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

See Introduction.

Money

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

The Proceedings record only twelve meeting for 1435. Six in February, two in June, two in July, and two in December (when parliament was in session). 

Contents

The Minority Council

Thirty-six council meetings are recorded for 1427. Seventeen before the Duke of Bedford left England and nineteen afterwards.

Henry V’s Legacy

King Henry V’s debts continued to burden the Council. 

The Council and the Magnates

The Duke of Gloucester appointed justiciar of North Wales. The Earl of Huntingdon’s marriage. The Westmorland inheritance. Two petitions following the death of the Duke of Exeter.

The Council and the Papacy

The quarrel between Pope Martin and the Council over the Statute of Provisors continued.

London

The Mayor, John Reynwell laid the first stone for a tower to be built at the north end of London Bridge.  He ordered casks of wine to be emptied into the street because Italian merchants were accused of offering bad wine for sale. The Abbey of St Mary Graces was put under commissioners. The Council allowed ‘certain foreign merchants’ a delay in the payment of taxes imposed on them by Parliament.   

Lawlessness

William Wawe, a notorious criminal, was apprehended by Sir John Radcliffe.

Scotland

Garter King of Arms was sent to Scotland to remind King James that he had not paid his ransom, that he had not sent Scottish hostages to England as agreed, and of Scottish violations of the truce ang he Anglo-Scottish border.  

Calais

A mint was reestablished at Calais.

The Duke of Bedford and the Council

The Duke of Bedford conceded and endorsed the Minority Council supreme authority in governing England.

The Earl of Somerset and the Duke of Bourbon.

A proposal to exchange the Duke of Bourbon, a captive in England for John Beaufort Earl of Somerset, a captive in France was unsuccessful.

The Duke of Bedford and Henry Beaufort

The Duke of Bedford returned to France and Henry Beaufort was made Cardinal of St Eusebius.

Cardinal Beaufort and Bohemia

Cardinal Beaufort travelled to Germany to promote Pope Martin’s crusade against the Hussites in Bohemia.

Jacqueline of Hainault

Jacqueline of Hainault pleaded for English assistance in her war against the Duke of Burgundy.

The War in France

The Earl of Warwick besieged Pontorson and Montargis. 

The Duke of Brittany

Duke John of Brittany returned to his English allegiance.

Denmark

King Eric of Denmark was granted permission to hire mercenaries in England for his war against the Count of Holstein.

The Earl of Salisbury

Thomas Montague, Earl of Salisbury came to England to raise an army for the war in France.

The story of Jehan de Bonval

The plight of an ordinary Frenchman under English rule.

Bibliography 1427

 

 

 

The Minority Council

Thirty-six council meetings are recorded for 1427. Three in January, seven in February and seven in March before the Duke of Bedford left England. Seven in May, seven in July, one in November, and four in December.

 The Councillors’ Wages

Remuneration for their services continued to occupy the councillors’ minds. In March 1427, they issued and confirmed a lengthy recapitulation of the 1424 agreement that established their pay scale by rank.

See Year 1424: Councillors’ Wages

The Exchequer was ordered to pay John Kemp as Chancellor, 200 marks annually backdated to 20 December 1425 (1).

In December the Council agreed that John Mowbray, Duke of Norfolk should receive 300 marks annually, that the bishops should receive 200 marks (as previously established) and that Thomas Montague Earl of Salisbury, should receive 200 marks dating from July 1427 when he  joined the Council. Another newcomer, William Gray, Bishop of London, would also receive 200 marks (2).

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

(1) PPC III, pp. 265-267 (the order in the king’s name is given under the privy seal a Leycestre le xv jo^r de Marcs lan de nre regne quint making it 1427. This is possibly an error for 1426 when King Henry was at Leicester and Kemp was appointed as Chancellor).

(2) PPC III, p. 278-280 (Mowbray, Salisbury, and Gray, wages).

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

Duchy of Lancaster

In May John Stafford turned over to the Council the ‘great book containing the records of the Duchy of Lancaster’ which had been in his possession as Treasurer. It was committed to the new Treasurer, Lord Hungerford (1).

Income from the Duchy was the private possession of the Lancastrian kings, and its accounts were kept separate from other sources of royal income although all three Lancastrian kings relied heavily on duchy resources to meet their ever-increasing debts,

(1) PPC III, p. 290 (Duchy of Lancaster records).

Safe Conducts

The Council continued to issue safe conducts to servants of French prisoners to bring money or goods to them in England during the protracted time it took to raise their ransoms.

See Year 1426: French Prisoners

In May Helliot de Linaye and Colin Fleming, servants of Jean d’Estouteville and Raoul de Gaucourt received safe conducts to bring what was probably an instalment of their ransom to Sir John Cornwall (1).

See Years 1422 French prisoners; and 1424 John  Holand, Earl of Huntingdon.

(1) Foedera X, p. 374 (safe conducts).

Paul, Count of Valache

In July the Council granted 40 marks annually in King Henry’s name to Paul, Count of Valache, to maintain his estate because he was of noble blood. Valache had come to England from Greece, claiming to be destitute, having lost everything when the Turks, ‘the enemies of God,’ attacked his homeland and he had to rely on the charity of ‘good Christians’ in order to survive. He received £6 1s 4d in October for the period 8 July to 29 September 1427 (1, 2).

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

(1) Foedera X, p. 374 (Valache).

(2) Issues of the Exchequer, pp 401-402 (Valache).

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

Crokeholme

William Dyolet, clerk, was granted a third of the parish church of Crokeholme [Crewkerne] in the diocese of Bath and Wells on 24 January 1427 (1).

On the following day Chancellor Kemp declared that although the presentation was in his gift, he had not intended to present it to John Dyolet (almost certainly a mistake for William) without council approval (2). William Dyolet’s name appears in the Calendars of the Close Rolls and in the Calendars of Ancient Deeds, John Dyolet’s does not. 

To add to the confusion, in November 1427 Walter Colles, parson of Crokeholme, was authorized to make an exchange of Crokeholme with Thomas Hendyman to the prebend of Heiges (Hays, also a Courtenay inheritance) in the diocese of Exeter (3).

Crokeholme, was an inheritance of the Courtenay Earls of Devon, in the king’s hands because Thomas Courteney was a minor. 

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

(1) CPR 1422-1429 p. 386 (grant to William Dyolet).

(2) PPC III, pp. 229-330 (Kemp’s statement).

(3) CPR 1422-1429, p. 452 (William Colles).

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

Cheshire

John Hope, the Mayor of Chester, and the town’s council, were ordered to send an attorney to the Council at Westminster in May, to state their case for defying royal letters and claiming some special privileges or exemptions. They were required to produce proof of such privileges if they existed (3).

(3) PPC III, p. 269 (Mayor of Chester).

Henry V’s Legacy

Louis, Count Palatine

The Council continued to honour Henry V’s debt to Louis, Count Palatine of the Rhine. 

See Year 1423: Foreign Commitments.

In October Louis commissioned his attorneys, Otto de Lapide and Valdius Frederic de Mirta, to receive his annuity. In November they issued a receipt for 2,000 marks (two years annuity) to the Treasurer Lord Hungerford (1, 2).

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

(1) Foedera X, pp. 379 and 383 (Louis’s annuity).

(2) PPC III, p.  253 (Louis’s annuity).

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

Household servants

King Henry V had customarily pardoned the sergeants (heads of department) of his household, at the end of each year for all irregularities in their accounts and allowed them to begin a new year with a clean slate.

As he lay dying, Henry requested the Duke of Exeter to see that this practice continued. But the sergeants had not received their pardons, despite submitting their account. Owing  to an administrative muddle occasioned by the king’s death, three treasurers of the household, John Rothedale, (who had died in France), Walter Beauchamp and William Phelip had lost or retained only incomplete accounts, and the pardons had not been issued.

The sergeants of the scullery, poultry, caterer, spicery, pantry, larder, confectioner, saucery, bakery, and avenary (stables) and one ‘above stairs’ servant, Thomas Scarlet, sergeant of the hall and chamber, submitted a petition to Parliament in October 1427 and Parliament granted the petition and issued a pardon.

Four women, executrixes of household servants who had died, were also pardoned: Elizabeth Tame,  executrix of John Hardgrove, Catherine and Alice Burcester, widows of Thomas and Nicholas Burcester, and Alice Lacy, widow of Nicholas Lacy.

The names of the servants listed in the Foedera, and the Calendar of Patent Rolls are the same, the first name being Thomas Rothwell of the scullery. The list in PROME differs, Thomas Wesenham of the pantry (third in the Foedera list) is the first name in the parliamentary pardon (1, 2, 3).

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

(1) Foedera X, pp. 379-380 (Henry V’s household).

(2) CPR 1422-1429, pp 463- 464 (Henry V household).

(3) PROME X, pp. 344-346 (Henry V’s household petition).

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

Widows

Sir Henry Noone

Henry Noone had been Henry V’s Master of Horse. His widow and executrix, Katherine Noone, petitioned that ‘the treasurer might be instrusted to account with her’ for the horses’ harness and other materials, including cloth of gold for repairing and adorning the late king’s saddles, supplied to her husband by Robert Rolleston, Keeper of the Great Wardrobe. These had been captured at sea off the coast at Le Crotoy, presumably in 1418 when Henry V was attempting to run the French blockade.

It is not clear from the wording whether Katherine was requesting that the Noone estate should not be held liable for this loss, or if she was requesting reimbursement of the money expended by Noone on these articles (1).

(1) PPC III, pp. 249-250 (Noone).

