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.

Contents

Parliament

The Bullion and Partition Ordinance. Ordinances and guidelines for conciliar government. The 40 shilling franchise..

Council Proceedings

Sir William Harrington, sheriff of Yorkshire. Sir Thomas Comberworth, custodian of the Duke of Orleans. Safe conducts for servants of the imprisoned French magnates.

The Church

Three women placed in religious houses. George Penshert, Abbot of St Augustine, Canterbury.

The Magnates

Thomas Montagu, Earl of Salisbury. John, Lord Talbot. Anne, Countess of Stafford, John Holand, Earl of Huntingdon. Joan, Countess of Ormond. David de Montferrand, Archbishop of Bordeaux.

Lawlessness

Single combat at Smithfield. Hangings. Richard Hunden, a Lollard. Spanish ambassadors assaulted in London.

Scotland

A truce to last for five years was negotiated with Scotland.

Ireland

Thomas Chace was appointed Chancellor of Ireland. Permission to reside in England was granted to twenty Irishmen.

Foreign Relations

Castile. Aragon and Navarre. The Hanseatic League. The Netherlands. Denmark.

The Duchy of Gascony

The Duke of Gloucester acquired lands in Gascony. Sir John Radcliffe.

A Peace Conference

A peace conference at Auxerre, proposed by the Duke of Burgundy accepted in principle by King Charles VII but only reluctantly by the Minority Council did not take place.

Cardinal Beaufort and the Duke of Burgundy

Cardinal Beaufort crossed to Flanders to meet the Duke of Burgundy and shore up the Anglo-Burgundian alliance.

A Council at Canterbury 

Cardinal Beaufort and the Council.  Questions were raised by the lords in council concerning the costs and the intention of the coronation expedition.

The Council in England

The Duke of Gloucester governed England while King Henry was in France.

Cardinal Beaufort and the Duke of Bourbon

Negotiations for the release of the Duke of Bourbon in exchange for Cardinal Beaufort’s nephew Thomas Beaufort were successful, but Bourbon was unable to fulfil the other part of the bargain, his ransom remined unpaid and he was not released.

Paris

The winter in Paris was especially harsh with food and fuel shortages fostering discontent. A plot for a rising to seize Paris and return it to King Charles VII was foiled by betrayal from within.

Recovery in Normandy

Taxation: the Estates of Normandy, the Cotentin, Domfort. The pays de Caux. Torcy. Chateau Gaillard.

King Henry’s Coronation Expedition to France  

Parliament granted taxes to fund the coronation expedition and preparations for Henry’s departure went on throughout the early months of 1430. Henry VI crossed to Calais with the largest army and entourage to leave England since the days of Henry V.

King Henry in France

Henry remained in Calais and then Rouen throughout 1430.

Joan of Arc Captured

Joan of Arc was captured at the siege of Compiègne.

Campaigns of 1430

 Joan of Arc was captured at the siege of Compiègne. The campaign to recover territories lost to the French in 1429 strained relations with the Duke of Burgundy to breaking point.

Conduct and Costs of the War

Desertions. Shipping. Taxation in Normandy. Taxation in England. Debt repayment.

The Duke of Burgundy

Burgundy expressed his dissatisfaction with English participation in the campaigns of 1430, especially the loss of Compiègne.

Bibliography 1430

  

The Proceedings record forty-three meetings in 1430, four in January, six in February, four in March, four in April before King Henry left England, eight in May, two in June, six in July, one in September, one in October, six in November and one in December while Henry was in France.

Parliament

The second session of the 1429/30 Parliament convened on 16 January 1430 and sat until 23 February,

The Bullion and Partition Ordinance

Parliament passed an ordinance to regulate the sale of wool. It is not mentioned in the Proceedings. All sales of English wool were required by law to go through the Staple at Calais. The traditional method of buying wool was on credit or by deferred payment. This would no longer be allowed. The price of wool would be fixed by the Staple and bargaining by individuals for a better or lower price would be prohibited.  Purchasers would be required to pay in bullion, a third of which must be deposited at the Calais mint.

Smaller dealers who relied on long term credit could not always raise the full purchase price in cash. It also disadvantaged the smaller English wool suppliers because the wool was graded and held until all the wool in that grade had been sold at the highest possible price. The bigger, richer merchants of the Staple could afford to wait for payment, the smaller ones could not.

The Commons petitioned that ‘for the prosperity and well-being of this his universal realm as well as for the good policy, governance, and maintenance of his staple at Calais,’ that the provisions of the ordinance be upheld for three years from Lady Day [25 March 1430] (1).

The requirements applied to all purchasers, but the ordinance affected the Burgundian Netherlands most severely at a time when the Duke of Burgundy was England’s ally. The result was than from 1430 onward the drop off in sales seriously affected the crown’s income from the wool subsidy.

Although there is uncertainty among modern historians as to the reasons behind the ordinance there is a general consensus that it was a mistake, economically and politically: ‘The Partition and Bullion Ordinance of the Staple was one of the largest self-inflicted commercial wounds of the late Middle Ages’ (2).

Did it originate with the Staplers to increase their profits? Or with the impecunious crown, i.e. the Council, for a variety of reasons? They needed bullion to pay their armies for the war in France, and to support the mint at Calais to keep the Calais garrison contented by prompt payment of their wages. Not to mention the more immediate requirement for a loan from the Staplers for the projected visit of King Henry to France.

The traditional view is that the ordinance originated with the Staplers and was accepted in Parliament by the crown (3, 4, 5). Munro suggests that it was the crown, i.e. the Council, in cahoots with a carefully selected relatively small number of the wealthier Staplers who promoted the ordinance in the expectation of mutual profit (6).

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

(1) PROME X, pp 426-427 (petition to pass ordinance into law).

(2) J.L. Bolton ‘London and the anti-alien legislation of 1439-40,’ in Resident Aliens in Later Medieval England, ed. W. Mark Ormond et. Al. (Belgium 2017), pp.  38-39.

(3) Power and Postan, English Trade, pp. 82-85 (Staplers).

(4) T.H. Lloyd, The English Wool Trade in the Middle Ages. pp. 260-261 (Staplers. Refutes Munro).

(5) Thielemans, Bourgogne et Angleterre, pp 170-175 (Staplers).

(6) Munro, Wool, Cloth and Gold pp. 84-87 (Crown).

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

Ordinances for Conciliar Government

On the last day before it was dissolved, eighteen ordinances were read out in Parliament in the king’s presence and the lords swore an oath to uphold them. They were similar in most respects to those promulgated in the Parliament of 1424 and at the council meeting at Reading in 1426 (1, 2). Although the Protectorate had ceased to exist, England would still be governed by the Council in the same manner as before until King Henry came of age.

See Year 1424: The Minority Council

See Year 1426: The Duke of Bedford and the Council. Conciliar authority.

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

(1) PPC IV, pp. 59–60 (minor variations in the texts are noted).

(2) PROME X, pp. 392-394 (in modern English).

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

Forty-shilling franchise

This Parliament also enacted what came to be known as the 40-shilling franchise. It is not mentioned in the Proceedings.  Eligibility to vote in parliamentary elections was extended to all men resident in the shire possessing freehold property worth 40 shillings or more.  This would include yeomen and wealthy husbandmen, a fairly wide range of eligible electors. In a contested election the candidate with the largest number of votes was to be preferred (1). This requirement remained in force until the pariamentray reforms of 1832.

(1) PROME X, pp. 405-406.

Taxation

The Commons proved more generous in 1429/30 than at any time since 1416 when King Henry V was preparing his second expedition to France. The members were optimistic that now the king had been crowned he would proceed to France at the head of an army, just as his father had done, to defend English possessions in Normandy and Lancastrian France.

“And about Epiphany [6 January] the king received a fifteenth from the laity. Parliament continued until the Purification of the Virgin 2 February]. About Palm Sunday the clergy agreed to pay a tenth to the king, and every priest to pay a noble.” Benet’s Chronicle, p. 182

“after his coronation & ende of his parlement holden at Westminster by the advise of all the lords & commons of England, was ordeyned in þis parlement a-forsaid þat þe kyng shulde wende ouer the see in to Fraunce for to resceyue the Crowne þere.” Brut D Appendix p 443

Unusually the Commons voted two whole subsidies (two fifteenths and two tenths) in its first session and announced them on 12 and 20 December for collection in 1430 (1). The first was to be collected in a remarkably short space of time, by 14 January 1430, and the second by the end of December 1430 (2).

Convocation had granted a whole and half subsidy in December 1429, including the half subsidy granted in 1428, and the graduated tax on stipendiary priests. It was to be payable on 1 May 1430 (3).

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

(1) PROME X, pp. 378-381 (first two tax grants).

(2) PROME X, pp. 389-391 (wool subsidy and payment date brought forward).

(3) Harriss, Beaufort, p. 194 (Convocation).

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

Council Proceedings

Sir William Harrington

Sir William Harrington, sheriff of Yorkshire, asked to be excused £80 in his accounts from 29 September 1428 to 29 September 1429 owing to the great costs and damages he had sustained in the execution of his office. Harrington claimed that pardons for similar arrears had been granted to the sheriffs of Yorkshire for the past seven years, from the last year of Henry V (1422) to the sixth year of Henry VI (1427). He lists himself, Robert Hilton, John Langton, Richard Hastings, and William Rither, as sheriffs during that period. The biannual sheriffs’ accounts at the Exchequer for money collected for the crown in their counties was often in arrears  (1).

See Year 1423: Administration, Sheriffs.

(1) PPC IV, pp. 17-18.

Sir Thomas Comberworth

Sir Thomas Comberworth submitted an account for the maintenance of the Duke of Orleans from 1 May to 29 December 1429. In May 1430 the Council authorised payment to Comberworth of the arrears for Orleans’s keep, from 1 May 1423 to 18 March 1427, at 20 shilling a day, amounting to 400 marks a year, with a deduction of the £40 he had received for bringing the duke to London in 1423 (1,2).

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

(1) PPC IV, p. 51 (Comberworth arrears).

(2) Foedera X, p. 468 (Comberworth arrears).

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

 French Prisoners

Safe conducts to come to England were issued throughout 1430 for the servants of the imprisoned French magnates, the Duke of Orleans, his brother, the Count of Angoulême, the Duke of Bourbon, the Count of Eu, and Lord Estouteville. Orleans’s half-brother, Dunois, Bastard of Orleans, was permitted to send servants to visit him, mainly in July while King Henry was in France (1).

(1) Foedera X, p. 471(safe conducts to French servants).

 The Church

Three women

Three women were nominated to places in religious houses ‘by the king, on the occasion of his coronation,’ Margaret Stourton the Abbess of Shaftesbury was instructed to admit Joan Asshecombe. Christina, Abbess of Wilton, to admit Joan Thorp. And Margaret Swynford, Abbess of St Mary’s at Barking in Essex, to admit Goda Hampton, the daughter of John Hampton, a king’s esquire (1, 2).

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

(1) Foedera X, pp. 348, 445 and 48 (Asshecombe, Thorp, Hampton).

(2) CPR 1429-1436, pp. 45 and 86 (Shaftesbury), pp. 45 and 244 (Wilton) pp. 48 and 260 (Barking).

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

George Penshert           

John Hawkhurst’s nomination by the Council as Abbot of St Augustine in 1427 had led to a dispute with Pope Martin who rejected Hawkhurst.

See Year 1427: The Council and the Papacy. John Hawkhurst.

