your blood’ or the ‘wise advice of the true men of the realm.’ Considering the destruction taking place in the king’s realm of France, the strength of his enemies and the advances they had made even during the peace conference, where was the advantage in freeing Orleans, the next but one heir to Charles VII?

Despite their peace initiative at Oye having so obviously failed, Beaufort and Kemp had agreed to yet another conference in the spring of 1440. It would have no better results than the earlier ones. This piece of folly could damage King Henry’s reputation.  If he refused to allow his ambassadors to attend, he would be accused of abandoning the peace, whereas at present it was the French who had abandoned the talks. A truce would favour the French, it would lead to further losses in France, and pave the way for defection of his subjects in France from their allegiance to Henry.

Gloucester was at pains to assure his audience that his criticisms were aimed solely at the two men he accused, not at the Council. He declared that although he had not been afraid to speak out against Beaufort and Kemp, the others were intimidated and hesitated to express their honest opinions and give unbiased council to the king.  He ended by declaring that in the interests of good government, Henry should exclude the cardinal and the archbishop from the council. Magnanimously he opined that it was over to them: if they could refute his charges, and admit their wrongdoing, then and only then they might be restored to council.

The rest is silence. There is no record that Beaufort or Kemp replied to Gloucester’s diatribe in council or in Parliament.

In a way, and certainly from Gloucester’s point of view, his statement presented a masterly resumé of Beaufort’s political career; the charges were essentially true but taken out of context. They have misled historians ever since.

There is no evidence that Gloucester was ever refused permission to attend Council, although he could claim he had not been informed on certain issues. The Duke of York had been sent to Normandy in 1436 and the Earl of Huntingdon to Gascony in 1439 on the king’s service, with Gloucester’s concurrence, so in that sense they were estranged.

Gloucester had ordered the seizure of the cardinal’s wealth in 1431 while King Henry was still in France. Beaufort appealed to Parliament in 1432 and recovered his fortune by offering substantial loans to the government which had been accepted gratefully, with Gloucester’s concurrence.

Gloucester’s reasons for his attack were rancour and envy of the cardinal’s wealth, a growing unease at the cardinal’s influence over the impressionable young king, and more immediately his genuine horror at the suggestion that Henry should renounce his title as King of France: this would be the final betrayal of Gloucester’s dead brother (1, 2, 3,4 5).

Cardinal Beaufort calmly bought his way out of trouble, as he usually did. At a council meeting in February, he offered to postpone repayment of his loan of 7,000 marks due at Easter until November, but he retained the crown jewels that had been pledged to him until the loan was repaid (6).

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

(1) L&P II, pp. 440-451 (Gloucester’s accusations)

(2) PROME XI, Appendix, pp. 311-313  (printed in full in modern English).

(3) Hall’s Chronicle, pp. 197-202.

(4) Vickers, Humphrey, pp. 261-264.

(5) Harriss, Beaufort, pp. 308-311.

(6) PPC V, pp. 115-116 (Cardinal Beaufort’s offer).

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

Peace talks

King Henry had endorsed Cardinal Beaufort’s agreement with Isabelle, Duchess of Burgundy and the Duke of Orleans that another conference with the French should take place on or before 1 May 1440. Henry, who ‘with all his heart desired to see peace in his days’ issued safe conducts at the end of January 1440 valid until the beginning of July to Louis, Count of Vendome, Regnault de Chartres Charles VII’s Chancellor, Dunois Bastard of Orleans, and six other potential French delegates to come to Calais (1).

Further safe conducts for the Lord of Gaucourt, the Count of Eu, and three others were issued on 27 April, and a month later, for the Archbishop of Tours, Guy Lord of Haumgny, a councillor of Charles VII, and Michel de Laller, master of accounts (2).

King Charles VII authorised Regnault de Chartres to continue negotiating for peace and for the release of the Duke of Orleans (3). Regnault and Dunois came to Saint Omer in Burgundian territory but not to Calais. The Duke and Duchess of Burgundy came to Hesdin.

In May Henry commissioned William Wells, the new bishop of Rochester, Lord Dudley,

The peace ‘conference’ was a farce. The delegates never met. The English came to Calais to await the French who came no further than Saint Omer. From January to October King Henry continued to issue safe conducts to anyone even remotely likely to attend the non-existent conference, and he kept his envoys in Calais from May onwards. They were still there to witness the Duke of Orleans’s oath on his return to France in November.

Stephen Wilton and William Sprever as his ambassadors to treat for peace or conclude a truce for two years (4).  He issued warrants to the Treasurer and the Exchequer in September to pay Wells £100. They were to ‘account’ with Lord Dudley for his wages, from the time he left London until his return (5).

Isabelle conducted negotiations in her own peculiar fashion: by correspondence. She did not meet with either delegation. After her failure at Oye she lost interest in the peace talks. She was disillusioned by what she saw as English intransience and she no longer believed that peace was possible; her sympathies lay with King Charles rather than with King Henry.

She sent her herald Franche-Comté to Calais in April, and Bertrand Artois King of Arms, as her personal envoy to England. Charolais Herald carried a letter to Cardinal Beaufort even before King Charles had agreed to a second peace conference (6).

Isabelle’s interest had shifted to the Duke of Orleans, and it is probable that his release rather than peace was the subject of their visit. Artois King of Arms returned to England in May, and significantly Dunois, Orleans’s half-brother, arrived in St Omer at the same time. Isabelle may have persuaded King Charles to insist that Orleans release must form part of any future agreement.

On 16 July a groom carried letters from Isabelle to the French ambassadors at Saint Omer. On 28 July she sent a messenger to the Chancellor of France and to Jean Le Fuzelier, a councillor of the Duke of Orleans, for their authorisation to her “to consult on the subject of Monseigneur d’Orleans and other important matters” (7)

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

(1) Foedera X, pp.756-758 (safe conducts, January).

(2) Foedera X, pp. 767-768 (safe conducts, April, May)

(3) Foedera X, p. 763-764 (King Charles authorised negotiations).

(4) Foedera X, p. 769 (Wells, Kyriell, and others to negotiate).

(5) PPC V, pp. 122-123 (payment to Wells).

(6) Beaucourt, Charles VII III, p. 157 n 2 (Isabelle’s messengers to England)

(7) Beaucourt III, p. 156 n 6 (Isabelle to French representatives).