NB: Wylie & Waugh in their exhaustive study of King Henry V’s reign do not mention Noone or the loss of a valuable cargo off Le Crotoy. 

Sir William Clifford

Clifford had been Constable of Bordeaux and Captain of Fronsac in Gascony under Henry V. His allowance for Fronsac was 1,000 marks per annum for eight years (1). He died in office in March 1418 (2). His widow and executrix Anne Clifford married Sir Reginald Cobham of Sterburgh,  and at the end of 1427 the Council authorized payment or assignment to him of the £1,322 10s 10d still owing to Clifford, as Constable of Fronsac (3).

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

(1) Vale, Gascony, p 247 (Clifford, Constable of Fronsac).

(2) Wylie & Waugh I, pp. 123-124 (Clifford under Henry V).

(3) PPC III, p. 281 (payment to Cobham).

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

The Council and the Magnates

The Duke of Gloucester

On 10 May, at the first recorded council meeting following the Duke of Bedford’s departure for France, the Duke of Gloucester was appointed Justiciar of Cheshire and North Wales, the office to be performed by deputies (1). 

(1) PPC III, pp. 267-268 (Gloucester appointed).

The Earl of Huntingdon

John Holand, Earl of Huntingdon, was Henry V’s nephew and first cousin to Henry VI. He married Anne Stafford, the widow of Edmund Mortimer Earl of March, without royal licence, probably for the same reason as Mortimer, to strengthen his ties to the Lancastrian line.

Anne was the granddaughter of Thomas of Woodstock, Duke of Gloucester, the youngest son of King Edward III. Huntingdon got of lightly. He was ‘pardoned’ in March 1427 and fined 1200 marks for his illicit marriage. Mortimer had had to pay 10,000 marks to King Henry V for the same privilege.

 (1)  PPC III, p. 252–253 (Huntingdon marriage).

The Earls of Westmorland

Ralph Neville, Earl of Westmorland died in 1425. He was succeeded in the title by his grandson, Ralph II, who would not come of age until 1429. Ralph I had married Margaret Stafford as his first wife but their son, John, Lord Neville, Ralph II’s father, died before Ralph I. Margaret died in 1423 and in 1425 Ralph II’s share of the Westmorland estates passed into the hands of the crown.

In December 1427 the Council agreed to let the farm of his share of the inheritance to Ralph II for £200 annually during the remaining years of his minority (1). 

(1) PPC III, p. 281 (Westmorland lands).

The Duke of Exeter

After Thomas Beaufort, Duke of Exeter died at the end of 1426 two petitions were presented to the Council in February 1427. The first was from John Derham, now a clerk, who sought the council’s ratification of his manumission by Exeter (1). Derham (and presumably his father Richard before him) had been a serf on Exeter’s estate at Wyrmegeye [Wormegay, co. Norfolk]. In May 1414, while he was Earl of Dorset, Exeter had made Derham a free man. Confirmation of his freedom after Exeter’s death was important enough for Derham to pay a half mark [6s 8d] to the Hanaper for its enrolment (2).  

The second petition was from Charles, Duke of Orleans, requesting permission to give a bond for 4,000 crowns [crown = 3s 4d.] to Exeter’s executors (3). 

The bond related to an old debt. Exeter, then Earl of Dorset, had been second in command of the expedition to France in 1412 led by Thomas, Duke of Clarence to aid the Duke of Orleans and the Armagnac party against John the Fearless, Duke of Burgundy.  Clarence’s appearance proved embarrassing, and the Armagnacs bribed him to take his army out of France. Clarence’s war captains were entitled to a share of the French bribe.  Exeter’s executors claimed the 4,000 crowns still owing to him.

See Year 1434: Sir Thomas Rempston’.

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

(1) Foedera X, p. 371 (Derham manumission).

(2) CPR 1422-1429, p. 391 (Derham manumission).

(3) PPC III, p. 250 (Orleans’s bond to Exeter’s executives).

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

The Council and the Papacy

John Hawkhurst

In January 1427 the Council endorsed the election of John Hawkhurst, a brother of the order, as Abbot of St Augustine’s, Canterbury. St Augustine’s was subject to the court at Rome and did not fall under the jurisdiction of any diocese in England (1, 2). Pope Martin promptly denied King Henry’s right to nominate Hawkhurst and issued his own papal bull confirming Hawkhurst as abbot. ‘The king accepted’ Hawkhurst on these terms. Hawkhurst’s fealty was taken, and the temporalities of the abbey were restored to him in July 1427 (3).  Neither side lost face. It is a typical example of the kind of comprise practiced by both sides.

The appointment of Hawkhurst may have been a necessity. The previous incumbent Marcellus Daudelyon, had been found guilty and fined for receiving casks of pirated wine.  

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

(1) Foedera X, p. 369 (Hawkhurst elected).

(2) CPR 1422-1429, p. 386 (Hawkhurst elected).

(3) CPR 1422-1429, p. 411 (Hawkhurst confirmed).

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

Robert Neville

John Chandler, Bishop of Salisbury died in July 1426 and under the Duke of Bedford’s influence the Council nominated Robert Neville, Henry Beaufort’s nephew as his successor, a promotion described by Gerald Harriss as one of Bedford’s doucers to conciliate Beaufort after his forced resignation as Chancellor.

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

Robert Neville was not acceptable to the chapter of Salisbury. He was only twenty-two and still at Oxford. In September the chapter proceeded to elect their dean, Simon Sydenham. Pope Martin refused to endorse either provision since neither was his chosen candidate.

In May 1427, after Bedford had left England, the Council gave their consent to Sydenham’s request to pursue his claim to the bishopric at the court of Rome (1).

Henry Beaufort wrote to Pope Martin in June urging him to accept Robert Neville, and since Martin had just made Beaufort a cardinal he could hardly refuse (2, 3). He provided Neville, and the Council caved in. Robert became Bishop of Salisbury; Sydenham remained Dean of Salisbury until 1429 when he became Bishop of Chichester.

This was the first but by no means the last time in King Henry VI’s reign, that Beaufort/Neville influence would decide appointments to the episcopate.

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

(1) PPC III, p. 269 (permission to Sydenham to contest).

(2) Harriss, Beaufort, p. 173. (Beaufort’s letter to the pope).

(3) Papal Letters VII, pp. 32–33 (Pope’s letter to Beaufort).

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

Henry Chichele, Archbishop of Canterbury

Pope Martin V was determined to have the Statute of Provisors that restricted his powers of patronage in England rescinded.

See Year 1423: The Council and the Papacy.

Frustrated at his lack of progress Martin  accused Henry Chichele, the Archbishop of Canterbury of disloyalty for not supporting papal authority and pronounced him unfit for office. He issued papal bulls depriving Chichele of the status of legatus natus which Chichele held as primate of England (1).

Martin was right in believing that Chichele opposed the nomination of foreign clerics to English benefices, but Chichele was in no position to secure the repeal of the offending statute, even if he had wanted to.  

John Obizis

Martin’s bulls against Chichele were never published in England. The Duke of Gloucester as Protector acted precisely as Henry V would have done to negate papal pretentions and protect Chichele.  John Obizis, the papal nuncio and collector, was arrested by the Constable of Dover on Gloucester’s orders as soon as he set foot in England.

Obizis was imprisoned in the Tower of London. Pope Marin complained to Gloucester.   Obizis was only carrying out his orders, but paradoxically he also declared that he did not hold Gloucester responsible for the arrest (2).  Mistakenly, Martin expected Gloucester’s support since Gloucester had professed to be a ‘good son’ of Holy Church and Pope Martin  had not yet passed judgement on the validity of his marriage to Jaqueline of Hainault.  

The Council reconsidered such severe action against a papal envoy. Even Chichele thought it unwise to antagonise the pope unnecessarily. The bishops were uneasy; they petitioned for the unfortunate Obizis’s release on bail, but other members of the Council were still incensed: Lords Cromwell, Tiptoft, Bourchier, and Hungerford insisted that Obizis must find Englishmen willing to put up sufficient security that he would not abscond or break the law. 

Obizis was brought before the Council in the Star Chamber. He undertook not to do anything contrary to the statues of the realm (i.e. try to publish the papal bulls) before 24 June, the Feast of St John the Baptist, when he would again appear before the Council. On these conditions Gloucester, Huntingdon, Stafford, and Lord Scrope sanctioned his release (3).

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

(1) Harvey, England and Papacy, p. 144. (Pope Martin and Chichele).

(2) Papal Letters VII, p. 36 (Martin V to Gloucester).

(3) PPC III, p. 268 (Obizis or Opizzis both spelling occur).

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

London

London Bridge

The first stone for the tower on London Bridge was laid by the Mayor, John Reynwell and the City’s aldermen.

“And that yere the towre on the draught brygge of London was be-gonne. And the Mayre layde the fyrste stone, and mo othyr aldyrmen with hym.”  

                                                                                                                                                    Gregory’s Chronicle, p. 162

“The Tower on London Bridge at the north end of the drawbridge . . . . was begun to be builded in the [mayoral] yeare 1426.”     Stow, Survey of London I, p. 25

 King’s Works

John Arderne, clerk of the king’s works, was granted £200 in February to undertake much needed repairs at the Tower of London and the palace at Westminster (1).

(1) PPC III, p. 243 (repairs to the Tower).

St Mary Graces Abbey

The Cistercian Abbey of St Mary Graces, founded in the fourteenth century by King Edward III, was situated east of the Tower of London. It was found to be impoverished and dissolute.  In February 1427 the Council committed its care and restoration to the Duke of Gloucester, Henry Beaufort Bishop of Winchester, Philip Morgan, Bishop of Ely, the Earl of Stafford, Lewis Robessart (all council members), to William Salbury, Abbot of Beaulieu, and Richard, Abbot of Boxlee in Kent (1). Probably only the last two named were required to act.