Presumably Hawkhurst died or retired, for in February 1430 the Prior of St Augustine, Canterbury, George Penshert, was elected abbot and Pope Martin was informed of the king’s consent to the election (1, 2).  The dispute may not have been entirely resolved as the temporalities of the abbey were not restored to Penshert until June 1431 (3). Penshert remained abbot until 1457.

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

(1) Foedera X, p. 451 (notification to Pope Martin).

(2) CPR 1429-36 p. 38 (notification to Pope Martin).

(3) Foedera X, p. 494 (restoration of temporalities).

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

The Magnates

Thomas Montagu, Earl of Salisbury

The Earl of Salisbury left a bequest of £100 for the salvation of his soul to the Friars Minors of Mount Zion, a Franciscan Order with headquarters at Mount Zion in Jerusalem. They were the official custodians of the Holy Places, an honour conferred on them by Pope Clement VII in 1342.

The foreign merchants in London whom Salisbury’s executors approached to handle the transaction informed them that there would be a tax of 2 pence on every noble (five shillings) of the exchange (1). The Council had agreed to waive the tax, but the executors required confirmation under the Great Seal (2).

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

(1) Issues of the Exchequer p. 411 (imposition by Henry V of 2 pence on every noble).

(2) PPC IV, p. 15-16.

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

John, Lord Talbot

John, Lord Talbot had been captured by Poton de Xaintrailles at the Battle of Patay in June 1429

See Year 1429: The Battle of Patay.

In January 1430 he requested the Council’s permission for his servants to take 8,000 marks or less, out of the country to pay part of his ransom. He needed Council authorisation because it was illegal to take bullion out of the country (1).

The amount of Talbot’s ransom is not known, but Parliament expressed indignation at Xaintrailles’s demand as ‘unreasonable and unbearable’ (2).

Talbot was a war hero. He had recovered Le Mans the capital of Maine in a daring dawn raid in 1428. His subsequent success in recapturing other towns in Maine was widely publicised in England.

Sir Walter Hungerford, son of the treasurer, was also captured at Patay, and Parliament petitioned the Duke of Bedford to arrange for Hungerford and Talbot, and or just Talbot, to be exchanged for the French war captain Arnaud-Guillaume Barbazon, who had surrendered Meulan to Henry V in 1420 and become Henry’s prisoner (3).

The French captured Chateau Gaillard where Barbazon was being held  and set him free in February 1430 and the exchange fell through.

See Campaigns 1430 below.

The Council allocated £9,000 to Talbot for his ransom, to be paid from the gabelle, the salt tax in Lancastrian France. Talbot never received the money because, as Henry VI put it disingenuously in 1443, of ‘the grete charges that we had in our said royaume and the litel revenues that we had to do ther with.’ (4). Talbot remained a prisoner until his release was negotiated and he returned to England in the spring of 1433.

See Year 1433: Lord Talbot and Poton de Xaintrailles.

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

(1) L&P II, p. 422 (permission to export 8,000 marks).

(2) Pollard, Talbot, pp. 17 and 113-114 (ransom).

(3) PROME X, p. 383 (Petition for Talbot’s exchange).

(4) L&P I, p. 435 (£9,000 not paid).

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

 Anne, Countess of Stafford

Anne, the dowager Countess of Stafford, was the widow of Edmund, Earl of Stafford and mother of Humphrey, Earl of Stafford. Anne was a wealthy widow, ‘she retained some of her late husband’s richest and most conveniently situated manors.’ Two thirds of her son Humphrey’s patrimony remained in her hands until her death in 1438 (1).

As the daughter of Thomas of Woodstock, Duke of Gloucester, and Eleanor de Bohun Anne had pursued claims to parts of the Bohn inheritance in Wales against King Henry V, and to Holdness, her father’s patrimony, against Margaret Duchess of Clarence. Henry IV had granted Holderness to the Duke of Clarence.

See Year 1423: Wales, Brecon.

See Year 1426:  Anne, Countess of Stafford. 

In 1430 Anne decided to protect her estates by enfeoffment. She requested a licence to enfeoff lands and tenements held of the king to the annual value of £1,000, which was granted (2).

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

(1) Rawcliffe, Staffords, p. 104 (Anne’s wealth).

(2) PPC IV, pp. 28-29 (licence to enfeoff).

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

John Holand, Earl of Huntingdon

The Earl of Huntingdon married Edmund Mortimer, Earl of March’s widow, Anne Stafford, the daughter of the widowed countess above. Huntingdon had been captured at the Battle of Baugé in 1421 and his ransom left him impoverished. He used his influence as a member of the Council to ensure that he received his wife’s dower in full. (1)

In March 1430 the Council instructed Richard Hoore, receiver for the crown from the Mortimer estates in Wales, to pay Anne’s dower of £348 to Huntingdon.

(1) PPC IV p. 30.

Joan, Countess of Ormond

Joan was the daughter of William Beauchamp, Lord Abergavenny. She married James Butler, Earl of Ormond in 1413. Gregory’s Chronicle is the source for her death: she died at Sheen on 3 August 1430 at the age of thirty-four. Her burial in the church of St Thomas Acon is confirmed by Stow, Survey of London I, (p. 269) but dated to 1428.

“And in the monythe of Auguste the iij day deyde the Contasse of Urmonde by syde Schene, and the viij day of the same monthe she was brought to London and ys buryde at Syn Thomas of Acrys.”  Gregory’s Chronicle, p. 171

David de Montferrand, Archbishop of Bordeaux

David de Montferrand was Archbishop of Bordeaux from 1413 to his death in May 1430. John Stow, Survey of London, does not confirm Gregory’s statement that he was buried in the White Friars.

“And the xxx day of May the Arche byschoppe of Burdowys  dyde in the wyntyr in London and he ys buryd at Whythe Freers in Flete Strete.” Gregory’s Chronicle, p. 171

Rioting and unrest broke out in Bordeaux at the end of 1429 and, among others, the king’s justices arrested three clerks. Montferrand as archbishop claimed jurisdiction over them but the judges refused to surrender them. Montferrand placed Bordeaux under an interdict until the justices relented and delivered the three men to him. This did not go down well with the Minority Council.  Montferrand was summoned to appear before the Council in London to explain his actions which may account for his being in London when he died in May 1430 (1).

(1) gasconrolls.org C 61/123 # 37 and fn 1.

Lawlessness   

Single Combat at Smithfield                  

John Upton had accused John Downe of treason for plotting to kill King Henry at the time of his coronation. Both men came from Feversham in Kent a county notorious for its unruliness (1, 2). An accusation or ‘appeal’ of treason by one individual against another was outside the common law and came under the jurisdiction of the court of chivalry, presided over by the Constable of England. ‘Trial by battle,’ single combat between the appellant and the accused decided the issue of guilt or innocence (3).

“And in this same yere was a batill doon in Smythffeld at London the Tewisday the xxiiij day of Januare betwene two men of the toune of Feurisham in Kente that on me[n] called maistir John Vpton notarye that was the appellaunte and that othir John of Downe, Jentillman the deffandaunte. And thei two ffoughten togederis, armyd at all poyntis to the vtterist; but the Kynge, of his riall power and grete grace kyrid ‘pees’ and toke it vp in his hand and yaf hem bothe fre grace; and this was the cause of her batill for this Maistur John Vpton put on John of Downe that he and othir moo of his compeny ymagenid and purposid the Kyngis dethe at the day and tyme of his coronacion: whom God kept and saue from all mysauenturis. Amen!”  Brut Continuation D, p. 436

The contest took place at Smithfield on 24 January 1430, with the young Duke of York acting as Constable of England in the absence of the Duke of Bedford. (4).

It was customary for the king to be present. Henry halted the contest and pardoned both participants which may be an early example of Henry’s distaste for combat in any form, and his propensity to pardon offenders, but was customary for the king to put a stop to such engagements in a ritual act of clemency before anyone could be killed.

“The Tuysday next aftre, John Vpton, þe appellaunte and John Downe of Feueressham, defendaunt, Armed, faght with-yn lystis in Smythfelde nyghe an oure. And þen þe Kyng toke it in-to hys awne hand; And þe Seterday aftre, at Kenyngton þe Kyng made an ende be-twene þaim bothe; And so þai rode at large.”  Brut Continuation E, p. 451

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

(1) Foedera X, p. 446 (combat at Smithfield).

(2) Stow, Survey of London II, ed Kingsford, p. 31 (combat at Smithfield).

(3) Bellamy, Treason, p. 146 (trial by battle).

(4) CPR 1429-1436, p. 38 (Duke of York constable).

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

Hangings

Thomas Clement of London and a man from Chester named Fenables were convicted of ‘treason and theft.’ The exact nature of their treason and theft is not specified. They were dragged on hurdles from the Tower to Tyburn to be hanged, and their heads were set on London Bridge.

“And in this same yere, þe Satirday þe XXI Day of Februarie one Fenables, a Jentilman of Chestre & Thomas Clement a Draper of London was dampnede atte Westmynster for treason & for þift þat thei had done to þe Kynge & to his liege peple, to be drawe fro þe Toure of London thorugh þe Citee to Tiborne & þere hangede & quartrede, And there hedes sett vpon London Brugge.”  Brut D Appendix p. 443

John Cole, a lawyer, forged the king’s (privy?) seal, and used it to issue a renewal of a patent that had been issued previously.  Forging royal seals seems to have been a common practice.

See Year 1428: A girdler of Norwich.

Perhaps it was easier, quicker, and less expensive than obtaining the official seal through the law courts; whatever the reason, the penalty was death.

“And in that yere ther was man drawe and hongid him [whose] name whas John Cole a court man, and the cause whas ffor he sett a Seele of the kynge the wich hadde ben a patent more than a yere, and he set it vpon a new patent.”   Cleopatra C IV p. 133

A Lollard

Nothing is known about the man burned on Tower Hill as a heretic in January/February 1430 except his name and occupation: Richard Hunden was a wool packer. The execution is recorded in other chronicles but only A Chronicle of London (Harley 565, p. 118) gives a reason – he ate meat on Fridays.

“Also the same yere, aboughte Candelmasse, Richard Hunden, a wolle packer, was dampned as a fals heretyk and a lollard and brent at the Tour hill, the whiche was of so  large consciens that he wolde eten fleysh on Frydays.”  A Chronicle of London (Harley 565) p. 118

“And in þis same yer & in þe yer of grace a-foresaid, Richarde Woll-pakker of Marc Lane þat was convicte a-for þe clergie & dampned of heresie, was led to þe Tour-Hill of London; & ther he was brent for his fals & cursed opynions þat he helde & mayntened in presence of þe Duke of Gloucestre & of þe Duke of Northfolk & þe Erl of Warrewik & þe Erle of Stafforde & oþer lordes & Jentilles, & afore all þe comuners  þat were there present of þe roialme a grete multitude.”  Brut D Appendix p. 443

The Duke of Gloucester, the Duke of Norfolk, the Earl of Warwick, and the Earl of Stafford were in London attending Parliament, and they witnessed the execution.

Spanish ambassadors assaulted in London

An unfortunate incident involving Spanish envoys is recorded in Brut F. The chronicle does not differentiate so it could have been the Castilians or the Aragonese, but it was sufficiently serious to involve the mayor and civic authorities of London.

“And in this yere, and in the yere of grace M cccc xxx, John Ostillere, at the Crowne in Fanchirchestrete of London, debadet with the ambasssitours of Spayne, and rered blode of oon of theym þat was a gentleman ; wherfor the hosteler was arested and brought to the Countoure, and his wife bothe, for she beganne the debate; and then the Kyng and his consayle remeved hym from the Countoure and brought hym in the Flete prison. 