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

 Isabelle and Orleans

Isabelle first met Orleans during the peace conference at Oye. They were near contemporaries, and the duke easily enlisted her sympathies. Orleans was a poet, well versed in the arts of courtly love, and he undoubtedly flattered her. Isabelle espoused his cause and turned her formidable energies to raising money for his ransom.  She cajoled, coerced, and morally blackmailed certain French magnates; she approached wealthy Burgundians and towns throughout the Netherlands; according to her biographer she even appealed to her brother, King Durate of Portugal (1, 2).  She even bribed King Charles not to throw a spanner in the works by loaning him 3,500 saluts to provision the French army for the relief of Harfleur (3). So much for her neutrality.

See Harfleur below.

By the time the English Council accepted King Henry’s decision to free Orleans Isabelle had obtained sufficient pledges for an initial down payment. She kept Orleans fully informed of her progress under cover of the peace negotiations, and by midsummer the time was right.

King Henry believed that Orleans’s return to France would revitalize the moribund peace talks. On 28 October, the same day as Orleans swore his oath in Westminster Abbey, Henry issued safe conducts for Dunois, the Archbishop of Narbonne, the Bishop of Poitiers, Guille Le Tur, Jacques Juvenal des Ursins, all of whom had endorsed Charles VII agreement to Orleans’s release, and two French secretaries, to come to the Pale of Calais (4).

Isabelle informed King Henry that she intended to send Burgundian envoys to King Charles ‘in the interests of peace.’ She requested Henry to issue safe conducts for Jehan Chevrot, Bishop of Tournai, Nicholas Rolin, Burgundy’s chancellor, and Robet le Jeune governor of Arras to travel to Paris (5).

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

(1) Thielemans, Bourgogne et Angleterre, pp. 136-137, nn. 139-153 (towns in the Netherlands).

(2) Sommé, Isabelle de Portugal, p. 401 (Netherlands and Portugal).

(3) Beaucourt, Charles VII, vol. III, p. 157 (loan to Charles VII).

(4) Foedera X, pp. 808-809 (safe conducts, French).

(5) Foedera X, pp. 810-812 28 (safe conducts, Burgundian).

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

The Release of the Duke of Orleans

Documents relating to the release of Charles, Duke of Orleans are numerous and repetitive in the Foedera for 1440.

Charles of Orleans was forty-five in 1440; captured at Agincourt, he was England’s most valuable prisoner, economically and diplomatically, for twenty-five years. The idea that his release would help to end the war in France was not new. Orleans tried several times in the 1430s to obtain his freedom by promising to broker a peace between England and France, but his promises and plans had come to nothing.

See Years 1433 and 1434: Charles, Duke of Orleans.

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

See Years 1438 and 1439: The Duke of Orleans.

Throughout the early months of 1440 the question of releasing Orleans as a means of promoting peace was hotly debated in Council. He was transferred into the keeping of Lord Fanhope in January, and probably brought to London for consultations (1).  In June he was permitted to import thirty-five casks of wine free of customs duty (2).

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

(1) Issues of the Exchequer, p. 439 (Fanhope was paid £66 for Orleans’s custody from 29 January to 8 May 1440).

(2) Foedera X, p. 771 (wine).

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

The Duke of Gloucester’s opposition

The Duke of Gloucester vehemently opposed Orleans’s release. King Henry asked the Council for their opinions and Gloucester submitted his objections to the king in council on 2 June in a lucid and well organized memorandum that he requested to have recorded under the Great Seal:

“I, Humphrey, Duc of Gloucester, give in writing in articles my advice and my opinion unto my said lord and his council for my acquittal against the deliverance and enlargement.”

It was well known to everyone that Charles of Valois was incapable of ruling, he had to be guided by those around him ‘for default of natural reason; and that the Dauphin Louis is much the same.’ The Duke of Orleans on the other hand was known to be a subtle and crafty man and one moreover who was closely related to ‘the adversary.’ If he were free the French nobility and Three Estates of the realm would make him governor and regent of France. How could this benefit England?  Orleans was well aware of recent English defeats, and Gloucester did not believe that he would work for an honourable peace: ‘I cannot think it.’

On the contrary, Orleans would exploit the division between ‘the adversary’ and his son and unite the French nobility in making war against King Henry, ‘which God defend.’

The Duchy of Normandy was nearly bankrupt. The Council in Rouen and the Three Estates of Normandy had warned the Council time and again that they could no longer defend themselves. If Orleans was released and no English army was sent to defend the duchy, the people would despair, and their allegiance would be lost.

The 20,000 marks so far offered for Orleans’s release would not sustain the war for long; it   was nowhere near enough to defend Normandy, let alone Gascony.

As the Council well knew, ‘the adversary’ was Orleans’s sovereign lord; an oath made by a liegeman in captivity against his sovereign was not binding; the sovereign could demand his allegiance, and the liegeman risked forfeit if he refused. Did the Council really believe that Orleans would keep any oath made to King Henry?  They will find that he is more likely to break it and observe an oath which ‘by nature he is bound to keep’ to his true lord or risk losing his inheritance.

The Duke of Burgundy and the Duke of Orleans, once mortal enemies, have been reconciled. Together with the other French lords they will combine to drive the English out of France, ‘which God defend.’  The Church in France and perhaps all Christendom will agree that an oath made by a prisoner it is not valid and they, like the lords, will accept Orleans as their leader.

If the promise of ransom made to King Henry is not kept, what can Henry do about it? Orleans could use the invalidity of his oath as an excuse to evade payment.

And what about Gascony? The Earl of Huntingdon indented to defend the duchy, but the agreement with him has not been kept and Huntingdon was to be recalled ‘out of necessity.’ What would happen if Orleans made an alliance with the great southern magnates, the Earls of Armagnac and Foix, and the Lord of Albret?  Preparation for such a contingency should be made as the towns in Gascony will certainly send to King Henry for help. What is to be done to ensure that King Henry does not lose his ancient inheritance?

King Henry V had considered the Duke of Orleans to be a dangerous enemy.  How will his release look to possible allies?  England has no alliances as far as Gloucester knows, except with the King of Portugal who is a child and far away.  Potential allies will shy away if they see that Henry VI is unable to maintain his father’s conquests, even though he was crowned in Paris.

King Henry’s kin and his other lords in France and England continue to fight courageously for Henry’s rights, as they have for many years. Orleans in captivity was a powerful bargaining tool: possibly as many as four or five of them, if captured, could be exchanged for Orleans if no other means could be found to rescue them. Orleans’s release would endanger not only the lands in France and Normandy, but all those who served there. Surely they should be asked for their opinion?