An investigation was carried out, and Abbot William (no known surname) admitted that owing to the mismanagement of his predecessor Abbot Paschal, who had become abbot by dubious means, the abbey’s jewels were no longer in the abbey’s possession. They had been pawned and were in the hands of the mother of one Roger Monne who lived in a house near St Botolf’s Wharf. Furthermore, a house belonging to the abbey had been made over by Paschal to an esquire named Kighley, presumably for his own profit (2, 3).

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

(1) CPR 1422-1429, p. 394 (St Mary Graces committal).

(2) PPC III, p. 269 (abbey’s jewels).

(3) http://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/london/vol1/pp461-464 (St Mary Graces)

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

The Wine Trade

 ‘Sweet’ wines were imported from Spain and Italy; the most highly prized being the sweet wines of Cyprus (1). Duties on sweet wines was set at a higher rate than on French wines: 6s. the   tun against 3s. the tun, which made them more expensive: 12d. a gallon against 6d. a gallon for Rochelle or Gascon wine (2).

 Complaints of malpractice by ‘alien’ merchants trading in London were common throughout Henry VI’s reign. The City authorities set rigid standards for all merchandise offered for sale,   and were quick to take action against anyone, especially foreigners, who violated their regulations.

In 1427 the ‘Lombards’ (Italian merchants) were accused of selling bad wine. The mayor, John Reynwell, ordered the offending casks to be broken open, allowing the wine to spill out into the gutters. Wines were stored in casks or pipes and were apt to turn sour, ‘go bad,’ if the casks were not filled properly and a layer of air was left at the top.

“And in the same yere were founde many false vessels of Romeney, the whiche were made by gadered Galgenet, into the nombre of vj buttes, which the hedes were smyt oute of in diuerse places of the Cite; the falsest gode that euyr any man see.” Brut Appendix E p 453

“And that yere was smytte owte many buttys of Romnaye of Lumbardys makyng in dyvers placys of the Cytte, for they were corrupte and also they very pyson, &c.”

                                                     Gregory’s Chronicle, p 161

“The Lombards corrupting their sweete wines, when knowledge thereof came to John Rainwell, Maior of London, he in diuerse places of the Citie commanded the heads of the buts and other vessels in the open streetes to be broken, to the number of 150, so that the liquour running forth, passed through the Cittie like a streame of raine water, in the sight of all the people, from whence there issued a most loathsome sauour.”                     Stow, Survey of London I, pp. 240-41

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

(1) Postan, Medieval Trade, p. 96 (wines).

(2) Power and Postan, English Trade, p. 328 (wine tax).

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

Aliens in the Realm

Foreign merchants trading in England, known as ‘aliens,’ were required to pay customs duties imposed by Parliament.

See Year 1422: Taxation.

In July 1427 the Treasurer Lord Hungerford, was instructed to appoint a time and place for the payment of customs duties by ‘certain foreigners,’ but at the same time he was authorized to negotiate a respite for ‘certain foreign merchants’ for the customs due on wool and ‘other merchandise’ (1). The wording in the Proceedings is vague, and it is impossible to be certain to whom they refer, but the Council periodically permitted German merchants of the Hanseatic League, extensions of time to pay what they owed.

A ship from Catalonia had just been arrested off the port of Sandwich on the orders of Sir Henry Inglose, the Duke of Bedford’s lieutenant as Admiral of England, presumably for attempting to land its cargo illegally. The master of the vessel was required to put up a bond of £2,000, a considerable sum. The Council issued a licence to him to dispose of his merchandise and ‘proceed wheresoever he pleased’ i.e., leave England as soon as possible (2).

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

(1) PPC III, pp. 270 and 275 (payment of customs duties).

(2) PPC III, p. 275 (ship of Catalonia).

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

Lawlessness

Lawlessness was inevitable during Henry VI’s minority. The Council and the crown did not have the resources or the personnel for effective policing. Complaints of lawlessness and the Council’s failure to bring lawbreakers to justice for ‘the better keeping of the peace’ occur frequently on the parliamentary rolls and in the Calendars of the Patent Rolls.

Disturbances of the Peace

Two cases of disturbing the peace were referred to the Council by the justices of assize in July 1427.

George Hethe had appeared before William Babington and William Westbury, justices of assize at Bury St Edmunds in Suffolk. He gave a bond of 1,000 marks to keep the peace towards Robert Mordaunt and to present himself before the Council at Westminster after the quinzaine of St Michael (13 October). Four men of Suffolk stood surety for Hethe and he duly appeared and was discharged on 25 November 1427 (1).

Hugh Hasilden appeared before the same justices in Bedfordshire on 30 July. Hasildon gave a bond of £100 to present himself before the Council at Westminster also on 13 October and in the meantime to keep the peace towards the mayor and town council of Bedford, i.e. not to cause any further disturbances in the town. He appeared before the Council and was discharged on 2 December (2).

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

(1) PPC III, p. 277 (Hethe).

(2) PPC III, pp. 280-281 (Hasilden).

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

 William Wawe

Men could be outlawed for failing to appear before the courts to answer a claim for debt or a charge of trespass, but outlawry was not the same as conviction for a serious crime. Outlaws who laid low and kept out of further trouble could purchase a pardon from the impecunious government for a small fee. Others went into hiding or formed themselves into gangs and supported themselves by further criminal activity.

William Wawe was a major malefactor with a long history of theft, extortion, and highway robbery; even his name was probably not his own. He had been outlawed as a felon and a thief under Henry V. He escaped from the Marshalsea and gathered a sizeable gang of followers, initially in Hertfordshire but spreading to other counties. His name became a by-word for ruthlessness. He and his gang preyed on travellers and rich merchants, and even ransacked church property (1).

As Griffiths put it, “next to Oldcastle and ‘Jack Sharp’ the most notorious lawbreaker to whom contemporaries attributed heretical proclivities was William Wawe [although he] displayed greater zeal in robbing ecclesiastics, nunneries, travellers, and merchants than in embracing eccentric religious beliefs. His followers resembled the retinue of a lawless layman” (2).

In March 1427, following numerous complaints, the Council put a bounty of £100 on Wawe’s head to induce for his fellow marauders to inform against him. The offer is worth quoting in full:

“a certain son of iniquity named William Wawe convicted of many treasons and felonies, having escaped from the Marshalsea prison and joined other felons had robbed many churches and nunneries and had committed and still continued to commit, various depredations on the king’s highways.”

The sheriff of Bedfordshire and Buckinghamshire was ordered to arrest him on sight. He was commanded “to make proclamation in all the fairs and markets within his bailiwick that if anyone should arrest the said William or produce his body or his head alive or dead before the Council he should receive a reward of £100; that if he should be taken by any person guilty of any crime excepting treason the taker should receive a free pardon and 100 marks; that if taken by the commonality of any city, borough, town, or hamlet the inhabitants thereof should be discharged from the payment of toll, and if they were already free there from, should receive some privilege of equal value; and that no one should give him food or lodging under pain of incurring the penalty in such case provided” (3).

The Council commissioned Sir John Radcliffe to apprehend Wawe, possibly because one of Radcliffe’s servants had joined Wawe’s gang and could provide insider information. A year later, in October 1428, Radcliffe would be paid £40 for capturing Wawe, considerably less than the bounty originally offered (4).

Wawe took sanctuary in Beaulieu Abbey in Hampshire where Radcliffe ran him to earth and forcibly removed him.  Wawe was imprisoned in the Tower of London to await trial. In April heresy was added to the other charges and he was indicted in the Bishop of Winchester’s diocesan court (4).  Wawe pleaded that Radcliffe had violated sanctuary and therefore his arrest was illegal, but a convicted criminal was not protected under the laws of sanctuary and nor was a heretic (5).

The court of King’s Bench found Wawe guilty on all counts. He was hanged, drawn, and quartered at Tyburn in July 1427 and his head was set on London Bridge. Members of his gang were hunted down and arrested, both before and after Wawe’s execution.

“And in this same yere was Will Wawe take for an [a]rannt þeef, and was brought to London to þe Kynges Bench, & so brought to Westmynster a-fore þe kynges Justices, & ϸer Jugede toϸe dethe. And so he was brought again from Westmynster to Suthwerk, & þen he was put in a carte, stanndyng, & faste bounde; & so he was cariede thorugh þe Cite to  Tiborne, that all men myght see hym & knowe hym, And so he was caried the thirde day of Juyll, And there hangede for his trespass.                  Brut Appendix D, pp. 441-442

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

(1) Griffiths, ‘William Wawe,’ in King and Country, pp. 227-32.

(2) Griffiths, Henry VI, p. 131.

(3) PPC III, pp. 256-59 (sheriff’s orders).

(4) PPC III, p. 312. (Radcliffe rewarded for Wawe’s arrest).

(5) Bellamy, Crime and Public Order, p. 107.

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

Scotland

King James I of Scotland obtained his release in 1423, after eighteen years in captivity, by a treaty promising to pay a ransom of 60,000 marks or £40,000, over six years in annual instalments of 10,000 marks and to send Scottish nobles to England as hostages that he would keep his word.

See Year 1423 Scotland.

NB: Foedera X, p. 376-377 dated 19 July 1427 is misplaced. The King of Scotland is King James IV, ‘the king’ is Henry VII. Andrew Stewart was Bishop of Moray from 1482 to 1501. Columba Dunbar was Bishop of Moray in 1427.