And on the Monday next after, the Maire and bothe the Shirreffes of London, by the comaundment of the Kyng and his consayle, brought hym fro the Flete, fetered, colered, aand manacled with yron strongly, thurgh the Cite till they come to Leden-hall, for he shuld haue goon to the Toure to abyde his Iugement for the grete offence þat he had doon, brekyng of the Kynges sauf-condite, ayenst his peas and comaundment. And there these ambassiatours of Spayne mette with the Maire and his company in Greschirchstrete, as they were goyng toward the Toure, and prayed the Maire of grace for the man ; and so he was brought ageyne þat same nyght to Flete prison.”  Brut Continuation F, p. 456

The keeper of the Crowne Inn in Fenchurch Street fell into a heated argument with some members of a ‘Spanish’ delegation; egged on by his wife, who appears to have started the altercation, the inn keeper wounded one of the Spaniards. He and his wife were promptly arrested by the sheriffs and thrown into the Counters prison. Since this was a diplomatic incident the Council ordered the inn keeper to be transferred to the Fleet prison. From there he was to be sent to the Tower on a charge of breaking the king’s peace and violating the royal safe conduct. But the Spanish ambassadors, either those involved in the brawl or others intent on smoothing over the embarrassing occurrence, interceded with the mayor. The inn keeper was spared the Tower but was remanded to the Fleet.

 Scotland            

A Peace Treaty?

The truce between England and Scotland would expire in 1431 and King James weighed up the advantages of making peace with England. He sent Thomas Roulle to the Council in London.  His letters of 20 December 1429 are not extant, but they are referred to in the draft reply drawn up by the Council, in January 1430.

The Council was interested on King James’s proposal. King Henry was about to set out for France with all the military might that the Council could muster, and they did not want trouble along the Scottish border. But they were wary, James could not be trusted to keep his word.

James appointed an impressive embassy; safe conducts were issued to three bishops, including James Cameron, Bishop of Glasgow, four Scottish earls, two other nobles, four knights and four clerks (1). On 16 February, Thomas Langley, Bishop of Durham, the Earl of Salisbury, the Earl of Northumberland, Lord Scrope, Lord Greystock, Sir Robert Umfraville, Sir Henry Brounflete, Master John Stokes, and John St Loo, received instructions on how to reply to King James’s proposals (2, 3).

They were to encourage the Scots to put their offers on the table first. If they refused, they were to be reminded that King James was not in a strong bargaining position: he had not kept the terms of the treaty of 1423/24 which had obtained his release. Did the Scottish commissioners had the powers to pledge that the repeated wrongs done to the English would be rectified?

See Year 1423: Scotland

If the Scots offered a marriage between King Henry and a princess of Scotland as a means to a final peace as James had suggested, the English commissioners were to reply that King James was still an enemy of England and as such King Henry could not marry his daughter – a final peace settlement would have to come first. Peace had been discussed in general in the past but without specific guarantees.

If the Scots insisted on a marriage, they were to be asked for details: what exactly was King James prepared to offer? Until this was settled the proposal could not be considered by the Council. The offer would have to be substantial as marriage with the King of England would be sought by many other princes. If the Scots made a detailed offer, the commissioners were to reply that they were not competent to deal with it, they must refer it to the Council.

Despite numerous reminders, James’s ransom, which should have been paid by 1428, was still outstanding. If the Scots requested a delay in payment as the price of a renewal of the truce, this was negotiable. Some money in hand would be better than no money, but James must pay the 10,000 marks promised by Thomas Roulle in 1427.  If this was paid immediately, or as much of it as possible, the ambassadors were authorised to agree to the postponement, the ‘stallement,’ that James had requested, and to set new terms of 4,000 marks annually, less than half the original agreement of 10,000 marks.

James had not sent hostages to England to replace those who had died, King Henry had been patient; he had not sued James or any of his subjects who had given security for the ransom payments, and the hostages had been well treated.

Despite James’s bad faith, a new truce, or the extension of the existing truce for ten years, would be acceptable since negotiations for a final peace and a marriage would require lengthy discussions. A settlement of all outstanding disagreements would have to be reached if the peace was to last.

If the Scots offered concrete proposals, they must be referred to the Council. In other words, the English commissioners had full powers to treat for a prolongation of the existing truce, due to expire on 1 May 1431, or for a new truce, but not to conclude a peace or a Scottish marriage. Stripped of their verbiage these instructions were essentially to buy time. By not rejecting King James’s proposals and offering to entertain them at a later date, the Council hoped that a truce would be sufficient to keep James quiet and secure the border, until King Henry returned to England (4).

Lord Scrope was sent to Rouen in July to inform King Henry and Cardinal Beaufort that in the Council’s opinion the terms offered by the Scots were unsatisfactory (5).  James would consider a truce by land and sea, but he reserved the right to send his subjects to France to fight for King Charles and he rejected the claim that his treaty with the English prohibited this. At the same time, the Council was well aware that James was unpredictable, and the alternative to a truce, however unpalatable, was worse: if war broke out between England and Scotland there would be fighting on two fronts, something that King Henry V had been careful to avoid; he had secured the Scottish border before embarking on his French campaign.

Unsatisfactory diplomatic relations were not allowed to interfere with trade. While Scrope was in Normandy the Council issued a licence to Thomas Weston of the fishmongers’ guild and his partner, John Leman, a skinner of London who traded regularly with Scotland, to send a large cargo of assorted merchandise to  King James: twenty-three items ranging from wine, drinking cups, small weapons, horse harness, saddles to assorted fabrics, in a ship called John of London. (6)

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

(1) Foedera X, p. 446 (Scottish envoys).

(2) Foedera X, p. 447 (English envoys).

(3) PPC IV, p. 16 (Scrope was awarded £50 for his expenses, possibly for a previous embassy).

(4) PPC IV, pp. 19-27 (instructions to English commissioners).

(5) PPC IV, pp. 53-54 and 73-75. (Scrope to France).

(6) Foedera X, p. 470 (shipment of merchandise to Scotland).

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

A Five-year truce

Truce negotiations were resumed at the end of the year. A truce to last for five years from 1 May 1431 to 1 May 1436, was signed on 14 December 1430 and proclaimed on 19 January 1431.  Lord Scrope and Master John Stokes returned to Scotland for the signing (1, 2).

It was ratified by the Council in London, and the signatories are interesting: Gloucester, Warwick, Northumberland, Salisbury, Westmorland, Wilbghbi (Willoughby?) Dacre, Hungerford, Robert Umfraville, and the Admirals of the Sea and Wardens of the Marches (3). The Earl of Warwick and Lord Willoughby were in France, did either or both return to England briefly in December 1430?

King James got what he wanted: a general truce at sea but a limited one on land; the Council achieved their aim of prolonging negotiations with the Scots throughout 1430 before agreeing to the truce (4).

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

(1) Foedera X, pp. 482-487 (truce from May 1431 to May 1436). Terms pp. 483–486; Council signatories p. 486; Scots signatories p. 487. Proclamation of the truce is the first entry for 1431, pp. 487-488.

(2) PPC IV, p. 68 (Scrope was paid 100 marks).

(3) PPC IV, pp. 70–71 (Stokes was paid £20).

(4) C. Macrae ‘The English Council and Scotland in 1430’ English Historical Review, 54 (1939) pp. 415-421.

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

Ireland

Thomas Chace, Chancellor of the University of Oxford, was appointed Chancellor of Ireland on 26 February 1430 at the same time as preparations were made for King Henry to cross to France (1). He was included in the letters of protection issued for the king’s expedition as ‘about to go to Ireland’ (2).  A further protection for him ‘staying in Ireland’ was issued on 11 May (3).

Richard Talbot, Archbishop of Dublin, the incumbent chancellor, resisted handing over the Great Seal to Chace, and Talbot may have managed to hold on to it until the arrival in Ireland of Sir Thomas Stanley, the new king’s lieutenant in Ireland in 1431.

See Year 1431: Ireland, Sir Thomas Stanley.

Sir Thomas Strange, a king’s knight, was appointed Treasurer of Ireland on the same day.

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

(1) CPR 1429-1436, pp. 49 (appointed chancellor of Ireland. Thomas Strange treasurer).

(2) PPC IV, p. 39 (Chace included in letters of protection).

(3) CPR 1429-1436, pp. 49 and 56 (Chace in Ireland).

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

Denizens

In May permission was granted for twenty men born in Ireland, two with their wives, to reside or continue to reside, in England. They each paid between twenty and thirty shilling to the Hanaper for the privilege (1).

(1) Foedera X, pp, 467-468 (Irish residents).

Foreign Relations          

Gregory’s Chronicle records that ambassadors from Spain and Portugal came to England in 1430 but he may have meant Castile and Aragon, as there is no record of a Portuguese embassy in England in 1430.

“And that yere there come enbassytourys oute of Spayne and also oute of Portynggale for to trete whythe oure kynge.” Gregory’s Chronicle, p. 171. Copied into the margin of The Great Chronicle (p. 155).   

Castile            

In February the Council ordered that a gilt cup valued at £10 and containing £20 in coin should be presented to the unnamed Castilian envoys, a Doctor of Theology and a knight, who were coming to England to prepare for the arrival of King Juan’s ambassadors (1).

Safe conducts were issued in March 1430 to Juan de Curralli [John de Corral], Fernando Manuelli de Lando, and a large embassy to be headed by a bishop (2). King Juan commissioned Sancho Roxas, Bishop of Astorga, Sir Pedro Currillo [Peter Catrillo] of Toledo, and Juan Curralli as his ambassadors in June 1430. They were authorised to treat for a truce, which should include Charles, King of France (3).

“And in þis same day & yere, Embassitoures of Spayne, þat is to say, a Bishoppe, with other grete & worthy clerkis, And an Erl with knyghtes & Squyers – & these people come to þe Kynge in to Westmynstre Hall the day aboue-saide.”    Brut D Appendix, p. 443

On 6 November the Council authorized William Alnwick, Keeper of the Privy Seal, Lord Cromwell and William Lyndwood, an experienced negotiator and diplomat, to treat with the Castilians (4). A truce on land and at sea for one year from 1 May 1431 was signed and confirmed by the privy seal on 15 November (5). It was not a great achievement, but it would prevent Castile from supplying ships to the French navy or harrying English supply lines across the channel while King Henry remained in France.

In November safe conducts were issued to Alfonso de Burgos, and Friar. Guidani (6, 7). In December £20 was paid to Friar Guidani coming from Castile (8). Possibly they returned to England to collect a copy of the ratification of the truce. A clause in the treaty stipulated that the English ratification would be delivered at Bayonne between Christmas and 1 March 1431. Ferguson noted that the ratification “sealed with the great seal in white wax and attested by the Duke of Gloucester as custos Anglie” is still in the Public Record Office” and may never have been delivered (9).

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

(1) PPC IV, p, 30 and Foedera X, p. 450 (gilt cup to Castilians).

(2) Foedera X, pp. 452-53 (safe conducts for Castilian embassy in March).

(3) Foedera X pp. 468-69 (Castilian ambassadors commissioned in June).

(4) PPC IV, pp. 69-70 (authorisation to treat with Castilian ambassadors).

(5) Foedera X, pp. 473-476 (truce for one year).