Henry V and his loyal subjects had defeated Orleans and brought him to England.  Henry had left instructions in his will for the only terms on which Orleans might be allowed to return to France.

Orleans’s release would undo all that King Henry V had achieved, including the crowning of his son as King of France. Henry V and his brothers the dukes of Clarence and Bedford, as well as many others, had defended the conquest with their lives.

And what about the enormous costs of the wars, was all that money to be wasted? Loyal men would be angered at the sacrifice if Orleans were set free.

“Wherefore I Humphrey, considering that a great part of this realm peradventure would imagine or think that the deliverance and enlargement of the said duke, that which touches so nigh my said Lord and his realm, would not be done, assented, or concluded without my advice, council, or consent for the which if any of the inconveniences fell, men would arrest upon me to my great charge.

I PROTEST for my excuse and my discharge that I never was, am, nor never shall be consenting, counselling, or agreeing to the deliverance and enlargement by no other manner of means which should take effect otherwise than is expressed in my said brother’s last will or else surety of so great good whereby my Lord’s realm and subjects should be increased and eased” (1).

(1) Foedera X, pp. 764-767 (Gloucester’s opposition).   

King Henry’s Statement

King Henry’s mind was made up. He would release Orleans. It is a mistake to assume that Cardinal Beaufort was the inspiration behind the king’s answer to his critics and to the Duke of Gloucester. Henry wanted peace at any price, Beaufort did not. Henry’s statement was drafted by the king’s secretaries, the words are not Henry’s, but the sentiments are (1):

“And here bigynneth a playne declaracion made by lordes of the kynges counsaille of the causes that the kyng was moeved by, for to entende to the deliveraynce or enlargissement of Charles duc of Orliaunce, late prisonnier in England.” 

Henry stated that he had been made aware of the complaints about, and opposition to, the release of the Duke of Orleans.  He had ‘great and reasonable’ reasons for his decision, always provided Orleans kept his word, and he wanted his arguments to be proclaimed publicly.

Some reasons were secret, but he had not taken the decision lightly out of ignorance or self-will, or without care for himself and the well-being of his people. No one else was responsible, the decision was his alone, for the reasons he would state, and for God.

His main reason was his desire to end a war that had lasted for a hundred years and engendered innumerable wrongs.

Peace was the will of God; Henry was God’s minister, and he reigned by God’s grace.

The schism in the church troubled him greatly. The Pope was the only head of the church, and the schism must be ended, but this could only happen after peace had been achieved.

The outrageous behaviour of the Church Fathers at Basel would not cease until all Christian princes put aside their differences, particularly those of England and France, and combined to defend Holy Church, as they had before the wars began. Henry would do all that was honourable to achieve this, with God’s blessing.

Henry displayed his knowledge of the history of the war, undoubtedly taught to him and repeated many times by his governor the Earl of Warwick.  Henry had also sat through numerous meetings since 1435 in which the Council debated and despaired over the costs of the war: Henry put his own spin on it: his great grandfather, Edward III, had begun the war and fought it valiantly, but at a very high price.  In only two and a half years he had spent 500,000 marks.  Many French princes and nobles had been captured or killed, including King John of France. King Edward had taken most of the towns in France from Calais to Bordeaux, but France had not been conquered and too much Christen blood had been spilt. King Edward had finally realised that he and his captive, King John, must make peace and Edward had relinquished his claim to the kingdom of France. (The Treaty of Bretigny of 1360 had ceded a large part of France to Edward III in exchange for dropping his claim to the whole). Henry drew a parallel with the suggestion at Oye that there could be more than one king of France.

Henry’s father, Henry V, had resumed the war and won many victories such as Agincourt and other battles by land and sea. He had conquered many lands in France; yet not long before his death, because of war weariness in those who fought it, for lack of money to continue the war in the same way as he had begun it, and other misfortunes which had saddened him, he was disposed him to treat with ‘him who now calls himself king of France, then called the Dauphin’ and his adherents, as many men who were still alive could attest. Henry may have been told this, or a version of it, by councillors who favoured peace, or it may have been wishful thinking.

During his own reign Henry, the Council, and Parliament, had done all they could to ensure the good governance and safety of his French lands. Responsible men had been sent to govern justly, financed by money from England.  Armies had been dispatched time and again for its defence, yet despite all this, great losses had been sustained.

Towns and fortresses deemed impregnable, conquered with so much effort, loss of life and cost to the king and to the people of England (this land) had been recovered by the enemy at small cost to themselves. What was left in the king’s obedience was even then being ‘devoured, distressed, and destroyed.’ Englishmen sent to live in Normandy and defend it have for the past six or seven years seen townships of a hundred inhabitants reduced to less than ten. The land is so war torn that the inhabitants have fled to Brittany and other places to get away from the destruction.

The Duchy of Normandy had borne the brunt of the war for so long that those who were left now lived in poverty and misery.  They had loyally defended the duchy for the king but could do so no longer; the garrisons would have to be maintained at the king’s cost which means England’s, a situation that will not be easily accepted in England.

The Estates of Normandy have written to the king and sent ambassadors to warn him that no matter whom he sent to defend the duchy, or what amies, a continuation of the war would only lead to further impoverishment. Unless he can achieve peace, they can no longer stand with him, and they will be forced to find somewhere else to live.  They wanted to know for how long the king could continue the war; if there was still anyone who did not want peace they should be told.

For all these reasons the king believed that the war could have only one result:  the loss of his people, the destruction of his country, the impoverishment of himself and his land. It was incumbent on him to make peace by every reasonable and honourable means.

And this could be done. The king had been creditably informed that ‘the adversary’ desired peace but he will not negotiate unless Duke of Orleans is released. The impediment is those around ‘the adversary’ who claim publicly to want Orleans freed but who privately want the opposite. They would rather continue the war because if Orleans were free, they would lose their influence. They had urged ‘the adversary’ not to make peace unless Orleans was freed because they believed that he, King Henry, will never agree to it . They will be confounded when Orleans is set free because he has promised to promote peace.

It was contrary to the law of arms and not chivalric, to keep a prince in captivity after he has offered to pay a reasonable ransom. No other prisoner of war had been kept for as long as Orleans even though some of them posed a greater threat than the duke. His continued captivity might estrange men from the king’s service for fear that if captured they would be treated as rigorously.

Henry raised the question of cost, which he knew would appeal to the Council: the longer the duke was kept in custody the greater the charge to the king of maintaining him with no possibility of ransom.