In 1427 the Minority Council sent William Bruges, Garter King of Arms, to raise three points of contention with King James.  The first was the non-payment of James’s ransom. The second was that James had not sent hostages to replace the six who had died in English custody since 1424. The third point was that violations of the truce by the Scots were on the increase but despite James’s promise that he would make reparations, he had done nothing (1).

NB: Nicolas notes that the councillors’ signatures are autograph and that the writing in the instruction to Garter is similar to that of the Chancellor, John Kemp, who was also Archbishop of York. Unusually the Earl of Northumberland’s signature comes before that of the Duke of Bedford, perhaps because Northumberland was Warden of the East March. 

Ransom

Three instalments of the ransom, a total of 30,000 marks, were due, but only 9,500 marks had been received. James’s envoy, Thomas Roulle, had informed the Council that the 10,000 marks for 1427 were ready for delivery. Garter was to request immediate payment.  

At the end of 1427 sixteen members of the Council signed a letter to James in King Henry’s name complaining that Thomas Roulle’s undertaking had not been kept (2).  James was  unimpressed and unrepentant, and the money was not paid.

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

(1) PPC III, pp. 259-265 (Garter King of Arms instructions. He received £10 for expenses).

(2) Foedera X, pp. 384-385 (ransom unpaid).

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

Hostages

Garter was to stress that the six hostages who had died between 1424 and 1427 did so of natural causes, not through violence, neglect, or cruelty by their gaolers. On the contrary, they had been given liberty to leave the Tower precincts to visit local merchants and purchase goods for their own use. It was no use James complaining that they should have been moved out of London when plague was in the City. The Dukes of Bedford, Gloucester, and the Council had not been evacuated, they met regularly at Westminster, and in any case the difficulty of prevailing on James to send replacements far outweighed any advantage in allowing the hostages to die.

See Year 1426: Scottish hostages.

Garter pointed out that although Thomas Roulle had brought a list of fifteen names as replacements at the end of 1426 he left London before their suitability could be checked, so delay in accepting them was inevitable until the checks could be completed to the satisfaction of the Wardens of the March (1).  

The exchange of hostages took up most of 1427. The Council authorized the release of Gilbert Hay from the Tower of London, and of Patrick Lyon, James of Kinnymonde, Sir William Borthwick. and Sir William Erth from York Castle (2).

On 8 March the Chancellor issued a licence for them to leave England provided their replacements, David, Lord of Lassell, Sir Hugo de Blare, Robert Logan of Restalrig, William Dishington, and Patrick, Lord of Graham, were acceptable to the Wardens. The Earl of Northumberland, Warden of the East March, was among the nine councillors who signed the release (3, 4).

Robert Passmere, a sergeant at arms, was paid ten marks to escort Gilbert Hay north (5). Peter Cawode received 20 marks to provide six horses for Hay, his servants and his household goods to travel to York. Cawode was to convey the five hostages from York to Pontefract Castle where Sir John Langton, the former sheriff of York, and Sir Richard Neville, Warden of the West March, were to receive them (6).

Peter Cawode tried to deliver the hostages but Richard Neville refused to accept them because no suitable replacements had been provided and Cawode had to keep them for a further two months at his own house in Yorkshire (7). 

In July John Clink, a sergeant at arms, was ordered to deliver nine more hostages into the custody Sir Richard Neville, and take their replacements to Pontefract: the Earl of Crawford, Lord Robert Erskine, James Dunbar of Fendraught, and George son of the Earl of Dunbar, Adam Hepburn of Hailes, Norman Leslie, William of Erth, and James Kinnymonde (8, 9).

The final exchange of hostages was not completed until November 1427 when the nine hostages were licensed to leave England (10). Sixteen Scots remained in custody (11). It says much for the loyalty of his subjects to King James that they continued to accept the exchanges even though they surely knew that James would not pay his ransom to obtain their release. They had a greater sense of honour than he had.

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

(1) PPC III, pp. 357-358 (Roulle, hostages and replacements).

(2) PPC III, pp. 254-255 (hostages first release).

(3) Foedera X, p.  372 (licence to leave England).

(4) Calendar of Documents Relating to Scotland IV, pp. 205-206 (first hostage exchange).

(5) PPC III, p. 265 (Passemere). 

(6) Foedera X, p. 369 (hostages to be released).

(7) Foedera X, p. 373 (Cawode).

(8) Foedera X, p. 376 (second hostage exchange).

(9) Balfour-Melville, James I, p. 294, (list of replacements).

(10) Foedera X, pp. 381-382 (final release).

(11) Balfour-Meville, James I, p. 148 (for details of the exchanges).

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

Truce violations

Both sides continued to blame the other for violations of the truce along the Anglo/Scottish border while carrying on the age-old tradition of border raids.

Commissions of array were issued in March 1427 to the Earl of Northumberland, (who was attending council meetings at Canterbury) Sir Richard Neville, the sheriff of York, Sir Thomas Tunstall, Sir Edmund Hastings, plus three local men from the North Riding and five from the East Riding of Yorkshire to suppress disturbances and deal with truce violations (1). This was standard practice, but it was rarely successful as both sides were equally guilty – and unrepentant.

Negotiations

In July William Gray, Bishop of London and Sir William Harrington travelled to the Marches of Scotland for a March Day to treat with their Scottish counterparts. Gray and Harrington were awarded 100 marks and £20 respectively for their expenses (2).

See Year 1425: Scotland for March Days

The commissioners had no common grounds on which to reach agreement. They had no control over a situation which was impossible to resolve. There would always be raids, rustling, and robberies along the Anglo-Scottish border. The only thing they could do was to discuss reparations which might or might not be implemented (3).

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

(1) Foedera X, p. 372 (commissions of array).

(2) PPC III, p. 275 (English commissioners).

(3) PPC III, p. 358 (reparations).

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

Sir Hugh Lutterell

The Council wrote to King James in November touching a specific violation of the truce. Tenants of Sir Hugh Lutterell of Dunster in Somerset had been captured while fishing off the Irish coast and detained by William Carnys at Bothwell Castle. William was probably related to Alexander Carnys, secretary to Archibald, the Black Douglas who owned Bothwell Castle (1). 

Hugh Lutterell was the MP for Devon and Somerset from 1404 to 1415 and a commissioner of the peace for Devon and Somerset from 1423 to 1427. He was a loyal supporter of the crown. He served in France under Henry V and was active on inquisitions to maintain law and order. In 1426 he was a commissioner to raise a loan in Somerset for the king. He was also an associate of the Duke of Gloucester in a property transaction. Lutterell was well worth the Council’s help, but he died in 1428 before the Council intervention could be effective (2).

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

(1) Foedera X, p. 382 (Lutterell).

(2) CPR 1422-1429, pp 354, 400, 562, 569 and passim. (Lutterell).

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

Calais

The wages of the Calais garrison were always in arrears. In February 1427 Richard Buckland, the Treasurer of Calais, John Shirley a servant of the Earl of Warwick, and John Halle representing the garrison, met with members of the Council in the chapter house at St Pauls to lodge the perennial complaint of non-payment of the garrison’s wages.

They were told that 10,000 marks of King James’s ransom, due to be paid at Middleburgh, had been assigned to them but if, as was all too likely, the payment was late, would the garrison accept an assignment of 13s 4d on every sack of wool shipped, in addition to the 13s 4d already allocated to them. Buckland agreed to this (1).

See Year 1423: Calais

The Mint at Calais

Henry V had re-established a mint at Calais in 1422 as part of his reformation of the coinage to maintain an official standard of value for English coin. Purchasers of wool at the Calais Staple were required to make payment in English money. Bartholomew Goldbeter was master of the mint at Calais.

See Year 1423: The Mint.

Stephen and John Marcel, masters of the mint at Rouen, were authorized to export fifty fodders of lead for use at the Calais mint (2). The design of the silver groats issued for Henry VI’s reign were changed in 1427, and lead from the mint at Rouen would have been used to cast the new dyes.

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

(1) PPC III, pp. 242-243 (Calais wages).

(2) PPC III, p. 270 (lead for mint at Calais).

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

The Duke of Bedford and the Council

The Duke of Bedford was preparing to leave England at the beginning of 1427. On 28 January eleven councillors requested Bedford to meet them in the Star Chamber at Westminster: Chancellor Kemp, Henry Chichele Archbishop of Canterbury, John Stafford, Bishop of Bath and Wells the former Treasurer, Philip Morgan Bishop of Ely, and William Alnwick Bishop of Norwich, Keeper of the Privy Seal. Humphrey, Earl of Stafford, John Holand, Earl of Huntingdon, and Lords Cromwell, Scrope, Tiptoft and Hungerford, the Treasurer. These men formed the backbone of the Council which would govern England in Bedford’s absence.

The Duke of Gloucester had declared  that “he would not answer for his actions to anyone except the king when Henry came of age” and “let my brother govern as he will while he is in England, but after he returns to France I shall govern as I see fit” (1). Such language was unsettling.

The councillors freely acknowledged the special position of the Protector, but they sought assurances that they would be able to govern England without interference or fear of retribution, and that ultimate authority lay with them, and not with the Protector.

The councillors presented Bedford with an ultimatum: he must endorse their terms for accepting the responsibility of governing England during King Henry’s minority or they would be forced to resign. Bedford was suspiciously eager to fall in with their demands. He thanked them in fulsome terms, declared his support for them without any reservations, and swore an oath on the bible to uphold their authority.