(6) Foedera X, p.  496 (safe conducts issued to envoys in November)

(7) Ferguson, Diplomacy, pp 198-199 (Castilian envoys)

(8) PPC IV, p. 72 and Foedera X, p. 481 (payment to Guidani).

(9) Ferguson, Diplomacy, p. 46, citing E 30/439 (copy of ratification).

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

Aragon and Navarre       

English envoys’ attempts to meet King Alfonso of Aragon’s representatives at the papal court in Rome had so far proved abortive.

See Years 1424, 1428, and 1429: Aragon.

The outbreak of war between Castile and the kingdoms of Aragon and Navarre revived Alfonso’s interest in an alliance with England. A joint embassy from Aragon and Navarre arrived in England at about the same time as the Castilians to pre-empt the projected Anglo/Castilian alliance.

The Kingdom of Navarre was ruled by Juan II, King Alfonso’s brother. (He would become King of Aragon in 1458). Blanche was Queen of Navarre but Juan ruled the kingdom in her name.

The Aragon/Navarre ambassadors, Jaume Pellegrini, Lluis de Falcs (a previous envoy from Aragon to England) and Charles de Beaumont, Queen Blanche’s standard bearer, made a more positive offer than the Castilians but received a less encouraging reception. No commissioners were appointed to deal with them.

They offered an alliance to be sealed by a marriage for King Henry with one of Queen Blanche’s daughters, Blanche or Leonora (Eleanor). The Council declined to discuss a marriage on the grounds that no decision could be made until King Henry returned to England. His uncles would have to be consulted. Bedford and Gloucester would surely have been at one in rejecting a princess of the tiny and vulnerable kingdom of Navarre as a suitable bride for the King of England and France.

The ambassadors were informed that any treaty of alliance with England must include Henry’s French subjects. The Council in England did not have the authority to conclude an alliance while Henry and half his council were in France and nor did the ambassadors from Aragon. King Henry and the council in Rouen would be informed of their proposals. If the king agreed that an alliance with Aragon was desirable, ambassadors would be appointed by the end of November in 1431 to resume the talks at Bayonne in Gascony (1). The terms of reference suggested are vague, apart from the insistence that the treaty must be between Henry’s two kingdoms.

 John Gentill, a Doctor of Laws (unaccountably named Philip in Foedera) was a judge in the Duke of Bedford’s Admiralty court. He was commissioned in November 1430 to travel to Bayonne and meet with ambassadors from Aragon and Navarre ‘to discuss certain things concerning the king’s welfare’ (2, 3).

A week later, on 16 November 1430, the Council appointed Guillaume Arnaud de la Borde, Bishop of Bayonne, Sir Thomas Burton mayor of Bayonne, to welcome Alfonso’s ambassadors and add prestige to the English embassy (4).

Jaume Pelligrini and Mateu Pujades duly presented themselves at Bayonne. They were authorised to negotiate a perpetual alliance with ‘Henry, by the grace of God, King of England and France’ (Henry’s title, but not quite the same thing as recognising Henry as king of France) against Castile. But there was no sign of John Gentill. The bishop and mayor could not negotiate without him. Alfonso waited until 1431 to recall his ambassadors, and he requested the mayor of Bayonne to inform him if the English ever arrived (5).

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

(1) PPC IV pp. 56–59 (Council’s reply to Aragonese proposals).

(2 Foedera X p. 473 and  PPC IV p. 70 (100 marks payment to Gentill).

(3) Foedera X, p. 477 (authorisation to negotiate with Aragon and Navarre).

(4) Ferguson, Diplomacy, pp. 49-50 (English in Bayonne).

(5) Ferguson, Diplomacy, Appendix, pp 248-250 (King Alfonso’s instructions in his letters to the English in Bayonne and to his envoys to return).

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

The Hanseatic League

English merchants encroached on the Hanseatic League’s trade monopoly in the Baltic and Scandinavia throughout the fifteenth century. Where English traders went, English pirates followed, and on occasion they were one and the same. The Hanse towns complained time and time again of the loss of their ships and cargoes to the depredations of English.

Paul von Rusdorf  Grand Master of the Teutonic Knights had conceded a limited right to English merchants in 1428, to establish trading posts in Prussia.

See Year 1428: The Hanseatic League

He had also reminded the Council that King Henry IV had promised to pay reparations amounting to £10,800 to Prussia, Livonia, and the Hanse merchants of Hamburg for ‘injuries done by the English’ over the period between 1400 and 1409. For ‘injuries’ read ‘piracy.’ About half the sum had been paid by the time Henry IV died in 1413 (1).  Henry V made no further payments and von Rusdorf claimed the balance due.

The Duke of Gloucester, the Chancellor, the Treasurer, the Keeper of the Privy Seal and Lord Cromwell signed a letter in King Henry’s name in May 1430 informing von Rusdof that Parliament had been consulted and had decreed that Henry VI could not legally be held responsible for his grandfather’s debt. The king was willing, however, to receive ambassadors if the Grand Master cared to send a delegation to England to discuss the matter. Any payment would of course come from customs duties levied on merchants of the Hanse as covered by the treaty.

Gloucester had the good sense to temporise rather than repudiate the Grand Master’s claim. No money would be forthcoming, but trade with the Hanse would not be jeopardised by rejecting the claim outright.

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

(1) Given-Wilson, Henry IV, pp. 338-339 (Henry IV’s 1409 treaty).

(2) PPC IV, pp. 450-460 (reply to the Grand Master).

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

Emperor Sigismund

In November William Swan was appointed to carry letters from the Council to the Emperor Sigismund who had only recently returned to the Germanic states from his kingdoms further east. The purport of the letters is not known; the Council may have reported their correspondence with the Grand Master of the Teutonic Knights (1, 2 .

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

(1) PPC IV p. 71 (Swan was awarded 100 marks for expenses).

(2) Foedera X, p. 481 (Swan was awarded 100 marks for expenses).

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

Trade with the Netherlands

Possibly in retaliation for the Duke of Burgundy’s ban on the import of English woollen cloth into Holland and Zeeland of 1428 the Council received a counter petition from the Merchant Adventurers of London in July 1430.

See Year 1428: Trade with the Netherlands. Holland and Zeeland

They petitioned that for the good of the country, and for the safety of English merchants and their goods, trade with Flanders, Holland, Zeeland and Brabant should be regulated, and that English merchants should be prohibited from trading in the markets of Brabant, especially Antwerp, until their safety could be assured. They should not be permitted to import linen cloth from Flanders or Hainault, except in accordance with England’s trade agreement with the Four Members of Flanders (1).

‘Order in Council forbidding subjects of the crown of England to resort to any market in Brabant particularly the market of Antwerp or to buy in the parts of Flanders, Holland Zeeland and Brabant any linen cloth of Flanders or Hainault or ‘napery’ or ‘bokeram’ made in those parts’ (2).

The burgomasters of Ghent and Bruges (two of the Four Members) should be thanked for the help they had given to John Waryn, a London merchant, who had adhered to their terms of trade.

The petition was endorsed by Archbishop Chichele, John Kemp as Chancellor, the bishops of London and Rochester, and Lords Cromwell and Hungerford, the treasurer. The embargo was signed by the Duke of Gloucester (3). Did he enjoy agreeing to impose trade restrictions on countries that had rejected him as their overlord?

See Year 1424: Gloucester in Hainault. 

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

(1) PPC IV, pp. 55–56 (petition to restrict trade).

(2) CPR 1429-1436 p. 26 (order to restrict trade).

(3) Foedera X, p. 471 (embargo signed by Gloucester).

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

 Denmark

 Doctor William Sprever and John Grimsby were commissioned in November 1430 to visit King Eric of Denmark to reiterate the Council’s commitment to the trade agreement establishing the staple at Bergen in Norway as the only port in Eric’s domains through which English merchants could trade (1).

 See Year 1429, Foreign Relations, Denmark.

The mayor of Kingston on Hull was ordered to arrest a ship to be ready at the port of Hull for Sprever and Grimsby to embark for Denmark. Sprever received 100 marks for going to Denmark and to towns of the Hanseatic League (2, 3).  He left England at the beginning of 1431; his account of his mission to Denmark dates from 6 February to 23 December 1431 (5).

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

(1) Foedera X, pp. 477–478 (Sprever and Grimsby’s instructions).

(2) CPR 1429-1436, p 129 (ship at Hull).

(3) PPC IV p. 71 (expenses).

(4) Foedera X, p. 481 (expenses).

(5) Ferguson, Diplomacy, p. 209 citing E101/322/42 (Sprever in Denmark).

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

The Duchy of Gascony

See Year 1423: The Duchy of Gascony

The Duke of Gloucester

In 1430, while King Henry was in France the Duke of Gloucester began to acquire lordships in Gascony to add to his income and compensate for the loss of his fee as Protector following King Henry’s coronation. Gloucester claimed he was protecting the interests of the king and the crown, albeit at a distance, against unlawful encroachment.

There was a good deal of unrest and uncertainty in Gascony.  In June the Duke Gloucester issued a blanket protection for all royal officers serving in Gascony (1).

Pons VIII, Lord of Castillon, died childless in 1430 and his lands escheated to the crown. They had been granted by Henry V to Pons for his lifetime only. Pons’s grandson and heir, Pons IX, was a minor and in the care of the adherents of King Charles VII.

In November the Pons inheritance of Castillon, Lamarque, Sensac, Mouton, Castelnau-de-Médoc, and Bordelais, was granted ‘during pleasure’ to Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester ‘which, for lack of a safe keepership might be invaded by the king’s enemies’ (2).

Gloucester would be a trustee (fidei commissarius) until Pons IX returned to King Henry’s allegiance. Gaston de Foix’s claim to Castelnau-de-Médoc had been investigated on the Council’s orders in 1428 and apparently rejected.

See Year 1428: The Duchy of Gascony

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

(1) Foedera X, p. 469 (protection for officials in Gascony).

(2) gasconrolls.org. C61/124 #4 dated 10 November 1430 (grant to Gloucester).

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

Sir John Radcliffe

The Council had intended Sir John Radcliffe to return to Gascony as seneschal, but his force had been diverted to the campaign in France.

See Year 1429: Cardinal Beaufort’s army, Sir John Radcliffe.

In 1430 they renewed their efforts to persuade the still reluctant Radcliffe who was still owed £6,620 6s 11d.

On 26 May 1430 Radcliffe was awarded £200 for his past services as seneschal, the same incentive as he had been offered in 1429, but only on condition that he returned to Gascony. If he refused, the money was to be applied against his arrears of wages (1).

In July 1430 the Council assigned the whole amount owed,  £6,620 6s 11d, on the customs of the West Country ports of Melcombe, Exmouth, Dartmouth, Fowey, and Bridgewater. Radcliffe was to name one customs official in each port to look after his interests, provided he met the Council’s conditions: he must o back to Gascony whenever he was required to do so within a year from September 1430 under the terms of an indenture with the king (2, 3).

The income from the five ports, albeit small ones, offered Radcliffe the best chance he would ever get of recovering what was due to him; he accepted, but delayed his departure for a year until July 1431.

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

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

(1) PPC IV, p. 50 (£200 to Radcliffe).

(2) PPC IV p. 53 (customs duties to Radcliffe).

(3) CPR 1429-1436, p. 69 (customs duties to Radcliffe and conditions).

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

A Peace Conference 

The Burgundian ambassador Hugh de Lannoy’s visit to England at the end of 1429 forced the Minority Council to consider seriously the proposed peace conference at Auxerre between the Duke of Burgundy and King Charles VII (1).