Henry dealt summarily with the accusation that knowledge of England gained by Orleans during his captivity might be passed to the enemy: Orleans had never attended council; all he learned was through gossip. Actual knowledge was kept from him by his custodians, he could only talk with visitors in their presence. Other prisoners who had been released and retuned to France knew more than Orleans, and they probably reported it, so there was nothing to be feared in releasing him.

The suggestion that Orleans would heal the divisions at the French court and then take advantage of his knowledge of England was unfounded.

Henry declared he was not acting unilaterally; the agreement with Orleans would have to be endorsed by letters patent issued by ‘the adversary’ with a bond and a promise, and by the Dauphin. Moreover, these letters must be delivered to the king before Orleans is set free. For these, “and also for other divers causes,” the king had reached an agreement with the duke ‘whiche the kynge trusteth to God greet gode shal folowe’ (1).

(1) L&P II, pp. 451-460.  

Terms for release

On 2 July 1440 the Duke of Orleans formally petitioned for his release, reminding King Henry of the suffering he had endured ‘with tears and groans’ over many years, exiled, alone, and impoverished. Yet he had never by word or deed tried to escape unlawfully. He accepted the terms for his release: his ransom would be 50,000 marks or 100,000 nobles, which was quite generous considering that Henry V had set the Duke of Bourbon’s ransom at twice that, but perhaps it was all the Council thought they could extort.

Orleans would pay 40,000 nobles immediately, before leaving England, and a further 60,000 nobles within six months thereafter. He pledged securities from ten French magnates, and heading the list was King Charles’s son the Dauphin. If, however, peace was achieved by his mediation he would be released from paying his ransom. If he failed to meet the terms of the contract, he would return to prison, an undertaking he never, of course, intended to fulfil (1).

King Henry’s confirmation and acceptance repeats the clauses of Orleans’s indenture (2).

The amounts pledged are reiterated several times in the Foedera. The sums listed are in saluts (scutorum) or écus; but in the text of the agreement, they are in nobles. One noble was worth 6s 8d, equal to two écus.  80,000 écus = 40,000 nobles.

NB: The English translation as ‘crowns’ is incorrect. The crown did not become currency until the sixteenth century.

The French pledges were received in England at the end of July, but Duchess Isabelle had obtained them much earlier (3). On 8 July, at Hesdin, the Duke of Burgundy authorised her to underwrite the Dauphin’s bond: if he defaulted, she would pay half of it (4).

Louis, Dauphin of France 30,000

John, Duke of Brittany     20,000

John, Duke of Alencon     20,000

Louis, Count of Vendome 10,000

Regnault de Chartres         10,000

Jean de Harcourt, Archbishop of Narbonne   10,000

Bernard of Armagnac, Count of Pardiac        10,000

Guillaume d’ Harcourt, Comte de Tancarville  6,000

André de Laval, Lord of Lohéac 4,000

Lord of Maillé                             4,000

King Charles issued letters patent on 16 August, as King Henry had promised he would, ratifying the agreement. His endorsement was witnessed by Dunois, Bastard of Orleans, Jean de Harcourt the Archbishop of Narbonne, Hughes de Comberel, bishop of Poitiers, Guillaume Le Tur, president of the Parlement of Paris and Jacques Juvenal des Ursins (5).

King Henry issued safe conducts for Dunois and his wife with a large retinue,   accompanied by three servants of the Duchess of Burgundy, to travel from Artois to Orleans and to return through whatever territories they wished, ostensibly to further the peace process ‘on the business of the peace convention’  but more probably to expedite Dunois’s efforts to raise contributions for Orleans’s ransom, which theoretically was part of the peace process (6).

Once his liberation was settled, the Council was so anxious to get their hands on the ransom that they helped Orleans to raise it in every way they could: he was given safe conducts for his servants to trade in England, buying or selling merchandise on his behalf. He could commission a ship to trade in cargoes of wine, iron, salt and cloth between England and France; his servants could travel and trade freely in Rouen, Paris, and within ‘our realm of France’ (7).

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

(1) Foedera X, pp. 776-782 (Orleans indenture, terms and ransom).

(2) Foedera X, pp. 782-786 (Henry’s confirmation).

(3) Foedera X, pp. 798-800 (French pledges).

(4) Foedera X, p. 787 (Duchess to guarantee Dauphin’s pledge).

(5) Foedera X, pp. 799-800 (King Charles’s endorsement).

(6) Foedera X, pp. 800-802 (Dunois safe conduct).

(7) Foedera X, pp. 812-817 (Orleans trading privileges).

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

Preparations for Departure

At a solemn ceremony on 28 October in the presence of King Henry and the assembled lords in Westminster Abbey, Orleans swore an oath to do all he could to reconcile France and England. The Duke of Gloucester stormed out of the abbey in protest. His objection was well publicised:

“the Duk of Orlyawnce hath made his ooth vpon the sacrament, and vsyd it, neuer for to bere armes ayenst Englond, in the presence of the Kyng and all the lords except my lord of Gloucester; and in prevyng my seyde lord of Gloucesteragreyd neuer to hys delyueraunce, qwan the masse be-gan he toke hys barge, &. Godyef grace the seide lord of Orlyaunce be trewe, for this same weke shall he toward France” (1).

On 2 November Orleans signed obligations to pay the balance of his ransom by instalments within the next six months. A joint indenture, signed by the king and the duke on 3 November, recapitulated their agreement. Orleans was released for one year, to raise the rest of his ransom. If it was not paid within that time he would return to captivity (2).

Henry issued a receipt for 80,000 ecus (40,000 nobles) and acknowledged the pledges from the French magnates, including the 15,000 écus from Isabelle. Three other Burgundians contributed, the Count of Nevers and the Count of Étamps promised 6,000 écus each, and Burgundy’s chancellor Nicholas Rolin, 3,000 (3).

Henry formally discharged Lord Fanhope as Orleans keeper (6) and issued safe conducts for one hundred men in Orleans’s retinue to leave England (7). Garter King of Arms would accompany him as far as Calais as a mark of respect (5). Charles Waterby (otherwise unknown) with four servants would remain with Orleans for a year (4).

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

(1) Paston Letters, part II, ed. Davis, pp. 21-22.

(2) Foedera X, pp. 817-819 (terms of release).

(3) Foedera X, p. 821 (receipt of 80,000 écus and alters of obligation).