The Duke of Gloucester was not present. He claimed to be ill. On the following day, 29 January, the councillors attended on him and presented Bedford’s acceptance of their ultimatum. Bedford, as Protector, had signed and sworn; Gloucester, who would become Protector as soon as Bedford left England, had no option but to follow suit. He gave his promise, but not his oath (2, 3).

It was all too neat. Was the councillors’ petition Bedford’s last, carefully stage-managed effort to keep Gloucester in check and so ensure that he would not have to return to England a second time to settle disputes engendered by his erratic brother?

Another important question was discussed in Council at this time: the direction of the war in France. What had been King Henry V’s intentions when he instructed Bedford to hold the Duchy of Normandy at all costs? Had he meant in addition to extending English conquests in France, or if Normandy was threatened, was Bedford to defend it and the pays de conquête at the expense of a further expansion of Lancastrian France?

Humphrey Earl of Stafford, Louis Robessart Lord Bourchier, Lord Hungerford and William Alnwick had been in France when Henry V died. The Council called on them to state their recollections of what the king had actually said. They were reluctant to commit themselves, they claimed that the deep sorrow they had experienced at Henry’s death made it difficult for them to remember the sad event in any detail.

“Nevertheless, as faithfully as they could remember the king’s intent and the meaning of the words he said, it was ‘that my Lord Bedford should draw him down into Normandy and keep that country as well as the remnant [remaining parts] of his conquest . . . . with the revenues and profits thereof and do there as he would do with his own.” Bedford had answered that he understood it was the king’s will for him to do this until the present king came of age, and Henry V “said he understood no otherwise” (4). 

This did not resolve the question of the extent to which the war should be pursued. It was of vital interest to the councillors who would be expected to raise the money if the war was to continue. With Bedford present the Council was reluctant to suggest in so many words that Henry V may have recognised at the end of his life that without him the kingdom of France could not be conquered. Bedford was committed to the dual monarchy.

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

(1) PPC III, p. 241 (Gloucester’s declared intentions).

(2) PPC III, pp. 231-36 (Council’s ultimatum). Nicolas notes that the signatures JOHN and H. GLOUCESTER are not autograph, they are supplied from another MS. 

(3) PPC III, pp. 237-242 (a fuller copy of the meetings).

(4) PPC III, p. 248 (Henry V’s instructions to Bedford on Normandy).

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

The Council was grateful to Bedford, and a little in awe of him. They had rewarded him generously. He received the same salary as Protector while he was in England as the Duke of Gloucester had received. He was granted custody of the Powis estates after the death of Joan, Lady of Powis, with the wardship and marriage of her son and heir Henry Grey. He also received custody of the estates of John, Earl of Oxford, with certain exceptions, from the time of the death of Oxford’s guardian, the Duke of Exeter in1426, until Oxford achieved his majority (1). Mining in Devon and Cornwall was a valuable crown asset.  Bedford was to receive the profits from all the gold and silver mined in England for ten years (2).

On 26 January 1427 the Council agreed to pay the expenses for Bedford, his wife, and his retinue to return to France, and in February they awarded him £2,000 ‘for his labours and expenses in coming from and returning to France’ (3, 4). 

Bedford requested that his petition to the Leicester Parliament in 1426 to be releaved of the custodianship of Berwick should be entered on the Chancery rolls. (5).

Prince John of Lancaster, as he then was, became Warden of the East March and custodian of Berwick Castle at a very young age when he served as his father’s lieutenant in the North. He resigned the wardenship early in Henry V’s reign but remained the nominal custodian of Berwick even though he had not visited the town for many years. Berwick was the responsibility of Henry Percy, Earl of Northumberland as Warden of the East March.

See Year 1424: The Earl of Northumberland.

Bedford had informed Parliament that he did not wish to be blamed should Berwick be lost to the Scots. But typically, he did not relinquish all control; he requested and was granted the right to appoint his successor, although there is no indication on the parliament roll or in the Proceedings that he named anyone (6).

Berwick Castle was believed to be the key to the defence of the Anglo-Scottish border. Its importance to contemporary Englishmen is demonstrated by Bedford’s decision to abrogate liability for maintaining it, even though he had been content to remain its absentee custodian. Was he indeed afraid that Gloucester and the Council might lose it through neglect? The Earl of Northumberland was often away from the north attending council meetings in London and his indenture as Warden of the East March would expire in 1427.

Bedford’s year in England had taught him that whatever his earlier conviction, he could not be both Protector of England and Regent of France, the task was beyond one man, no matter how dedicated or hard working he might be. Bedford may even have wondered if he would return to England again.

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

(1) PPC III, p. 246 (Oxford’s estates).

(2) Foedera X, p. 370 (Gold and silver concession).

(3) PPC III, p. 230 (Bedford’s expenses).

(4) PPC III, pp. 247-248 (£2,000 for coming to England). 

(5) PPC III, pp. 245-246 (Bedford’s request re Berwick).

(6) PROME X, p. 296 (Bedford’s request re Berwick).

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

The Earl of Somerset and the Duke of Bourbon 

Henry Beaufort was worried that the Beaufort line might die out. Childless himself, the future lay with his nephews, John, Thomas, and Edmund, the sons of his brother John Beaufort, Earl of Somerset, who died in 1410. All three were still young, but they were unmarried and two of them, John and Thomas, were captives in France, they had been captured at the battle of Baugé in 1421 (1). 

The young John Beaufort became titular Earl of Somerset while still a minor. He came of age in 1425 and received livery of his, making him the highest-ranked and most valuable English magnate in French hands (2).

 The Dauphin had purchased John  from his Scots captor in 1423 for 40,000 écus and transferred his custody to Marie, Duchess of Bourbon to facilitate a possible exchange for her husband the Duke of Bourbon  captured at Agincourt (3)

King Henry V had set the terms for Bourbon’s release in 1420 (4). His ransom was set at 100,000 écus. The balance of 40,000 écus (20,000 nobles) was still outstanding in 1427. The Duke of Bourbon remained in England. 

Bedford’s ‘urgent reason’ for requesting Bourbon’s release was part of his reward to Henry Beaufort for his compliance in resigning the chancellorship in 1426.

See Year 1426: Gloucester and Beaufort

At a council meeting in Canterbury on 10 March 1427, attended by Henry Beaufort but not by the Duke of Gloucester, the Duke of Bedford requested that for urgent reasons and the good of the realm consideration should be given to allowing John, Duke of Bourbon to return to France. 

The Council agreed, provided Bourbon  fulfilled Henry V’s terms.  He must endorse the Treaty of Troyes and force his heir, the Count of Clermont, to do likewise. And in addition to the 40,000 écus (20,000 nobles) of his ransom, he must secure the release of put up the money for the Beaufort brothers or give security for their ransoms. The Beauforts would repay the money to the crown when King Henry VI came of age, if it was demanded of them (5, 6). Bourbon could not meet these terms; he and John Beaufort remained in captivity.  

See Year 1434: John, Duke of Bourbon

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

(1) Harriss, Beaufort, 161 (Beaufort lineage).

(2) CClR 1422-1429, pp. 240-231 (livery of lands to Somerset).

(3) Beaucourt, Charles VII, vol. II, p. 8, n. 2 (Duchess of Bourbon).

(4) Wylie & Waugh, Henry V, vol. III, p. 287 (Henry V’s terms).

(5) PPC III, pp. 255-256 (Council’s terms).

(6) Jones, ‘Beaufort Family,’ thesis, p 78

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

 

 

 

 

 

The Duke of Bedford and Henry Beaufort 

The Duke and Duchess of Bedford and Henry Beaufort crossed to Calais in March (1). A muster of the army accompanying Bedford was to be taken at Calais and a report of their numbers and array sent back to the Chancellor in London (1).

Henry Beaufort received permission to export 800 sacks of wool for his expenses, to be sold at Calais or Cherbourg, provided he paid the customs duties on them (2). This was not exactly robbing Peter to pay Paul, but it came close since repayment of Beaufort’s loans was assigned on the customs

See Year 1423: Henry V’s Debts. War Debts.

Beaufort still held the king’s crown as surety for repayment of his loans to the crown.

See Year 1425:  Loans.  

On the eve of departure in 1427, he delivered the crown to the Council in the Star Chamber at Westminster to be placed for safe keeping in the custody of the Treasurer and Chamberlains at the Exchequer (3).

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

(1) CPR 1422-1429 p. 404 (Bedford’s army).

(2) PPC III, p. 253 (wool export).

(3) PPC III, p. 250 (king’s crown).

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

Cardinal Beaufort

Pope Martin had issued papal bulls in 1426 at Bedford’s request making Henry Beaufort cardinal priest of St Eusebius and legate a latere.

See Year 1426: The Duke of Bedford and ‘Cardinal Beaufort.’

On  25 March, Bedford performed the ceremony in St Mary’s church confirming Beaufort’s elevation. A scarlet cope lined with grey squirrel fur was draped over his shoulders. The coveted cardinal’s red hat had been placed on the altar by a papal envoy, possibly the pope’s cousin, and after mass Beaufort knelt before the altar while the papal bulls were read out. The Duke of Bedford lifted the red hat from the altar and placed it on Beaufort’s head. He stepped back and bowed to the new cardinal.  

Beaufort’s elevation would have far reaching political consequences. Cardinals and papal legates out ranked the Archbishop of Canterbury, the primate of England, and they were universally disliked and distrusted everywhere in England. The Duke of Gloucester would make full use of this antipathy to sustain his quarrel with Beaufort.