See Year 1429: Burgundian Ambassadors

The Council sent an envoy to Pope Martin to request that Cardinal Beaufort be invited, not to represent the English, but as a papal mediator. Nicholas Bildeston who had been King Henry V’s envoy to Pope Martin and was now one of Cardinal Beaufort’s councillors was selected for the task:

On 5 January “credence was given to Master Nicholas Bildeston, Doctor of Laws to be declared to the Pope on the king’s behalf. Bildeston was instructed to declare that the king had received information that certain princes had determined to request his Holiness to send certain cardinals to France as mediators for the cessation of the wars and dissensions existing in that country and that to desire that in case he should assent to their request he would send such mediators as had not previously shown themselves to be favourable to the adversary of France: he was moreover to desire that Cardinal Beaufort who had for more than thirty years attended the king’s councils, and knew the state of the king and his realms, might be present in France as elsewhere during the treaty respecting the said pacification, either as a mediator or on the king’s behalf, as might seem most fit to his holiness; and that the Pontiff would not incline or assent to any petition which might prove prejudicial to the king or his realms, by releasing his subjects from their oaths of fealty and allegiance to break which the adversary of France had endeavoured to seduce them”

The Council then determined that Master Robert FitzHugh, proctor for the king at Rome, should execute the mission instead of Bildeston since he was on the spot, and 100 shillings was to be paid to Alexander Ferentyne to carry the Council’s instructions to FitzHugh (2).

Pope Martin flatly refused. He had not forgiven Beaufort for diverting the crusading army from Bohemia to fight in France, and he pointed out that Beaufort’s presence at any conference with the French, against who that army had been sent, would only cause more tension and more misunderstandings, which was hardly conducive to peace (3). He did appoint Cardinal Nicolo Albergati as his special envoy and peace mediator but the peace conference at Auxerre did not eventuate. The timing was not auspicious: King Henry was about to lead a large army into France with the Duke of Burgundy as his ally.

The Duke of Orleans

Charles VII had suggested that perhaps the venue could be moved closer to Normandy where English representatives could bring the captive Duke of Orleans, Jean of Angoulême, the Duke of Bourbon and Charles d’Artois, Count of Eu to take part in the discussions.

Did the Council invite the Duke of Orleans to London to find out what, if anything, he knew of the proposed peace conference? Orleans’s custody had been transferred from Sir Thomas Comberworth to Sir John Cornwall, late in 1429 on Parliament’s orders (4).  Cornwall brought Orleans to London for an unknown reason for several weeks from 17 January to 25 February 1430. Assignments for Orleans’s maintenance were made to Cornwall for the period from 29 December 1429 to 17 January 1430, and again from 25 February to May 1430, but not for mid-January to February (5, 6).

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

(1) Beaucourt, Charles VII, vol II, pp. 413-414 (peace conference).

(2) PPC IV, pp. 12-15 (Nicolas’s translation:  Council’s instructions on peace conference).

(3) Harvey, England and Papacy, pp. 144-145 (Pope’s reaction).

(4) PROME X, pp. 383-385 (transfer of Orleans and Bourbon).

(5) PPC IV, pp.  44-45 (Orleans brought to London January-February 1430).

(6) Foedera X, p. 461 (Orleans brought to London January-February 1430).

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

Cardinal Beaufort and the Duke of Burgundy  

Cardinal Beaufort was to return to Flanders for further discussions with the Duke of Burgundy as Lannoy had suggested. Before he left England Beaufort sought an assurance from the Council that they would honour their promise to reimburse him and Pope Martin for the money they had expended on the Bohemian crusade before Beaufort diverted his army from Bohemia to France.  It might help him to mend fences with the irate pope. On 18 January 1430, the Council confirmed that the £2,400 and £483 6s 8d would be paid (1).

“And in the same yere the xxvij day of Januare, Sir Henry Beauford, Cardinall and Bishop of Wynchestre went ouyr the see to Caleis and so to Bryggis in Flaundris in embassitrie for Henry Kynge of Englond and of Fraunce vnto the Duke of Burgoyne and  also to se the mariage betwene the Duke of  Burgoyne and the Kynge of Portyngalis doughtir, that is cosyn to the Kynge of Engelond.”  Brut Continuation D, pp. 437-438

Beaufort crossed to Flanders in February (2).  Duke Philip’s marriage to Isabelle of Portugal had taken place in January and Beaufort undoubtedly congratulated the Duke and renewed his acquaintance with the duchess, but his mission was to secure a firm commitment from Burgundy to the upcoming campaign once King Henry arrived in France.

This proved easier than Beaufort or the Council expected. Duke Philip had reconsidered his options and decided to exploit the arrival of Henry VI with a large English army (3). He had shelved his plan for a reconciliation with King Charles and gave the cardinal a cordial reception.

Burgundy was a past master at waging war to his own advantage and at some else’s expense.  He agreed to supply 3,000 men to serve with the English army against the French for two months. His price was 50,000 gold saluts and the county of Champagne which he had long coveted (4). Although the principal towns of Champagne, including Reims, were not currently in English hands, the Council granted it to Burgundy with the Duke of Bedford’s concurrence, on 8 March (5). Burgundy expected the English to fight to recover it. Bedford hoped, with Burgundy’s assistance, that they could!

Richard Woodville, the lieutenant of Calais, and Richard Buckland, the treasurer of Calais, were authorized to receive 12,500 marks from the Exchequer to be delivered to the Duke of Burgundy at Bruges or any other town he cared to designate (6, 7). They were to be paid 100 marks for their expenses. Burgundy issued a receipt for 25,000 nobles to Woodville and Buckland for the wages of 1,500 men (8, 9).

Obtaining Duke Philip’s promise of military aid was a diplomatic coup, but Cardinal Beaufort was an experienced diplomat, and he may have doubted that Burgundy would fulfil his obligations should he receive a better offer from King Charles. While he was at the Burgundian court Beaufort enlisted the services of John of Luxembourg, by far the best of Burgundy’s war captains. Beaufort paid Luxembourg the large sum of £500 in cash (a considerable bribe) and returned to England well satisfied with his mission. In May the Council gratefully agreed to reimburse him. Luxembourg was well worth the price (10, 11).

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

(1) PPC IV, p. 16 (payment to Beaufort for Bohemian army confirmed).

(2) PPC IV, p 18 (shipping for Beaufort to Flanders). £28 4s was allocated for shipping for himself and his retinue

(3) Vaughan, Philip, pp. 22–24 (advantage of alliance with England).

(4) Vaughan, Philip, pp. 17-18 (Burgundy’s terms).

(5) Williams, Bedford, p. 182 (Champagne granted to Burgundy).

(6) PPC IV. pp. 31-32 (Woodville and Buckland to convey money).

(7) Foedera X p. 454 (Woodville and Buckland to convey money).

(8) Foedera X, p 454 (Burgundy’s receipt).

(9) Vaughan, Philip, p. 17 (says that 15,565 nobles were delivered at Lille).

(10) Foedera X, p. 460 (Luxemburg to serve Henry VI).

(11) PPC IV, p. 44 (repayment to Beaufort for Luxembourg).

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

A Council at Canterbury  

King Henry made an offering at St Paul’s before he left London to stay at Eltham during Lent. He moved on to Canterbury for Easter to prepare for his departure for France.

“And on Seint Mathi day the Appostill as is aforne seide, the Kynge come fro Westeminster to London with his lordis and his pepul and come to Seint Poulis and there offrid and tok his hor and rode thorugh the Cite and toke his leue of all the Communalte of London; and so he rode to his maner of Eltham in Kente and there he duellid alle the Lenton till it was ayens Palme Sonday and thanne he rode to Caunterbury and abode there tille estur was passid till his retenewe was made and ordeynd that  shuld gon and passe ouyr the see with hym into Fraunce.”  Brut Continuation D, p. 438

Questions in Council

A series of last-minute council meetings were held at Canterbury between 16 and 21 April 1430.  Some pertinent questions were raised in council: if the purpose of the expedition was to crown Henry King of France how was this to be achieved, and more importantly, at whose cost? The Duke of Gloucester replied on behalf of the Council.

“Here folewyth the Articles in general that my Lordes &c., appointed to go into France desireth to be instructd of” (1, 2, 3).

Firstly: The size of the army to be sent to France for the king’s security and to continue the war: will it cross all at once, and if so when, or if at different times, in what order and when? Should King Henry proceed to Rouen ‘to take his crown’ even if the whole army was not with him?

Reply:  Neither the Duke of Gloucester nor any member of the council can set a limit on the numbers considered necessary for the king’s security; nevertheless, the number of men-at- arms to be raised by taxes will be advised to the lords, and also the times of departure.

If Henry was crowned in Paris, would a coronation ensure the obedience of the capital of France and of his other French subjects?

Reply: The precarious military situation in France was well known. The city of Reims (where kings of France were traditionally crowned). and great fortress of Louviers barring the way to Paris, were in French hands; it would not be safe to take King Henry to Reims or to Paris until they had been recovered and the countryside around them had been secured.  Gloucester and the council were not in a position to judge if the king should be crowned in Paris or taken to Reims This decision must rest with the Duke of Bedford, Cardinal Beaufort, and the magnates who accompanied Henry who would ascertain how this could be done.

How much money would be needed to maintain 600 men-at-arms, where was the money to come from, and over what period were they likely to remain in France, and?

Reply: Gloucester and the council somewhat haughtily replied that they had made verbal promises to Cardinal Beaufort and to the lords going to France that they would sustain the war effort, and they will keep their promises.

What about administration costs in Lancastrian France? How were members of the parlement of Paris, the chambre des comptes in Rouen and other royal officials to be paid?

Reply: Money for these expenses must be raised from local fines, taxes, pardons, and other impositions, but the Council suggested that it would be advisable to restrict the numbers of officials to a minimum to keep the cost as low as possible.

If military aid to clear the way was offered by the Duke of Burgundy or his ally the Duke of Savoy,  but only at England’s expense, how many men-at-arms might be contracted for and at what cost?  What security might the dukes demand and would the money come from taxation?

Reply: Gloucester and the council thought that any such offer should be accepted, but that any contract between them and the king should be negotiated as cheaply as possible. This decision must also be made by Bedford, Beaufort, and the magnates.

Nicolo Albergati, Cardinal of St Croce was Pope Martin’s his special representative to initiate a peace settlement to end the war. If Cardinal Albergati approached the Council in Rouen what answer should be given to him?  Everyone agreed that it was impossible to conclude peace until King Henry came of age, the shadow of Henry V’s wishes still brooded darkly over the Council and the country, but on what terms could a truce be considered when the French had so far refused to discuss anything but peace on their terms?

Reply: Gloucester and the council favoured making Albergati welcome. He would have to be told that under present circumstances peace was not an option, but any proposals he might make for a truce should be given careful consideration, unless of course, the war went well, making a truce unnecessary!

And the final question: Would King Henry come home at the end of six months, or stay in France? If he came home, what provision would be made to safeguard English possessions in France?

The response was predictable: it all depended on the cost, which would be considerable. Money would have to be raised partly in England and partly in Lancastrian France. The decision would rest with the Council in Rouen, but King Henry would have to be brought home if there was not enough money to maintain the military position that would keep him safe.

The Council had agreed that the Duke of Bedford could not remain Regent as long as King Henry was in France. Would Bedford swallow the insult and agree to resume the regency when Henry left France? If he refused, how was France to be governed? Who else might be granted what powers and what authority?