(4) Foedera X, p. 823 (Fanhope released as Orleans’s custodian).

(5) Foedera X, p. 827 (Safe conducts for Orleans and his retinue).

(6) Foedera X, p. 828 (Garter King of Arms).

(7) Foedera X, p. 825 (Charles Waterby).

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

Orleans Reception

Orleans sailed for Calais on 5 November leaving his brother the Count of Angoulême, whom he had pledged as a hostage in 1412, to remain in England for another five years.

Orleans was welcomed at Gravelines on 11 November by the Duke and Duchess Burgundy, Dunois, Regnault de Chartres, Jean d’Harcourt Archbishop of Narbonne, and other French ambassadors who were at the Burgundian court, supposedly for peace talks (1).

Beaucourt has a story that at their meeting the duke greeted Isabelle with the words:  Madame, vu ce que vous avez fait pour ma deliverance je me rends votre prisonnier (2). Isabelle had raised Orleans’s ransom, almost single handedly.

Lord Fanhope, Sir Robert Roos, and Robert Whittingham the treasurer of Calais were  commissioned with Henry’s long suffering ambassadors, William Wells Bishop of Rochester, Stephen Wilton and William Sprever who had spent most of the year kicking their heels in Calais, to witness the renewal of Orleans’s oath as soon as he set foot on French soil. They were to arrange a ‘new’ meeting with French ambassadors somewhere in the Pale of Calais in the following year. At Gravelines on 12 November Orleans acknowledged his release by the King of England and repeated his oath to keep faith with the king (3).

Stephen Wilton submitted an account for waiting on the Duke of Orleans, from 5 November 1440 to 2 April 1441. He received £84, but the total expenses amounted to £151, leaving a shortfall of £67 (4).

King Charles VII did not contribute to Orleans’s ransom. He ignored Orleans’s return to France and did not invite him to the French court until 1443 when he had a use for him.

Orleans threw in his lot with the Duke of Burgundy. He repaid his host and hostess by marrying Burgundy’s niece, Marie, a daughter of Duke Adolph of Cleves who was only fourteen, on 26 November.

This was the price the Duke of Burgundy extracted from Orleans for his freedom, but Orleans was quite willing, he badly needed an heir. He was still next in line for the throne should the Dauphin Louis die.  Orleans became a knight of the Burgundian order of the Golden Fleece and remained the Duke of Burgundy’s ally thereafter.

Was Orleans released on King Henry’s orders against the advice of his council, or did the council concur, to solve their economic woes with Orleans’s ransom?  Were any of them shrewd enough to gamble that Orleans would ally with Charles VII’s rebellious magnates and distract the King of France from his war efforts?  Orleans did nothing to sustain the English position in France or to further the peace, but on the other hand he did nothing to actively promote the war. On balance, England was the loser since Orleans did not pay the rest of his ransom and the peace talks, postponed to May 1441 never took place.

“Also in this yere was the duke of Orlyons delivered out of preson, and sworn to the kyng and othere certeyn lords that that tyme wer there present, that he shulde nevere beren armes ageyn the crowne of Engelond; and also that he schulde trete for pees between bothe reaumes Engelond and Fraunce; and ellys he to comen ayen into Engelond and yelden hym to the kynges grace.”           

Chronicle of London (Harley 565) p. 127 and Chronicles of London (Cleopatra C IV)  p. 148

“Ande in that same yere the Duke of Orlyaunce made hys othe at Westemyster  and there uppon ressayvyde the blessyd sacrament on Cryspyn and Cryspynvan ys day [25 October].  And the Fryday aftyr Allehalowyn day he went towarde Fraunce, and whythe hym he hadde Syr John Corneuale, knight, and many othyr knyghtys and squyers.”  Gregory’s Chronicle, p. 183 

“And in this yere, and the yere of grace M+ CCCC xlj, the iiij day of Nouembre the Duke of Orliaunce went out of the Reame of England to Caleys, and so forth into Fraunce, and was receyued at Seint Omers of þe Duke of Burgoyne and of the Duchesse his wife, and of many oþer lordes, knyghtes and squyers, and of oþer comons of Fraunce; and so he come into his owne lordship.”  Brut Continuation F, p. 477

“and in the previous year [i.e. 1440] the Duke of Orleans was released by his swearing a public oath in Westminster Abbey on St Simon and St Jude’s day [28 October] accepting the conditions for his freedom.”  Annales, p 763

“Also before Christmas the Duke of Orleans, having been a prisoner in England for twenty five years, was set free on condition that he would work for a reconciliation between England and France. And he married the daughter of the duke of [           ].”  Benet’s Chronicle, p. 187

Chronicles:  Bale’s Chronicle, p. 115. Short English Chronicle, p. 62.

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

(1) Vaughan, Philip, pp 123-124

(2) Beaucourt, Charles VII, vol III, p. 159 (for quotation).

(3) Foedera X, pp. 826-827 (renewal of Orleans’s oath).

(4) L&P II, ii, pp. 460-462 dated 6 April 1441 (Wilton’s account).

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

The King’s Lieutenant in France

After his failure to attain peace on reasonable terms, the pragmatic Cardinal Beaufort turned his attention to the war in France and his nephew’s future. John Beaufort, Earl of Somerset had indented in December 1439 for six months service in France with an army of 100 men- at-arms and 2,000 archers for which the Cardinal loaned 10,000 marks. John was given the title ‘governor’ of France (1).

See Year 1439: John Beaufort, Earl of Somerset

In July 1440 Beaufort acknowledged receipt of 6,000 livres tournois from the receive of Normandy ‘to help us to support the expenses and charges which we are impelled to incur in consequence and from the dignity of the office of lieutenant general’ (2).

Gloucester’s attempt to discredit Beaufort and have him dismissed from the council fell on deaf ears but he was more successful in thwarting the Cardinal’s ambition to have John become the king’s lieutenant in France.

There were rumours that Gloucester himself would take the position and it appears Gloucester did toy with the idea, but he would not go to Rouen without a large army which the country could not afford, and the Cardinal would not finance (3).

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

(1) Harriss, Beaufort, pp. 311-312

(2) L&P II, pp 304-305 (payment to John Beaufort).

(3) Jones ‘Beaufort Family,’ p. 126

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

Richard, Duke of York

A compromise had to be found. Richard, Duke of York, the premier peer of England after Gloucester, was the only viable option. After the death of the Duke of Bedford the title ‘Regent of France’ was never again bestowed: Bedford’s successors were called ‘the king’s lieutenant general and governor of France.’ The choice was limited. It was assumed that it should be a member of the royal family.  The only other duke apart  from Gloucester and York, was John Mowbray, Duke of Norfolk who was not of royal descent and was only twenty-two.