The London chronicles, deriving from a common source, give maximum coverage to the creation of Henry Beaufort as a cardinal. Brut D is almost identical with them. Brut H derives from a different, less accurate source; Beaufort did not go to Rome to receive his cardinal’s hat.

“This same yere abow[gh]t Shroftyde the Duke of Bedforde with his lady passid ouer the see to caleys; and a lytell be fore passid the see allso to caleys herry Bisshop of Wynchestre and vpon owre lady day the Anunciacion, anno Domini millesimo iiij^c xxvii, the bysshop of Winchester whas [made] cardinall in seynt mary chirch of caleys ffull solempnely, where were the same tyme the duke of Bedford, Regent of ffraunce, and the duchess;

and beffore or the mass whas begon, wich the bisshop of Wynchestre schuld do, the Popis cosyn brought the cardinallys hatte and with grete Reuerence set it vpon his auter.  And ther it stood all the masse tyme, and whan the bysshope hadde don the masse and whas unrevessed, ther whas don vpon hym an abite in maner of a ffrerys coope of ffyne scarlett ffurred with puryd. 

And than, ther knelyng vpon his knees by fore the high auter, the popys Bullys were red to hym, and the ffirst bulle whas his charge, and the seconde Bulle  whas that he schuld have an reioyse all the benefyces spirituell and temporell that he hadde had in Englond.  And whan this whas done the Regent of ffraunce, Duke of Bedforde, went vp to the high auter, and toke the cardinallys hatte, and sett it vpon the bysshopis hede of Wynchester, and bowyd and obeyed to the bysshop, and toke hym before hym.”      

          Chronicles of London, Cleopatra C IV, p. 131

“In the vj^te yere of his regne, Henry, Bisshope of Winchester, went ouer see to Caleys, and so forth to Rome, where-as þe Pope hym made Cardynall, and gave to hym þe cros, to be born before hym alway where he went.”     Brut Continuation H, p. 568

Chronicles:  English Chronicle (Marx), p 54; Short English Chronicle, pp. 59-60; Chronicle of London, p. 115; Gregory’s Chronicle, p. 161; Great Chronicle, pp. 149-150; Chronicles of London (Julius B II), pp. 95-96; Brut Continuation D pp. 433-434; Brut Continuation G, pp. 499-500; Annales p. 760; Benet’s Chronicle, p. 181 

The Duke of Bedford’s books

The Duke of Bedford was a book collector. He celebrated his return to France in his own way. In August one John Thomas, a clerk ‘dwelling in Paris’ claimed payment for having copied two books at Bedford’s command. One, in Latin prose copied onto parchment was entitled “La Pelerinage de Lame,” costing 12 livres tournois. Another book in French verse entitled “Le vif de Confession” costing 10 livres tournois. Thomas acknowledged receipt of the 22 livres tourois from the sheriff of Beaumont le Rogier (1).

(1) L&P II, ii, pp. 415-416 (Bedford’s books).

Cardinal Beaufort and Bohemia

Pope Martin’s quid pro quo for creating Henry Beaufort a cardinal was for Beaufort to support the pope against the heretic sect in Bohemia known as the Hussites. His crusade thus far proved disastrously ineffectual.

The martial prowess of the House of Lancaster was recognised throughout Europe thanks to King Henry V, and their orthodoxy was unquestioned. Henry IV, before he became king, had fought with the Teutonic knights against heretics. Surely his half- brother, a prince of the church, would be willing, and able, to do the same.

Martin designated Beaufort as legate a latere for Bohemia, Germany, and Hungary, lands subject to the Emperor Sigismund. He wrote to King Henry VI, the Council, and the Duke of Bedford announcing Beaufort’s appointment and exhorting them to give him all the encouragement they could (1).

The Hussite leader, John Hus had been burned at the stake in 1415 for preaching doctrines deemed heretical by the Catholic Church and this had led to a widespread revolt against the authority of both church and state in Bohemia. Hus’s followers raised armies of resistance and the Hussite Revolution of 1419-20 temporarily freed Bohemia from obedience to both the Emperor Sigismund and Pope Martin.

Cardinal Beaufort reached Nuremberg in July 1427 and joined Frederick of Brandenburg and his army at Tachov. The German princes were as divided as the territories over which they ruled. In August a Hussite army put the German forces to flight and Beaufort did not take kindly to defeat.

He is reported to have said that if he had 10,000 English archers the outcome would have been very different (2, 3). Surely an exaggeration (if he said it) for 1,000 archers. Even Beaufort’s wealth could not have provided 10,000 English archers! He despised the German princes’ inability to make common cause against a common enemy, men whom he dismissed as rabble: in his own words “the infidels of Bohemia are not nobles.”

Beaufort exercised his authority as legate a latere to summon the German princes to a diet (meeting) of the imperial estates at Frankfurt in September. It was poorly attended but the delegates agreed to meet again in November 1427. He exacted a promise that they would impose a tax to launch another crusade, but no further action was taken (4).

Exasperated by his failure to unify the German princes behind a crusade, Beaufort left Germany in March 1428 to seek aid from the states of Western Europe (5).

See Year 1428: Cardinal Beaufort’s return to England.

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

(1) Papal Letters VII, pp. 30-32 (Beaufort as legate a latere).

(2) Wavrin II, p. 325 (Wavrin claimed he was present with a contingent from the Duchy of Savoy. He is the source for Beaufort’s exclamation).

(3) L. Visser-Fuchs, History as Pastime, p. 462 points out that Wavrin’s account is included in the printed versions of his chronicle under 1420, but this is an error as the campaign of 1427 is clearly indicated by the reference to Cardinal Beaufort.

(4) Ferguson, Diplomacy, pp. 112-113 (Beaufort in Germany).

(5) Harriss, Beaufort, pp. 174-175 (Beaufort left Germany).

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

Jacqueline of Hainault

The Duke of Burgundy claimed to be Jacqueline of Hainault’s overlord and he waged war against her and her supporters throughout 1425 and 1426 but Jacqueline evaded him.

See Year 1426: Jacqueline of Hainault

As soon as she learned that the Duke of Bedford, who was implacably opposed to sending aid to her, had left England in March 1427, Jacqueline sent Louis de Montfort and Arnault of Ghent to England to plead her case and beg for assistance.

She wrote from Gouda where she had taken refuge to inform the Council of ‘the monstrous outrages, oppressions and injuries’ done to her by the Duke of Burgundy. He had chased her from one town to another during the past two years. She beseeched the Council to inform the Duke of Gloucester, her ‘redoubted lord and husband’ that she could not hold out for much longer without English aid. She hoped that the Council would take pity on her ‘grievous suffering’ and respond to her pleas without delay (1, 2). 

The Council sent William Lyndwood and John Tyrell to her in March, but they did not find her until May, possibly because they did not know exactly where she was. She wrote to the Council at the end of May acknowledging their arrival, and again at the beginning of June, reiterating her request for help (3).

John, Duke of Brabant, Jacqueline’s previous husband died on 17 April 1427 (4). Pope Martin had still not pronounced on the legality of Gloucester’s marriage with Jacqueline and she hoped that Brabant’s death would validate her marriage to Gloucester. 

See Year 1424: Jacqueline, Countess of Hainault.

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

(1) Cartulaire des Comtes de Hainaut de L’Avènement de Guillaume II a la mort de Jacqueline de Bavière, vol. IV,1137 a 1436 (Brussels, 1889) pp. 579–582 (Jacqueline’s first letter of 8 April. Original French).

(2) Vaughan, Philip, pp 46–47 (Extracts from Jacqueline’s letter in English).

(3) Cartulaire IV, pp. 590–593 and 597–601 (Jacqueline’s second and third letters).

(4) Sumption, Cursed Kings, pp. 202-208 (for the events of 1427-1428).

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

The Duke of Gloucester

Gloucester was on the horns of a dilemma. The Council and public opinion expected him to rescue Jacqueline, but this was the last thing he wanted to do. His outlook had changed radically since 1425. He had no intention of returning to Hainault and he had no desire to fight the Duke of Burgundy. His focus was on restabling his authority as Protector now that Henry Beaufort and the Duke of Bedford had left England. 

But Gloucester could not ignore the groundswell of sympathy for Jacqueline indefinitely and he temporized. On 23 June he requested an advance on the 20,000 marks voted to him by Parliament in 1425 and gave a bond for its repayment. The Council authorized a payment to him of 5,000 marks on 9 July, and a further 4,000 marks as half his annual salary as Protector. The money was to be raised from customs duties, Duchy of Lancaster revenues, and feudal dues such as wardships and marriage, all of which were already over committed. In the end ‘the said sum [was] borrowed from divers persons, as well spiritual as temporal, and from the Mayor and Commonality of the City of London’ (1).

Gloucester was authorised to name receivers of the loan. On 29 July the Council issued a writ to John Iwardeby and Thomas Stockdale to raise an army ‘to proceed into Holland for the purposes specified in the said grant’ (2). Gloucester sat tight in London. No army was mustered, and the only money Iwardeby and Stockdale, William Baron and John Poutrell received was in December, when they were paid £13 6s 8d for their expenses in remaining at Westminster throughout the autumn of 1427 (3).

The Council was anxious to avoid war with the Duke of Burgundy and they hedged the loan with contradictory safeguards: it could only be used to pay the wages of men-at-arms sent to garrison the towns and places in Hainault and Holland still in obedience to the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester, or to escort Jacqueline back to England. There must be no to attempt to recover any of Jaqueline’s patrimony now in the Duke of Burgundy’s hands without the explicit consent of Parliament (4, 5). 