Reply: Gloucester and the council advised that if it was decided to bring the king home, a lieutenant must be left to rule France backed by the authority of a council, but only after every effort had been made to persuade the Duke of Bedford to resume the regency.  Whatever happened, some form of government with sufficient security to govern must be in place before Henry left France, and a magnate who was also a war captain would be the best choice.

The general consensus in council was that England could not sustain the war indefinitely. War profits had long since dried up, but men who were prepared to wage war at their own cost, ‘yif eny suche may be founden’ should be encouraged and permitted to keep whatever lands they conquered.

Gloucester approved of this. He said that if the costs of the war could not be met by taxation in England or in France then land grants were the answer.  Men should ‘have hem and rejoyse hem as there oune,’ subject to the king’s authority, but they must exchange them for other lands of equal value if required.  The Duke of Bedford and Cardinal Beaufort should be consulted on this question.

The fortified towns and castles all over Lancastrian France were very expensive to maintain. In theory they were funded from local taxes but in practice the soldiers were not paid and so they lived off the surrounding countryside, which contributed to the unpopularity of the English. Many of the fortresses were in disrepair and had been overrun by the French, which further undermined the English occupation. There was general agreement that while garrisons should be maintained in the strategic towns, many of the lesser fortress could be dismantled and abandoned before they fell into French hands.

The Council’s deliberations ended where they began: should King Henry be taken directly to Paris if this was what the Parisians wanted – or not? The reply was as before: Henry should be crowned in Reims, but if this was not possible then he should be crowned in Paris as soon as possible, provided nothing unforeseen happened to endanger him.

The debate encapsulates the double thinking of the Minority Council: to make peace while King Henry was still a minor was impossible so the war must be continued, but on the other hand there was no money to pay for it. A truce with France should not be ruled out, but they persisted in believing that of course English armies would be victorious, as they had been under Henry V, which would make a truce unnecessary.

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

(1) PPC IV, pp. 91-97 (questions in Council).

(2) Rotuli Parliamentorum V, pp. 416-41 (questions in Council).

(3) PPC IV Preface, pp. xxiii–xxviii. The copy in the Proceeding transcribed from MS Bibl. Cotton Cleopatra, F. iv, f. 54b was placed in 1431 by Nicolas but it obviously belongs in 1430 and the Council at Canterbury as set out in the Appendix to Rot. Parl. V.

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

Cardinal Beaufort

Cardinal Beaufort was to accompany King Henry to France. The Council awarded him £1,000 as a member of the council in Rouen, but only if he remained abroad for at least a year. He was to be allowed £1,000 for his expenses, the same as he had received on his mission to Burgundy in February (1, 2).

The Proceedings and the Foedera record that Beaufort had to be persuaded by the Duke of Gloucester and the Council to agree to go, but this was Beaufort’s window dressing. He had every intention of remaining at the seat of power and this would be wherever King Henry was.

Beaufort attend the council meetings at Canterbury and expressed his concern at the possibility of dissension between the magnates accompanying the king and those serving the Duke of Bedford in France. He said that if they failed to work peacefully together, if there was ill discipline and faction fighting among them, he would return to England and report their behaviour to the Council (3, 4).

The Duke of Norfolk, the Earl of Warwick and the Earl of Huntingdon were going to France with their own retinues to participate in a campaign to recover territories lost to the French in 1429.

Whatever dissensions there had been between them, for the moment they were united in the enterprise of France.  They gave an undertaking that they would not pick quarrels among themselves or allow their retainers to engage in brawls with the servants of the Duke of Bedford or the Duke of Burgundy.

Cardinal Beaufort may also have raised the question of the Duke Bedford’s position while King Henry was in France. Parliament had decreed that the Duke of Gloucester ceased to be Protector of England after Henry was crowned at Westminster in November 1429. Should the Duke of Bedford cease to be Regent of France, not from the date of Henry VI’s French coronation, whenever that might be, but from the moment Henry landed in Calais?  The Council agreed, under pressure from the Cardinal, that Bedford could not be Regent, although he would remain Duke of Alençon, Maine, and Anjou (which were only partly in Bedford’s possession in 1430), Even this was provisional. The king, if he so wished, could redeem these territories from Bedford for the sum of 40,000 francs. Presumably Bedford was not consulted (5, 6).

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

(1) PPC IV pp. 34 and 36 (Beaufort’s wage and expenses).

(2) Foedera X, p. 456 (Beaufort’s wage as councillor).

(3) PPC IV, pp. 35-38 (Beaufort’s conditions).

NB: The terms of the agreement of 16 April were read and confirmed again a year later, on 7 May 1431 when Cardinal Beaufort returned to England.

(4) Foedera X, pp. 456-457 (Beaufort’s conditions).

(5) PPC IV, p. 37 (Bedford to cease to be Regent).

(6) Wolffe, Henry VI, pp. 59-60 (Bedford to cease to be Regent).

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

Government by Two Councils

Cardinal Beaufort’s demand for reassurance that the lords would not fall to fighting among themselves while they were in France led the Council to consider how best to maintain the smooth functioning of government under two councils, one in Rouen and one in England.

It was agreed that decrees of the council in Rouen relating to conditions in France would be accepted by the Council in England, but otherwise each council would act independently although important decisions affecting both councils should be debated and agreed to by both.

No councillor or great officer of state should be dismissed without the approval of both councils. Appointments to bishoprics should be submitted for consideration by both councils before the pope was informed. When appointments were made to offices or benefices in the king’s gift, preference should be shown to applicants who had served King Henry’s father and grandfather. Letters patent issued under the king’s privy seal or signet must receive council approval.

The Council in England  

The Duke of Gloucester was formally appointed on 21 April as the king’s lieutenant ‘custos’ to carry on the business of government with the chancellor, the treasurer and members of the council who did not accompany Henry to France. This suited Gloucester very well. Without Cardinal Beaufort’s constant presence Gloucester would find it easier to conduct council business without interference.

Gloucester had wide ranging powers to govern but only with the assent of the council. He could summon parliament, he could grant permission for cathedral chapters and churches to nominate a replacement if their bishop, abbot or prior died although their choice must be confirmed by the council, and the king was to be consulted which meant obtaining the concurrence of Cardinal Beaufort and the bishops in France (1, 2).

“And the Kynge by his good and wise counseill ordeynd and made his vncle Sir Vmfrey, the Duke of Gloucestre Leftenaunte of Engelond aftur his passage ouyr the see, for to gouerne and kepe the londe ayen his enemyes of all partyis and to se that right and lawe be mayntenyd in alle degreis in sauacion of his pepull and good kepynge of his Rewme.” Brut Continuation D, p. 436

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

(1) PPC IV, pp. 40-42  (Gloucester lieutenant of England).

(2) Foedera X, p. 468 (Gloucester lieutenant of England).

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

Queen Katherine

After King Henry was placed in the care of Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick in 1428  Queen Katherine maintained her own household away from the king’s court. In May 1430, she reminded the Council that she had surrendered the income from her in dower estates in Cornwall, Chester, Hereford and Essex in return for a yearly payment of £2,298 from the Exchequer.

This had not been paid, and Katherine, well aware that assignments on the Exchequer were difficult to collect, suggested that the sum should come from the more reliable source of Duchy of Lancaster lands, which accounted for the largest component of her dower, or from the Duke of York’s inheritance while he remained a minor. The Council agreed that the treasurer should ‘make such assignments as should seem to them expedient’ (1). Katheine might have to wait a while longer for her income.

Also in May the Council granted an annuity of £20 to Joan, the wife of Sir William Troutbeck, the Chamberlain of Chester. It is worth quoting the patent rolls in full as the editor of the Proceedings mistakenly used the male pronoun in his translation of the grant: ‘for the good and gratuitous service which by the king’s command he had rendered to Queen Katherine’ (2).

“Grant by the advice of the council to Joan, wife of William Troutbeck, for her labour and charges in going to the king’s mother in foreign parts by command of his father, and for her services to her done and to be done, of £20 a year at the exchequer of Chester by the hands of the chamberlain there.”  CPR 1429-1436,  p. 81

In September Thomas Hille a yeoman of the queen’s cellar petitioned the Council for the corrody in Malmesbury Abbey left vacant by the death of Robert Lake (3).

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

(1) PPC IV, pp. 48-50 (Katherine’s dower).

(2) PPC IV, p. 50 (grant to Joan Troutbeck).

(3) PPC IV, p 67 (corrody).

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

Sir Philip Dymock 

Philip Dymock, King Henry’s champion at his coronation, was the absentee lieutenant of the Tower of London in 1429. He was with the army in France when he petitioned the Council to pay to his attorney the money owed to him for the maintenance of prisoners in the Tower on whose upkeep he had expended over £200 of his own money between the end of February 1429 and April 1430.

Dymock’s petition is printed in the Proceedings (a modern transcript) without the schedule of prisoners to which it refers; it is endorsed 17 May 1430. The schedule is printed in the Foedera without the petition and without a date or a reference to Dymock. Rymer added the heading naming Dymock.  It matches the dates in Dymock’s petition for the period February 1429 to April 1430 but includes two entries for different dates (1, 2):

For John Upton from 11 November 1429 to 23 January 1430. Upton may have been a resident in the Tower, but he was not a prisoner. He was the king’s ‘appellant’ (defender) in the single combat scheduled for 24 January 1430.

See Lawlessness, Single Combat at Smithfield, above.

For Friar John Randolf, from 27 February 1429 to 5 June 1430 at 2 shillings a week. Randolf was the friar whom Gloucester ordered to be released from the Tower in 1425.  The date of 5 June is an error if the schedule was submitted in May.

See Year 1425: Gloucester’s Return, Friar Randolph.

For Guychard de Cesse, captain of Meux, at 13s 4d a week. For Brother John Grace, Thomas Dolle, John White, John Dokeland, and John Ydell at two shillings each a week.

For the attendants of Scottish hostages eight pence a day as John Langton (the sheriff of York) was paid when they were in his custody.

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

(1) PPC IV, pp. 47-48 (Dymock’s petition).

(2) Foedera X, pp 460-461 (schedule of payments).

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

 Cardinal Beaufort and the Duke of Bourbon  

On the eve of his departure for France with King Henry, Cardinal Beaufort and Margaret, Duchess of Clarence negotiated with the Council to expedite the release of her son and Beaufort’s nephew, Thomas Beaufort, the younger of his two Beaufort brothers captured at the Battle of Baugé in 1421.

On 21 April 1430 the Council agreed to remit 2,000 marks of the Duke of Bourbon’s ransom to be applied against Thomas Beaufort’s ransom of 7,000 marks. The Cardinal and the duchess bound themselves to repay the 2,000 marks to the crown if required when King Henry came of age, the same terms as those offered in the negotiations with the Duke of Bourbon in 1427 (1, 2).

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

The Treasurer, Lord Hungerford, was instructed to ascertain what sum was still due to Margaret, Duchess of Clarence as the executrix of the Duke of Clarence’s will. Among Henry V’s many debts, Clarence was owed wages for himself and his retinue for his second quarter’s service in the 1415 campaign to take Harfleur. Henry V had pledged the “Crown Harry” worth £6,000 to Clarence and it should now be redeemed (3). Did the duchess and the cardinal bargain with the Treasurer for 2,000 marks to be applied to the Duke of Bourbon’s ransom in return for surrendering the crown?

Negotiations for the release of the Duke of Bourbon, had been encouraged by Parliament in 1429.

See Year 1429:  The Duke of Bourbon.