The Earls of Huntingdon and Stafford were descendants of Edward III.

John Holand, Earl of Huntingdon, King Henry’s closest relative after Gloucester, was the king’s lieutenant in Gascony, although one wonders if the decision to bring him home in 1440, barely a year into his appointment, had anything to do to with the uncertainly of whom to send to Rouen.  Huntingdon was experienced militarily, but he had been captured at the Battle of Baugé and his ransom had impoverished him.

Humphrey Earl of Stafford was apparently not considered. He had not distinguished himself militarily during the coronation expedition to France.

The Duke of York had been a stop gap lieutenant in 1436, and he was the compromise candidate in 1440, acceptable to both Gloucester and Cardinal Beaufort (1). Gloucester because he had only proposed himself to prevent the nomination of Earl of Somerset, and the Cardinal to prevent Gloucester’s enmity towards himself being extended to Somerset.

See Years 1436 and 1437: Richard, Duke of York.

King Henry appointed York to a second term as the king’s lieutenant in France on 2 July, the same day that he announced the release of the Duke of Orleans.

York was twenty-nine in 1440, but he had not been offered a seat on the Council or any other crown appointment. The king’s lieutenant in France was second in importance only to the king himself and York wanted it, but he would have been aware of the tensions surrounding it, and why he was chosen: it was not a mark of royal favour.

York sealed indentures to serve for five years. He had been young and naïve in 1436, but he learned a great deal during his protracted stay in Rouen awaiting the arrival of the Earl of Warwick. Richard of York never again served the crown except on his own terms, and if all his conditions for service as outlined in a memorandum of 1440 had to be met, it is not surprising that it took a year, until May 1441, for him to depart for France (2, 3).

In November the Exchequer was commanded to pay him ‘such sums or parts thereof as he should by virtue of his indentures receive’ on 1 December (4).

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

(1) Foedera X, pp. 786-787 (York appointed).

(2) L&P II, ii, pp. 585-591 (conditions of service).

(3) Johnson, York, pp. 28-28 (details of York’s indenture).

(4) PPC V, Appendix, p. 314 (payment to York).

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

The War in France

There was no king’s lieutenant in France between the death of the Earl of Warwick in April 1439 and the Duke of York’s arrival in Rouen in June 1441. While King Henry and the Council in England were distracted by the release of the Duke of Orleans the council in Rouen concentrated on the more important issue of the war in France.

The Duchy of Normandy and what little was left of Lancastrian France was administered somewhat precariously by a council of commissioners in Rouen headed by Louis of Luxembourg, the Chancellor, Pierre Cauchon, Bishop of Lisieux, Giles de Durmont Abbot of Fécamp, Robert Jolivet, Abbot of Mont Sait Michel, all former members of the Duke of Bedford’s Grand Conseil. John Beaufort Earl of Somerset, Edmund Beaufort, Earl of Mortain, and Lord Talbot, now a marshal of France, in charge of military matters.  Edmund Beaufort became captain of Rouen in October.

Pursuing peace negotiations on the one hand and waging war on the other continued to be the English Council’s policy. The council in Rouen recommended the recovery of Harfleur and in July King Henry ordered the allocation of £6,000 from the Exchequer for 200 men- at- arms and 500 archers for a campaign in Normandy to be raised from various sources, the Duke of Orleans’s ransom and the Cardinal’s loans (1)

(1) PPC V, p. 122

Harfleur

Harfleur and Dieppe, the major supply ports for the Duchy of Normandy, had been lost to the French in 1435.

See Year 1435: The War after Arras, Dieppe, Harfleur.

The importance of Harfleur to the prosperity of Normandy is reflected in the willingness of the Estates of Normandy, despite economic hardship, to vote 50,000 livres tournois towards the cost of a siege (1, 2).

Although in nominal command, John Beaufort, Earl of Somerset sensibly allowed his more able brother Edmund and Lord Talbot to conduct the siege while he concentrated on recruiting, logistics, and supply.

Edmund Beaufort was to besiege Harfleur with 500 men-at-arms and 1500 archers while his brother’s force of 100 men-at-arms and 300 archers would be kept in reserve against a possible French counterattack (5).

King Henry had promised the cautious Duke of Brittany that he would be included in any peace treaty with France (3) and the quid pro quo was his neutrality.  Somerset as King Henry’s representative, negotiated with Duke John’s envoys that no aid or protection by land and sea should be given to England’s ‘adversary.’ King Henry would extend a like protection to Bretons against English piracy. Henry ordered the sheriffs of Devon, Newcastle, London, Sussex, Suffolk, Lincoln, Kent, Norfolk, Somerset, Bristol, Hull and Cornwall to publish the terms of what was essentially a trade protection treaty. There is nothing unusual in the terms of the treaty, the only oddity is that Somerset negotiated it (4).

Somerset moved around the borders of Normandy recruiting men from Pont Audemar, Caudebec and Honfleur.  News reached him in mid-August that a large French army was assembling at Argentan. Somerset immediately increased his troop numbers to 400 men-at-arms and 120 archers, to muster at Berney. Lord Fauconberg, Somerset’s principal war captain, joined him at Bernay.  After reinforcing the garrisons at Fécamp and Caudebec Somerset returned to Rouen (6).

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

(1) Beaurepaire, États de Normandie, pp. 72-73 (says that exact amount not known but Jones cites document evidence for the amount).

(2) Jones, ‘Beaufort Family,’ p. 139

(3) Foedera X, p. 771 (Duke of Brittany).

(4) Foedera X, pp. 788-791 (treaty with Brittany).

(5) G. Gruel, Chronique d’Arthur de Richemont, pp. 266-268 (Rouen, 30 juillet 1440 – Dispositions pries par le Roi d’Angleterre pour faire mettre le siege devant Harfleur)

(6) Jones, ‘Beaufort Family,’ pp. 141 and n 4; 143 (Somerset’s army).

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

Siege

Edmund Beaufort and Lord Talbot arrived at Harfleur in August. The English army dug trenches in a semi-circle around the landward walls of Harfleur, strengthened at intervals by manned watchtowers (1, 2, 3, 4). Artillery had been assembled at Rouen and transported to Harfleur.