Even if the English only garrisoned Jacqueline’s towns, assuming they could reach them without encountering Burgundian forces, they would be forced to fight to defend them. Burgundy would certainly interpret the arrival in Hainault and Holland of even a small body of English soldiers as an act of war.  The Council issued a blanket protection for envoys the Duke of Burgundy to come to England to discuss the situation (6).

Whether or not Burgundy believed, as the Duke of Beford did, that Gloucester would risk leading an army against him, he nevertheless warned the citizens of Mons to raise men-at-arms and archers for defence against Gloucester (7).

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

(1) Issues of the Exchequer, p. 402 (source for loan to Gloucester).

(2) PPC III, p. 276 (recruiters appointed).

(3) Issues of the Exchequer, p. 403 (recruiters’ expenses).

(4) PPC III, pp. 271–274 (conditions of the loan).

(5) Foedera X, pp. 374–75 (loan and conditions).

(6) Foedera X, p. 377 (safe conduct for Burgundian envoys).

(7) Cartulaire  IV, p. 632 (Mons ordered to raise men at arms and archers).

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

The Duke of Bedford

The Council wrote to the Duke of Bedford in some trepidation to justify the loan to Gloucester, citing pressure of public opinion in Jacqueline’s favour. They asked Bedford to intervene and persuade the Duke of Burgundy to stop hounding Jacqueline (1).

Bedford was predictably furious. He had taken the trouble to visit Duke Philip at Lille in June to suggest that he should modify his campaign in the Low Countries, not out of any sympathy for Jaqueline, but because the war against the Dauphin was more important and Burgundy had diverted much needed men-at-arms from France to the Low Countries.

Bedford wrote a scathing letter to the Council at the end of July pointing out the dangers, not just in France but to England herself of undoing all his careful diplomacy and undermining the Anglo-Burgundian alliance, what were they thinking of? He reminded them that the validity of Gloucester’s marriage to Jacqueline, on which his claim to Hainault rested, had not been settled. It would be decided by the pope in Rome, not by a campaign in the Low Countries. The Council had the authority to curb Gloucester, and they should make good use of it (2).

Despite his exasperation with his incorrigible brother, Bedford tried to conciliate Gloucester. He promised to use his influence with Burgundy to reach an honourable settlement with Jacqueline if Gloucester would avoid engaging in any military expedition into Hainault (3).

Bedford and the Council misread Gloucester completely, and they overlooked one other important point in their deliberations: Jacqueline had not requested to be ‘rescued’ and brought to back to England, to the husband who had abandoned her. She wanted English reinforcements to recover the territory she had lost. The wily Duke Philip used a cogent argument to persuade the Hainaulters to accept him as governor for Jacqueline and acknowledged him as her heir: there could be no peace in Hainault as long as Jacqueline continued to invite unwelcome Englishman to invade their county (4).

At the beginning of January 1428 Pope Martin let Gloucester off the hook. He issued a papal bull declaring Jacqueline’s marriage to Duke John of Brabant to be valid (5). Gloucester breathed a sigh of relief and married his mistress, Eleanor Cobham.

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

(1) Cartulaire IV, pp. 622–624 (Council’s letter to Bedford).

(2) Cartulaire  IV, pp. 624-625 (Bedford’s letter to the Council).

(3) Cartulaire IV, pp. 635–636 (Bedford’s letter to Gloucester).

(4 Cartulaire IV, pp. 602-604 (Burgundy accepted by Hainaulters).

(5) Cartulaire IV, p. 648 (papal bull).

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

The War in France

Pontorson

Early in 1427, on the Duke of Bedford’s orders, the Earl of Warwick laid siege to Pontorson with about 600 men-at-arms and 1800 archers (1, 2).

Pierre Surreau Receiver General of Normandy paid John Harbottle, master of Bedford’s ordnance, 200 livres tournois for the wages of gunners, masons, carpenters, and others to be employed at the siege (3, 4). 

Arthur de Richemont proclaimed loudly that he would come with an army to rescue Pontorson, a town on the Norman/Breton border a few miles south of Mont St Michel and west of St James de Beuvron. Richemont  had fortified and garrisoned Pontorson after his defeat at St James de Beuvron in 1426.

See Year 1426: St James de Beuvron. 

There was a rumour that the Breton navy would land troops at Cherbourg and march down the Contentin peninsula towards Pontorson.

Lord Hungerford, the Treasurer of England, was the absentee captain of Cherbourg. He was understandably worried that if Cherbourg was lost, even temporarily, he would be censured by the Duke of Gloucester whose greatest military exploit under Henry V had been to capture Cherbourg. Hungerford requested the Council’s permission to raise reinforcements to defend Cherbourg (5, 6).

The Earl of Warwick believed an attack on Pontorson was imminent. He had heard an even more disquieting rumour: a combined French and Breton army, led by the Dauphin Charles, Duke John of Brittany, and Arthur de Richemont would arrive at Pontorson before the end of March. One wonders if the inclusion of the Dauphin Charles’s name was an exaggeration on Warwick’s part or if Richemont was a better rumour monger than he was soldier.  Fifty men at arms and archers were detached from Sir John Fastolf’s retinue to join Warwick (7) but this was not enough.

Warwick instructed John Salvain, bailli of Rouen to order the Captain of Pont Audemar to rush reinforcements to him. Salvain forwarded copies of Warwick’s letters, dictated at Pontorson on 17 March, to the officials in Pont Audemar with orders to commission and array all able-bodied men not members of the garrison and have them march by night and day to join Lord Scales at Avranches by no later than Sunday, 24 March when the attack was expected (8).

Thomas Lord Scales was on convoy duty, bringing supplies of food and other necessities from Avranches to Warwick. The Breton lords defending Pontorson attempted to ambush Scales on the beaches between Mont St Michel and Avranches, but Scales was one of the most experienced of the English war captains; he easily defeated the Bretons, inflicting serious losses on them. Jean de la Haye Baron de Coulonces, who had fought at St James de Bevron, Gilles Tournemine Lord of Hunaudaye, and Bertrand de Dinan, Lord of Chateaubriand were killed. Alain, Lord of Rohan was captured (9, 10, 11).

Richemont did not march on Pontorson. He turned aside to meet his brother Duke John of Brittany. In Brittany’s opinion Pontorson was not worth risking a further defeat by the English and Richemont’s planned attack was aborted (12).

Warwick maintained the siege until the Duke of Bedford returned to France in March and sent additional troops under Lord Talbot to join him. The mixed garrison of Bretons and Scots held out in Pontorson until they were finally forced to surrender on 8 May. Warwick and Talbot became temporary captains of Pontorson until Lord Scales was appointed its permanent captain in 1428 (12).

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

(1) L&P II, p 70, note : “In the archives of Paris there is a writ of Henry VI dated 11 January 1427 respecting the siege of Pontorson.”

(2) Chronique de Mont Saint Michel I, pp. 253-255 (copy of the writ of 11 January).

(3) L&P II, p 70, note (payment to Harbottle).  17 February

(4) Chronique de Mont Saint Michel I, pp. 263-264 (Quittance by Warwick to Harbottle).

(5) PPC III, p. 230 (Hungerford and Cherbourg). 25 January

(6) Roskell, Parliament and Politics II, p. 119 (Hungerford). 

(7) Chronique de Mont Saint Michel, p. 257 (50 of Fastolf’s retinue).

(8) L&P II, pp 68 and 71-76 (Warwick to Salvain).

(9) Chartier I, pp. 59-60 (Bretons killed).

(10) Monstrelet I, pp. 540-541 (Pontorson).

(11) Wavrin III, pp. 146-147 (recounts the siege of Pontorson after that of Montargis and dates it to the same time as St James de Beuvron (1426). 

(12) Beaucourt, Charles VII, vol. II, pp. 25-26 (Richemont and Duke John).

(13) Pollard, Talbot, pp. 12 and 72.

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

John, Duke of Brittany

The fall of Pontorson frightened the Duke of Brittany. Would the victorious Lord Talbot lead an army across the Breton border? Athur de Richemont’s influence was not strong enough to sustain Duke John’s change of allegiance to the Dauphin Charles, especially as Richemont’s influence with Charles was waning.

See Year 1426: The Duke of Brittany.

England had declared war on Brittany on the Duke of Bedford’s orders, but on his return to France Bedford set about enticing Brittany to return to his English allegiance. He arranged a truce for three months and in July 1427 English envoys were authorized to conclude a treaty, to be followed by a peace, between England and Brittany.

An undated document in the Foedera appears to be part of a longer document since it refers in its opening to a date already stated. It is an incomplete record of the decision of John of Brittany, his sons Francis and Richard, and other Breton notables to change sides once again (1). The agreement was ratified by Duke John in September:

“In May a truce was concluded between the duke and the English. On 3 July the Breton Chancellor Jean de Malestroit signed a treaty. On 8 September the duke declared his adherence to the Treaty of Troyes and undertook to do homage to Henry VI. On 8 and 9 September some Breton nobles approved of the duke’s declaration” (4, 5).

“And on 8 September Duke John put his signature to a document which reaffirmed his support for the Treaty of Troyes both for himself, his heir the Count of Montfort, the Estates of Brittany and leading Breton nobles; at the same time, he renounced all contrary allegiances” (2)

“On 8 September 1427 the duke signed a treaty with Henry VI of England” (3)

The renewed alliance was proclaimed in England at the beginning of 1428.  On 28 January the sheriffs of London, Devonshire (because of piracy?) and ten other counties were ordered to proclaim that “John, Duke of Brittany had renounced all alliances prejudicial to the King of England and is sworn to observe the final peace (i.e. the Treaty of Troyes) between England and France” (6). 