Bourbon had accepted the Treaty of Troyes and done homage to Henry VI. He signed an agreement with the Council in which, for the first time, he addressed Henry VI as King of England and France. He undertook that his two sons, but especially his heir, Charles of Clermont, would do homage to Henry within one month after his return to France.  He would pay the balance of his ransom in instalments. He would arrange for the release of John and Thomas Beaufort and deliver them to Calais in part exchange for himself (4).

The Duke of Bourbon fulfilled part of his undertaking: Thomas Beaufort was set free in time to swear fealty to King Henry at Calais in the summer of 1430. Henry created him Earl of Perche, undoubtedly at Cardinal Beaufort’s request. By August Thomas was in command of 120 men-at-arms and 360 archers at La Charité sur Loire (5).

But the Duke of Bourbon remained in England. To clarify the English position vis à vis Bourbon, a formal undertaking was drawn up at Westminster under the Great Seal on 26 November 1430 (6). It recapitulated the terms for Bourbon’s release and recognised that Thomas Beaufort had been set free. It promised en parolle de Roi that Bourbon would be released as soon as he complied with the still outstanding conditions, the failure to pay the balance of his ransom appears to have been the sticking point.

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

(1) PPC IV, pp. 42–44 (Thomas Beaufort’s ransom and release).

(2) Foedera X, pp. 456-457 (Thomas Beaufort’s ransom and release).

(3) PPC IV, pp. 42-44 (redemption of “Crown Harry”).

(4) Foedera X, pp. 438–45 (a recapitulation of Henry V’s agreement with Bourbon and the agreements of 1429 and 1430).

(5) Marshall, ‘English War Captains, p. 109 (Thomas Beaufort in France).

NB: The exact date of Thomas Beaufort’s creation of Earl of Perche is uncertain, but 1427, cited in numerous entries on the World Wide Web, is incorrect. Thomas Montague, Earl of Salisbury was created Earl of Perche by Henry V and he retained the title until his death at the end of 1428.

(6) Foedera X, pp. 478–481 (council’s terms for Bourbon’s release).

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

Paris         

Parisians had become accustomed to suffering food and fuel shortages but the winter of 1429-1430 was especially bleak.

The Bourgeois of Paris recorded widespread distress: at Easter “it was very cold and prices high. . . . so was everything that supports life except apples, from which alone did poor people get any comfort. For lack of oil they ate butter in the Halles this Lent as if it were not a fast.”  Butter was animal fat and therefore prohibited during Lent while olive oil was not but it was too expensive.

Discount, born of desperation, incited rebellion. In March 1430 an inept plot by a group of well to do bourgeois, believing in the rumour that King Charles would meet the Duke of Burgundy at Laon where they would be reconciled through the agency of the Pope (a garbled version of the aborted peace conference at Auxerre) planned to turn the city over to  King Charles. He would issue a general pardon and peace would follow.

The original plan was to encourage a rising at the Porte Baudit [Boudet, Boudeer] in the centre of the city by posting bills on street corners and blowing trumpets to publicise King Charles’s offer a general pardon. A band of armed conspirators would then open the gates at Porte Saint Anthoine, in the city’s eastern wall, to admit the Armagnacs waiting just outside.

This plan was side lined when new comers to the conspiracy argued that an entry through Porte Saint Denis to the north of the city (the gate that Joan of Arc had tried and failed to take in the previous September) would be more effective, especially if a company of Scots, disguised as Englishmen bringing food to the city could gain access, kill the porters at the gate, and admit the Armagnacs. The conspirators would wait in taverns around the gate and rush out to join them.

The rising never took place. The conspirators could not agree on which of the city’s gates would be the easiest for the Armagnacs to gain entry. They drew up three ‘schedules,’ a long one on parchment, a short one on paper, and a third as a revision of the first two, for submission to King Chares and his council to decide which they preferred! The conspirators’ messenger was a Carmelite monk, but the king made it clear from the start that he wanted nothing to do with them.

The plot was betrayed, there were too many people with in the know, and arrets followed. Jehan de Calais, one of the original conspirators who was to have met the Armagnacs outside the Porte Saint Denis, using the cover that he was visiting his vineyard in the surrounding countryside, was imprisoned in the Châtelet, the office of the Provost of Paris.  He was promised a full pardon if he turned king’s evidence, and he gave a full account of the plot. He claimed to be in great poverty and misery and only confessed because he had been promised a pardon. On 5 April a pardon was issued to him in King Henry’s name and sent to the Provost of Paris (1).

Although described as ‘of Calais’ Jehan was obviously a resident of Paris and a man of substance as the plotters met serval times at his house which was staffed by servants. He named Jaquet Perdirel, a money changer, and Guillaume Loir, a goldsmith, together with the Carmelite monk as the originators of the plot. They were joined by Pierre Morant, a proctor at the Châtelet, and Jacquet Guillaume who had a house near the Porte Baudit and who was confident that he could raise a large number of people in the neighbourhood. Jehan also identified Master Jehan de la Chappelle and Regnault Savin as co-conspirators.

The Bourgeois of Paris confirms that there was a rising involving members of the parlement of Paris, officials of the Chatelet, and merchants in the city who were to wear an emblem of a white peacock’s feather so that the Armagnacs would not kill them. Jehan de Calais confessed that he had been told to wear one. The Bourgeois names the Carmelite as Brother Pierre d’Allée. He was arrested along with between one hundred and one hundred and fifty men and under torture named the other conspirators, six of whom were hanged (2, 3).

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

(1)  L&P I, pp. 34–50 (plot to restore Paris to Charles VII).

(2) Bourgeois, pp. 246–247 (plot failed).

(3) Sumption, Triumph and Illusion, p. 336 (rising in Paris).

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

King Henry’s Coronation Expedition to France

Henry of Windsor had been crowned King Henry VI of England in November 1429 as a prelude to his coronation as King Henry II of France, and preparations for him to travel to France began in December.

Two friars arrived in London in February 1430 with letters from the Grand Conseil in Paris. It seems probable that they had been sent to express the council’s anxiety at the delay and to ascertain, if they could, when Henry might be expected to arrive (1, 2).

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

(1) PPC IV, p. 29 (two friars to London).

(2) Foedera X, p. 450 (two friars to London).

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

Loans

The Commons had been generous, and Parliament had granted an additional tax to finance the coronation expedition.

See Year 1429: Taxation.

But the taxes would not be collected fast enough, and the cash flow problem was acute.  In March commissioners in thirty counties were appointed to solicit loans, ‘a notable sum of money’ from everyone who could afford it, for the king’s voyage. Security for repayment was guaranteed against the parliamentary tax. The Foedera names the commissioners for Kent: Archbishop Chichele and the Prior of Canterbury cathedral, Robert, Lord Poynings, John Darrell, Geoffrey Louther, and the sheriff of Kent (1, 2).

Distraint of Knighthood

The Council had also sought additional funds. In February they ordered the sheriffs in every county to issue distraints of knighthood (3). An old law dating back to King Henry III allowed the king to demand that anyone with an annual income of £40 or more from land should be knighted. But knighthood was an expensive business, the fee (or fine) was £40, and it was often avoided. Distraint of knighthood forced those who were eligible to accept.  The requirement was not popular, and the Council had to reissue the order in July (4).

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

(1) Foedera X p. 452 (commission to raise loans).

(2) CPR 1429-1436, pp. 49-51 (commissioners and counties named).

(3) Foedera X, pp. 449–450 (distraint of knighthood, February).

(4) PPC IV, p. 54 (distraint of knighthood, July).

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

The Royal Household

Shipping was requisitioned on 24 February. John Hunt, sergeant at arms, and John Hert were ordered to arrest ships in Newcastle to be at Sandwich by 6 April. John Talbot, sergeant at arms, and John Lexham, were to do likewise in London and adjacent ports, and at Falmouth. (1).

On 26 February John Hotoft, treasurer of the household, who by tradition would become treasurer of war when Henry reached France, was allotted £666 13s 4 (1,000 marks) for household provisions. Robert Rolleston, keeper of the great wardrobe and John Merston, keeper of the jewels were to receive £200 each (2).

On 20 April, as Henry prepared to depart, Hotoft was ordered to pay the arrears of the wages of the clerks of the king’s chapel (£107 10s) from the money assigned to him for household expenses, and to claim reimbursement from the Exchequer. At the same time, he was to repay the £21 for the clerks’ wages that Cardinal Beaufort had advanced (3).

Master John Somerset, King Henry’s physician, his chaplains, Richard Praty and John Carpenter, were awarded 40 marks each, and John Walden, the king’s confessor £40 for their expenses to accompany the king (4).

Four surgeons petitioned the Council to be allowed to reside in royal household to assist William Stalworth at a wage of six pence a day each and for £20 to purchase medicines,  instruments, and other necessities belonging to their calling (5).

Thomas Burgh, the captain of Avranches, received £200 for going to France on the king’s service, although the payment was more of an advance than a wage since he was expected to repay it in June (6). It is not stated if his mission was in connection with the coronation expedition.

 John Hampton, Master of the king’s ordnance was awarded 100 marks in March for the labour and expenses of his office in England and in France for one year (7).

In April William Minors, the captain of Harfleur, and Richard Buckland the treasurer of Calais, were to deliver ordnance to Hampton in Calais: ‘bombards, large and small, and stones for guns, sulphur, saltpetre, gunpowder, leaden mallets, pavises (large shields) vangas (thick ropes) shovels, picks, baletts (small bales for transportation of goods) lances, gables (cables), great hawsers and other small ropes,  artillery, and other instruments of war, offensive and defensive’  but not so much ‘stuff’ as to leave Harfleur and Calais defenceless. Hampton was also to receive £2,212 17s 11d to provide more ordnance ‘for the use of the king in his wars.’ (8)

John Merston, keeper of the king’s jewels was to receive another £200 ‘for the private expenses of the king’s chamber as well in France as in England’ (9). He was instructed to deliver a silver gilt cup to one Francis of Paris whom King Henry had created Louvre Pursuivant at Canterbury. Merston was also to repossess a crown to be taken to France, but first it had to be redeemed. The Treasurer was authorized to pledge crown jewels to the Abbot of Westminster to recover it (10). Was it Saint Edward’s crown, or the lighter one of King Richard II?

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

(1) Foedera X, p. 449 (shipping).

(2) PPC IV, p. 30; Foedera X, p. 450 (household expenses).

(3) PPC IV, p. 39 (wages of chapel clerks).

(4) PPC IV, p. 30; Foedera X, p. 450 (physician, chaplains and confessor).

(5) Foedera X, p. 451 (four surgeons).

(6) PPC IV, p. 18 (Thomas Burgh to France).

(7) PPC IV, p. 31 (Hampton’s wage).

(8) PPC IV, p. 33 (ordnance and purchase of ordnance).

(9) PPC IV, p. 33 (Merston, household expenses).

(10) PPC IV, pp. 34-35 and Foedera X, p. 455 (Merston gift and crown).

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

King Henry’s Entourage  

The royal entourage, military and civilian, was impressive as it was designed to be. The army numbered between 4,000 and 5,000 men (1). They indented to serve for a year rather than the customary six months in anticipation of the campaign to recover towns and castles lost to the French in 1429. Benet’s Chronicle (p. 182) which often inflates military figures, has 40,000 but this may be a copying error.

The coronation expedition army was the largest ever assembled during Henry VI’s long reign. It was comparable in size to that of King Henry V’s army in 1415 (2).