A fleet of ships blockaded the port. How many and who was in command is not known. Sir John Speke of Haywood in Devon was an experienced seaman with his own ships, just the kind of man the English Council needed to compensate for the lack of a royal fleet. Speke indented in May to serve the king at sea for six months with 420 men.

Speke mustered in July at the same time as Lord Scales was preparing to cross to France with his retinue (5).  Either or both may have taken part in the blockade. Speke indented again at the beginning of September to muster in Devon with a retinue of 800 men, but the muster did not take place until the end of October by which time the siege was over. Richmond suggests that “it would not perhaps be too rash to assume that he [Speke] helped to bring it [the blockade] to a successful conclusion” (6).

Since speculation is permitted, might it be that the blockade of Harfleur was the reason for the Earl of Huntington’s recall from Gascony?  Huntington was Admiral of England.

Jean d’Estouteville, Lord of Torcy was the captain of Harfleur. He had a garrison of 270 men and could be reinforced at need by the 40 strong garrison at Montivilliers, seven miles north of Harfleur. His father had defended Harfleur against Henry V in 1415 and ended up a prisoner of war in England.

A French army under the Count of Eu, Dunois, and La Hire assembled at Abbeville in September. Edmund Beaufort’s spies reported their presence, their numbers and their intentions. He sent to his brother in Rouen for reinforcements and additional artillery. Somerset ordered men from garrisons throughout Normandy to join the siege. He summoned free booters, men living off the land, vivans sur le pays, to join him at Pont Audemar. Somerset too had his spies following the enemy’s movements. At the end of September Lord Fauconberg was ordered to bring troops from Caudebec and Fécamp to Harfleur. A separate force under Matthew Gough arrived from Pont Audemar.

On 8 October Somerset crossed the Seine from Honfleur to join Edmund. The French army reached Montivilliers a few days later. Charles d’Artois, Count of Eu, King Charles’s lieutenant for the pays de Caux was responsible for the safety of Harfleur. Ironically Eu had been a prisoner in England until he was released in 1438 in exchange for the Earl of Somerset.

See Year 1438: The War in France, Harfleur

Dunois, Bastard of Orleans was King Charles’s best general. La Hire, the experienced war captain, commanded the cavalry to guard against a surprise attack from the rear. The aged Raoul de Gaucourt, who had held Harfleur with Estouteville senior in 1415, was to bring up the reserve but he had the misfortune to be captured before he reached Harfleur.

On 14 October the Count of Eu led a flotilla of ships to slip through under the noses of the blockading English navy and relieve Harfleur from the sea by sailing inshore along the coast while Dunois attacked the English defence lines held by Lord Talbot. Both attacks failed. Eu’s flotilla grounded on sand banks at the mouth of the Seine.  Dunois’s infantry was repulsed by the entrenched English archers and suffered heavy casualties.

The French attack was surprisingly badly handled considering that Dunois was in command.  Perhaps Eu and Dunois indulged in the usual French diversity of opinion as who was in overall command and how best to conduct a military operation. Eu, owing to his long captivity, was as inexperienced in actual warfare as the Earl of Somerset. He    apparently had no idea how to execute the plan to relieve Harfleur from the sea. Dunois may have been distracted by his expectation of the Duke of Orleans’s imminent return to France, he was at Gravelines on 11 November to welcome his half-brother so he may have gone straight there from the siege.

The French retreated to Montivilliers to regroup. According to Monstrelet the Cout of Eu challenged the Earl of Somerset to face him in single combat. Somerset wisely refused.  The French decision to withdraw at the end of October is excused by Thomas Basin, whose favourite theme is the devastation of the Norman countryside by the occupying English:  a lack of local provisions to sustain even a small army which does not seem to have bothered the English, caused the French to abandon Harfleur (7, 8, 9).  Whatever the reason, the departure of the relieving army left the garrison inside Harfleur, who had held out for three months awaiting succour, with no option but to surrender

There was jubilation in England, victories in France had been few and far between of recent years.  Harfleur had psychological as well a practical value.

A letter to John Paston on 1 November reported the glad news :

“Also Freynchemen and Pykardes a gret nowmbre kome to Arfleet for to rescuyd it, and our lordes with here small pusaunce manly bytte them and pytte hem to flyte, and, blyssyd be Our Lord, haue take the seide cité of Arflet, the qwych is a gret juell to all En[g]lond and in especiall to our cuntré”  (10).

King Henry rewarded Somerset and Fauconberg with the Order of the Garter (11). (Edmund Beaufort and Lord Talbot were already garter knights). Edmund was presented with two galleons of hypocras at a reception in Rouen to celebrate the victory. The English Council and probably the Duke of York knew how much of their success was due to Lord Talbot. They rewarded him with 300 saluts in December from the treasury in Rouen until he should receive ‘some other higher and more ample provision’ (12).

“And about Christmas time the town of Harfleur surrendered to the king of England having been besieged by the Lord Talbot.”  Benet’s Chronicle, p. 187

Three versions in Brief Notes:

a) And in the same year [Anno xviij] the town of Harfleur was recovered by Edmund earl of Mortain and Lord John Talbot who chivalrously encircled the town for months and months.

b) Year 19. And this year the town of Harfleur, which had been lost through the negligence and inhumanity of its keepers, was recovered by the Earl of Mortain and Lord Talbot.

c) This same year the town of Harfleur was recovered. It had been lost previously through the failings of its custodians and particularly by . . .[lacuna] but was recovered by Edmund Beaufort, then Marquis of Dorset, and John Talbot, earl of Shrewsbury. English Historical Literature (Brief Notes) p. 339

The Chronicon Regum Angliae (p. 18) simply notes that the French had taken Harfleur but it was afterwards recovered by the Earl of Mortain and Talbot.

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

(1) Monstrelet II, pp. 94-96 (Harfleur).

(2) Barker, Conquest, pp. 284-286 (Harfleur).

(3) Sumption, Triumph and Illusion, pp. 575-577 (Harfleur).

(4) Jones, ‘Beaufort Family,’ pp. 139-146 (Harfleur).

(5) CPR 1436-41, pp. 450-451 (ships and muster for Speke).

(6) C.F. Richmond, ‘The Keeping of the Seas during the Hundred Years War 1422-1440,’ History 49 (October, 1964), pp. 296-297 (Speke).

(7) Chartier, Chronique  I, pp. 259-60 (says the siege lasted for seven months; Monstrelet too dated the opening of the siege to April. Chartier does not mention the Count of Eu).