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

(1) Foedera X, p. 378 (incomplete record of Brittany’s decision to change sides).

(2) Williams, Bedford, p. 153 and p. 268 n. 11, citing E. Cosneau, Le Connétable de Richemont, Artur de Bretagne 1393-1458 (1886), pp. 137138 (The document in Foedera does not mention the Treaty of Troyes).

(3) Vale, Charles VII, p. 40 citing Cosneau p. 148 and G.A. Knowlson Jean V duc de Bretagne et l’Angleterre (1399-1442) (1964), pp. 137-138.

(4) Beaucourt, Charles VII vol II, p. 27, n. 5, citing Dom Lobineau, Histoire de Bretagne, 2 vols (1707)  vol I, pp. 571 and 573, and vol II cols 1004 and 1006. Morice, Mémoires pour server de preuves á l’histoire écclesiastique et civile de Bretagne, 3 vols (1742-1746) vol. II, cols. 1198 and 1200-1201.

(5) Ramsay I, p 374, copied Beaucourt’s dating.  

(6) Foedera X, p. 385 (public proclamation of alliance with Brittany).

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

 Montargis

After Pontorson the Earl of Warwick laid siege to Montargis, a strategic town and fortress on the River Loing seventy miles southeast of Paris. He was joined the Earl of Suffolk; their combined army was estimated at 3,000 men.

Montargis was not easy to besiege, the countryside was criss-crossed by tributaries of the Loing. Warwick divided his army into three sections to encircle the town and ordered the construction of temporary wooden bridges over the waterways for ease of communication. Warwick lay to the east of the town, Suffolk to the south, Jonh de la Pole, Suffolk’s brother, and Sir Henry Bisset held the northwest where the castle was situated.

Montargis was not provisioned for a siege. The defenders sent an urgent message to the Dauphin for assistance, and for once he responded.

Food and other supplies were purchased and loaded onto wagons. Dunois Bastard of Orleans was given the command a relieving force of about 1,600 men and was joined by La Hire. Their army and supply wagons made for Montargis at the beginning of September (1, 2). They approached through terrain covered by dense forest and were guided to a gap in the English lines. They took John de la Pole and Henry Bisset completely by surprise. 

Montargis held out for two months. Inside the town the defenders opened the sluice gates and flooded both sides and the riverbanks. One of the bridges gave way as de la Pole’s men were retreating across it and they drowned. Many more were killed in the fighting outside the town.

By nightfall the slow-moving supply wagons reached Montargis and entered the castle. The siege had been raised (3). Warwick assessed the situation as hopeless. He and Suffolk abandoned their baggage, and artillery and retreated towards Paris with the remnants of their army (4, 5).

The Duke of Bedford would offer a reward of 10,000 gold crowns to anyone who could recapture Montargis but it remained in French hands until 1433.

See Year 1433: The War in France, Montargis.

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

(1) Monstrelet I, pp. 536-537 (Montargis).

(2) Wavrin III, pp. 141-144 (dates Montargis to before Pontorson).

(3) Sumption, Cursed Kings, pp. 217-220 (Montargis).

(4) Beaucourt Charles VII, vol. III pp 512-513 (The Dauphin wrote the citizens of Tournai to tell them the good news, and of course to request an ‘aid’ to continue the war). 

(5) Bourgeois, p. 219 (loss of Montargis).

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

Denmark  

 Eric, King of Denmark, Norway and Sweden, known as Eric of Pomerania, was at war with  the Counts of Holstein over possession of the Duchy of Schleswig in which the Hanseatic League   sided with the Holsreins.

 Denmark was an ally of England. King Eric had married Henry V’s sister, Philippa and it is not surprising that he looked to England for mercenaries, trained in Henry V’s wars, but it is   surprising that the Council granted permission and issued letters patent to ships captains to convey  men to Denmark (5) at a time when the Regent Bedford needed men in Normandy, and the Earl of Salisbury would shortly come to England to raise a large army for the war in France.

(1) PPC III, p. 270.

The Earl of Salisbury  

Thomas Montague, Earl of Salisbury came home in July to recruit a large army for the war in France, and to persuade Parliament to finance it. He became a member of the Minority Council on 15 July 1427 (1).

“Ande that same yere, the xiiij day of Juylle, cam the Erle of Saulysbury in to London owte of Fraunce.”   Gregory’s Chronicle, p. 161                             

Brut D confused the Earl of Warwick, who was besieging Montargis with the Earl of Salisbury:

“And þan þe Erle of Warrewik come In-to Englande again.”  Brut Appendix D, p. 441

Salisbury was forty years old and had spent his life fighting in France. He was the most successful war captain of his day. He took part in every major battle, beginning with Agincourt, and he was present at every major siege under Henry V. When Thomas, Duke of  Clarence was defeated and killed at the Battle of Baugé in 1421 Salisbury, who had not been with Clarence, directed the retreat of the defeated army and recovered the dead duke’s body. Only John Talbot, later Earl of Shrewsbury, would achieve a comparable reputation, with less justification.

The coincidence of Salisbury’s return and the widespread belief that the Duke of Gloucester would raise an army to invade Hainault engendered a misconception in the mind of Pierre de Fenin, Prevost of Arras, who included it in his memoirs. He affirmed that Gloucester and Salisbury agreed to ally against the Duke of Burgundy in 1427 because Salisbury, like Gloucester, was a sworn enemy of the duke, and that he offered to support Gloucester’s expedition to Hainault. Ramsay goes so far as to state that Salisbury offered to take command of the expedition! (2).

Later historians, aided by hindsight, have postulated that Salisbury and Gloucester allied to undermine the Duke of Bedford’s authority (3). But Salisbury was as committed as Bedford to furthering the conquest of France. Despite his personal animosity towards Burgundy, the last thing Salisbury had in mind was to see valuable English manpower diverted from his army for France to fight Burgundy in the Low Countries in which Salisbury had no interest.  He would not have encouraged Gloucester or the Council to send men and money to defend or recover Jacqueline’s patrimony.

Salisbury remained in England for a year, until July 1428 when he returned to France.

See Year 1428: The Earl of Salisbury’s Army

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

(1) PPC III, p. 274 (Salisbury councillor).

(2) Ramsay, Lancaster and York I, p. 376.

(3) Harriss, Beaufort, p. 169 (Salisbury and Bedford).

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

The Story of Jehan de Bonval 

The Grand Conseil in Paris routinely issued pardons in Henry VI’s name. It was part of the Duke of Bedford’s policy for retaining the loyalty of French inhabitants under his rule. Pardons were granted on the premise that thefts or unlawful actions taken against ‘the enemy,’ i.e. adherents of the Dauphin Charles, should be pardoned. Stevenson included a typical appeal to the Grand Conseil for a pardon in Letters and Papers:

Jehan de Bonval, a citizen of Noyan and a tailor by trade petitioned in 1427 for a pardon for thefts he had committed four years earlier at time when his district, around Laon and Soissons, was ravaged by war and there was no work to be had (1).

He joined a company of free booters under a war captain nominally in the army of John of Luxembourg. Bonval was careful to emphasise that he and his companions were loyal to King Henry and the Duke of Burgundy: they attacked and stole only from ‘the enemy.’ For the most part they committed petty theft for food.

Although in time of war it was lawful to kill the enemy, Bonval claimed he was a man of good reputation who had never committed or been convicted of any serious crime.  He had never harmed anyone except for stealing their possessions. 

As conditions in the countryside improved, Bonval had returned home and resumed his trade, only to be threatened with arrest and imprisonment by the provost of Laon unless he paid a bribe. He was so fearful of the provost’s threats that unless he could obtain a royal pardon he would be compelled to leave his home again.

The Grand Conseil issued a pardon and a protection in King Henry’s name in September. Copies were sent to the bailli of the Vermandois with orders to ‘silence’ the provost of Laon. Judicial officials were to leave Bonval in peace, and if anything had been taken from him, it was to be returned.

(1) L&P I, pp. 23–31 (Jehan de Bonval petition and pardon).

Bibliography 1427

Primary Sources

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

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

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

Calendar of Documents Relating to Scotland 1357-1509, vol. IV ed. J. Bain, (1888)

CPR. Calendar of the Patent Rolls 1422-1429

Cartulaire des Comtes de Hainaut de L’Avènement de Guillaume II a la mort de Jacqueline de Bavière, vol. IV,1137 a 1436 (Brussels, 1889) 

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

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

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

Chronique de Mont St Michel, 1383-1468, vol I. ed. S. Luce, (1879)

An English Chronicle, ed. W. Marx (2003)

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

Gascon Rolls gasconrolls.org/en

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Secondary Sources

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

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

Bellamy, J.G.,  Crime and Public Order in England in the Later Middle Ages (1973)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Power, E. & Poston, M.M., Studies in English Trade in the Fifteenth Century (1933)

Ramsay, J., Lancaster and York, 2 vols., (1892)

Rowe, B.J.H., ‘The Grand Conseil under the Duke of Bedford 1422-35,’ in Oxford Essays in Medieval History presented to Herbert Edward Salter (1434)

Sumption, J., The Hundred Years War IV, Cursed Kings (2016)

Vale, M.G.A., English Gascony (1970)

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

Visser-Fuchs, L., History of Pastime: Jean de Wavrin and his collection of Chronicles of England (2018)

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

Wylie, J.H, & Waugh, W.T., The Reign of King Henry the Fifth, 3 vols (1914, 1919, 1929)

Web sites

british-history.ac.uk/