(8) T. Basin, Histoire de Charles VII, vol I, ed. Samaran, pp. 249-251 (countryside devastated).

(9) Beaucourt, Charles VII, vol. III, pp.  20-21 (blames the French failure on the capture of Gaucourt).

(10) Paston Letters part II, ed. Davis, p. 22 (jubilation in England).

(11) L&P I, p. 442 (Windsor herald, sent to deliver the garters, fell off his horse and broke his leg).

(12) L&P II, pp 317-319 (payment to Talbot).

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

Edmund Beaufort, Earl of Mortain, Earl of Dorset

Edmund Beaufort contributed more to the siege of Harfleur than any of the other commanders. He warned King Henry and the Council in England that the French were assembling in large numbers to raise the siege. He paid 150 livres tournois for spies to shadow and report on the French army. He loaned 12,346 livres tournois towards employing additional troops, and when his brother recruited Matthew Gough, he paid 70 livres tournois to retain his services.  In November King Henry ordered Pierre Baille, receiver general for Normandy, to repay 240 livres tournois’ to Edmund ‘without any gain saying or difficulty’ (1).

At the height of the siege in September Edmund sent to his lordship of Harcourt in eastern Normandy for two barrels of gunpowder to be sent from the castle at Harcourt to Harfleur. His bailiff was to supply carts for transport.

He was also concerned for the safety of Harcourt itself. His spies were shadowing French troop movement. In October Mortain ordered Simpkin Waller the lieutenant of Harcourt to be extra vigilant, to increase the garrison and keep a watch on the castle night and day. Waller and Andrieu Beauquesne, the sheriff of Harcourt, were to enlist 20-30 local Englishmen to strengthen the defences of the castle. Waller was to urge the local gentry to stay alert, but at the same time to reassure them that all was going well at the siege (2).

Henry V’s capture of Harfleur in 1415 in his opening campaign to conquer the Duchy of Normandy has received a full measure of attention from contemporary and from later historians. The London chronicles, written or revised for the most part under King Edward IV, are silent on the recovery of Harfleur in 1440, despite its important at the time. It was the last major siege undertaken in Lancastrian France, and it was successful. Harfleur remained in English hands until King Charles VII’s final conquest of Normandy in 1450.

Had Richard of York, still in England despite being named the king’s lieutenant of France in July, been present the chronicle accounts would have extolled the English achievement.  But the stigma attached to Edmund Beaufort (later Duke of Somerset) by Yorkist propaganda during the Wars of the Roses, was perpetuated by such omissions and so by later historians. It lingers to this day. Perhaps it is time to accept Michael Jones’s more valid assessment:

“Edmund had revealed himself an able and vigorous commander with successes both in the field and in difficult siege operations . . .  and shown good control over his troops. It was a record far superior to York who . . . . in 1436-37 had left most of the military operations to Talbot” (3)

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

(1) L&P II, pp. 313-316 (Edmund’s expenditure)

(2) L&P II, pp. 308-312 (Edmund’s orders to his lieutenants at Harcourt).

(3) Jones, ‘Beaufort Family,’ pp.148-149

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

Bibliography, 1440

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

Robert Bale’s Chronicle in R. Flenley (ed) Six Town Chronicles of England  (1911)

Basin, T., Histoire de Charles VII, 2 vols., ed. C. Samaran (1933-1944)

Bekyngton, T., Official correspondence of Thomas Bekyngton,  2 vols ed. G. Williams, (Rolls Series, 1872)

John Benet’s Chronicle for the Years 1400-1460, eds., G.L. & M.A. Harriss, Camden Miscellany XXIV, (Camden Soc., 4th ser. IX, 1972), p. 185.

Brief Notes in English Historical literature in the 15th century, ed. Kingsford, C.L., (1913)

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, 1436-1441

Chartier, J. Chroniques de Charles VII, vol I, ed Vallet de Viriville (1888)

Chastellain, G., Oeuvres vol III, 7 vols., ed Kervyn de Lettenhove  (1863-1865)

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

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

An English Chronicle ed. J.S. Davies (1856)

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

Gascoigne, T., Loci e Libro Veritatum, ed. J.E.T Rogers (1881)

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

Gruel, G., Chronique D’Arthur de Richemont, Connétable d France, Duc de Bretagne (1393-1458) (Paris, 1890)

Hall, E., Chronicle, ed. H. Ellis (1809)

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, vol. VIII (1909)

PPC. Proceedings and Ordinances of the Privy Council, 6 vols. ed. N.H. Nicolas, (1834-37)

Paston Letters and Papers of the Fifteenth Century, 2 parts, ed. Norman Davis, (Oxford, 1971 ; 1976),

PROME. The Parliamentary Rolls of Medieval England 1432-1445, vol XI, ed.  A. Curry (2005)

Short English Chronicle in Three Fifteenth Century Chronicles, ed. J. Gairdner (1880)

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

Rawlinson B 355 in Six Town Chronicles, ed. R. Flenley (1911)

Secondary Sources

Barker, J., Conquest (2009)

Barron, C. M., London in the Later Middle Ages (2004)

Beaucourt, G du Fresne de, Histoire de Charles VII, vol. III (1885)

Beaurepaire, Ch. de, Les États de Normandie sous la domination Anglaise (1859)

Bell, A.R., Curry, A., et al, The Soldier in Later Medieval England (2013)

J.L. Bolton, J. L., ‘London and the anti-alien legislation of 1439-40,’ in Resident Aliens in Later Medieval England,’ ed. W. Mark Ormond, N. McDonald, and C. Taylor (2017)

Dégert, A, Histoire des évéques de Dax (1899)

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

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

  1. Flenley, ‘London and foreign merchants in the reign of Henry VI,’ English Historical Review XXV (1910)

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

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

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

Johnson, P.A., Duke Richard of York 1411-1460 (1988)

Power, E. & Postan, M, M, eds. Studies in England Trade in the Fifteenth Century (1933)

Postan, M.M., Medieval Trade and Finance (1973)

Richmond, C.F., ‘The Keeping of the Seas during the Hundred Years War 1422-1440,’ History 49 (October 1964)

Sommé, M., Isabelle de Portugal Duchessse 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 Later Lollards 1414-1520 (1965)

Vaughan, R., Philip the Good (1970)

Vickers, K.H., Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester (1909)

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

Theses

Jones, M., ‘The Beaufort Family and the War in France, 1421-1450,’ Bristol PhD thesis (1982)

Online

gasconrolls.org