The Keeper of the Privy issued letters for the protection of property on 17 April to the councillors and officers accompanying the king even though they had not indented to serve since they were not going in a military capacity. Protection letters were usually accorded only to men on active service (3).

The Great Chronicle (p. 154) lists Cardinal Beaufort, nineteen magnates and lords, three bishops, and two household officials as accompanying the king.

The Foedera and the Proceedings name only the higher ranks (4).

Richard, Duke of York, the premier peer in England after the Duke of Gloucester, with twelve men at arms and thirty-six archers was paid 1,000 marks. York was still only eighteen and in the king’s household under the governance of the Earl of Warwick who with other members of the Council authorized the payment.

John Mowbray Duke of Norfolk with 480 men.

Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick, John Holand, Earl of Huntingdon and Humphrey, Earl of Stafford with 320 men combined. They took part in the campaign in France

See Campaigns 1430 below.

James Butler, Earl of Ormond came directly to France from Ireland. His son, the nine-year-old James Butler, who would become one of King Henry’s favourite courtiers is not listed in the Great Chronicle. He was in King Henry’s household and joined the king’s entourage with two men at arm and 6 archers.  (CPR 1429-1436, p. 72)

Gaillard IV de Durefort, Lord of Duras and Blanquefort, a Gascon, is not listed in The Great Chronicle. He volunteered with a retinue of sixty men; letters of protection for him for one year were issued in February.

Edmund Beaufort, Earl of Mortain was already in France. He went over in 1429 with Cardinal Beaufort’s army and was captain of Neufchâtel en Bray from October 1429 (5).

Lord Grey of Codnor. Curry identifies him as John, Lord Grey who brought a company of 152 men. He died in September 1430.

John, Lord Beaumont, was just twenty-one. He had been knighted by King Henry at his coronation in London and may have still been in the royal household.

Thomas Courtney, Earl of Devon was fifteen and probably, like York, in the king’s household under Warwick’s care. He too had been knighted to King Henry’s coronation. He was paid £100 to accompany the king.

John de Vere, Earl of Oxford came of age in 1429. He is included in The Great Chronicle but omitted by Curry. He was in England in March 1431 as a commissioner to raise loans. (CPR 1429-36, p. 124).

John d’Arundel, ‘who styled himself Earl of Arundel’ in his indenture. An irregularity in the indenture did not specify what wage he was to receive for his first six months service so an additional sum of £46 was to be paid to him for the second half years’ service. (6). Arundel’s claim to the Earldom of Arundel was not recognised until 1433 (7).

Thomas, Lord Roos.  He was killed in August 1430.

See Campaigns 1430, Sir Thomas Roos below.  

Lionel, Lord Welles. He had livery of his lands in 1427.

Henry Bourchier was the son of Anne, Countess of Stafford by her second husband, Sir William Bourchier, Count of Eu, the title granted to him by Henry V. William died in 1420. Henry Bourchier, styled Count of Eu, was twenty-five in 1430.

William Neville, Lord Fauconberg was the younger brother of Richard Neville, Earl of Salisbury and son of Ralph Neville, first Earl of Westmorland by his second wife, Joan Beaufort.

Arundel, Roos, Welles, Bourchier, and William Neville, Lord Fauconberg had all been knighted by Henry VI at Leicester in 1426.

Philip Dymock, the king’s champion at his Westminster coronation was also in France, probably in the retinue of the Earl of Huntingdon.

See The Council in England above.

John, Lord Scrope was not in the original entourage. He was sent to France by the English council in July to report on the unsatisfactory nature of negotiations with the Scots

See Scotland above.

James, Lord Audley and Walter, Lord Fitzwalter, listed in The Great Chronicle, but they did not arrive in France until a year later as captains in the second army raised by Cardinal Beaufort in 1431. (CPR 1429-36, Fitzwalter).

See Year 1431: Cardinal Beaufort’s Army.

Lewis Robessart, Lord Bourchier and John, Lord Tiptoft accompanied the king as chamberlain of the household and steward of the household respectively.

Philip Morgan, Bishop of Ely and John Stafford, Bishop of Bath and Wells were to be the episcopal members of Henry’s council in France.  They had been granted 700 marks each in February to continue their duties as council members for six months at the same wage as John Kemp had been paid while as Bishop of London he had attended the council in Rouen.

John Langdon, Bishop of Rochester did not cross to France in 1430. According to signatures in the Proceedings he attended council meetings in England in May and in July. A muster list signed by the Duke of Gloucester includes the bishops of Ely and Bath, but not Rochester.

It also lists ten knights in the entourage (8):

William Philip

John Montgomery (see Compiègne below).

John Steward, master of horse (see Compiègne below).

Robert Shotesbroke

Ralph Botiller, war captain, besieged Le Crotoy in 1423.

Richard Woodville, lieutenant of Calais.

John Feriby, comptroller of the household.

Richard Buckland, treasurer of Calais.

William FitzHenry, a knight of the body.

John Bryce [Bruce]

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

(1) A. Curry, ‘The ‘Coronation Expedition,’ and Henry VI’s Court in France, 1430 to 1432,’ pp. 29-52. (Her article is indispensable for details of Henry VI’s expedition not found in the Proceedings or the Foedera and not easily accessible from other sources).

(2) Powicke, ‘Lancastrian Captains,’ in T.A. Sandquist and M.R, Powicke (eds.) Essays in Medieval History presented to Bertie Wilkinson  (1969), pp. 378-318 (for a complete list of those who indented to serve and the size of their retinues).

(3) PPC IV, p. 39 (protection letters for councillors).

(4) Foedera X, pp. 449-451; PPC IV, pp. 28-30 (magnates, bishops and lords).

(5) Marshall, War Captains, p. 261 (Edmund Beaufort).

(6) Powell, House of Lords, pp. 463-464 (Arundel).

(7) Harriss, Beaufort, p. 204 (Audley and Fitzwalter).

(8) Foedera X, pp. 458-459 (ten knights in muster list).

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

King Henry in France  

King Henry crossed to Calais in April.  The Duke of Gloucester as Warden of the Cinque Ports provided four ballingers and their crews to convey the king to France (1).

The army followed. It took almost a month, until the middle of May for the soldiers to be transported as shipping became available.

On 3 May the sheriffs of London were ordered to round up stragglers who had indented but not yet mustered, and the bailiffs of Rochester were instructed not to allow any men who had mustered to return to the town (2).

“And thann the Kynge come to Douyre, and on Seint Georges euyn, withynne nyght, the wethur and wynde was feyre and menabull, and the Kynge was brought to ship withoute Douyre in the roode.  And whanne tyde of passage come, thei toke the see, and passid ouyr and come to Caleis and landed there in the mornynge at vij of the clocke in Seint Georgis Day and that was on the Sonday; and the domynycall letter went by (wente þat tyme A).  And whanne he was landid the Kynge went to the Castell of Caleis; and there he abode tille all his retenewe and orydnaunce were come ouyr the see.  And withynn iij wikis aftur Estur aforne seid, all his pepull with alle his ordynauncis weren come ouyr to the Kynge.”  Brut Continuation D, p. 439

King Henry and his household landed at Calais on the symbolic feast of St George, 23 April 1430. The Duke of Gloucester sent Richard Grygge in a small boat who ‘exposed himself to great danger at sea’ from Dover to Calais and back again to report the king’s safe arrival (3). A letter to the chambre des comptes in Paris announcing his arrival reached Paris on 4 May (4).

King Henry stayed in Calais for three months. Although the route from Calais to Normandy passed through Burgundian territory it was not secure. King Charles’s success in recovering towns to the east of Rouen after his coronation in July 1429 meant that the English army had to clear the way to make it safe to move King Henry to Rouen.

His stay was costly. On 11 July the Council in England ordered a payment of £1,000 to William Aleyn, a clerk of accounts in the king’s household, to meet the king’s expenses (5, 6). Henry left Calais on 17 July and entered ‘his’ capital of Rouen on 29 July where he was welcomed by its citizens as their king and showered with gifts.

“And þen Kyng Henry was brought from Caleys, þugh [458] Normandy to þe Cite of Roan,  with strenght of his lordes, and with men of armes and archers; and there the kyng abode and rested hym in the Castell and the Cite of Roan from Seint Iames tyde the Apostell vnto the secund day of Decembre.

And whan he come first into Rone he was receyued and welcomed for theire liege lord and Kyng, with all reuerence, solempnite, gladnesse and worship þat myght be ordeyned and made; and also they presented hym with ryche and roiall giftes and thanked God of his comyng.”                      Brut Continuation F, p. 458

“And the king went to Rouen where he was honourably received, and then to Paris. And the king remained in France for nearly two years.”  Benet’s Chronicle, p.182

The Duke of Bedford was not in Calais to welcome his nephew. He remained in Rouen. Bedford accepted that while King Henry was in France there could be no Regent of France.

Bedford accounted for the 9,888 livres tournois he had borrowed from Cardinal Beaufort in September 1429, for which he had pledge his jewels and plate. 5,000 livres tournois went to pay the troops (including Beaufort’s army!) who defended Paris. The balance of 4,888 livres tournois and 10 shillings was still outstanding on the Receiver General of Normandy’s books, to be repaid by the crown. Pierre Surreau and the chambre de compte in Rouen were not to be held liable for the repayment (7).

King Henry and the royal household resided in Rouen for sixteen months, from August 1430 to the end of November 1431. It was not safe for him to proceed to Paris until the army accompanying him could clear the way. The town and fortress of Louviers dominating the Seine halfway between Rouen and Paris was in French hands blocking the road and river route. Until it was recaptured King Henry would remain in Rouen

During the Christmas festivities in Rouen in 1430 Anne, Duchess of Bedford presented the manuscript now known as The Bedford Book of Hours to the young king as a Christmas/New Year gift.  It had been commissioned by Bedford as a wedding present to Anne in 1423 and she gave it to Henry with Bedford’s permission, as noted in the manuscript itself by Master John Somerset, Henry’s physician and tutor (8).

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

(1) Foedera X, p. 455 (ballingers for the king).

(2) Foedera X pp. 459-460 (stragglers mustered).

NB: Dated 3 May but without a year, this order may date to 3 May 1431 and Cardinal Beaufort’s army of reinforcements. The heading added by Rymer does not occur in the text.

(3) Issues of the Exchequer, p. 418 (payment for information on King Henry’s arrival).

NB: This is an example of an action in 1430 being recorded much later. Richard Grygge received £5 for his exploit in May 1432).

(4) L&P II, p. 140 (letter announcing Henry’s arrival).

(5) PPC IV p. 54 (£1,000 to Aleyn for household).

(6) Foedera X, p. 470 (Aleyn for household).

(7) L&P II, pp. 141–142 (Bedford repayment of Beaufort’s loan).

(8) L&P I, Preface, p. lxxxi (Bedford Book of Hours).

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

Recovery in Normandy

The Duke of Bedford had stripped the garrisons in Normandy in 1429 to assemble an army to defend Paris. This left the duchy vulnerable to attacks by French troops and raids by free booters who pillaged the countryside unchecked.

The Estates General of Normandy had granted Bedford 140,000 livres tournois in November 1429 to restore order (1).

A letter in King Henry’s name in February 1430 authorized Thomas Blount, Treasurer of Normandy, and Pierre Surreau, Receiver General of Normandy, ‘to tax, collect and receive’ by 8 April 60,000 livres tournois the last instalment of the 140,000 livres tournois levied on the Argentan, Exmes, Domfort, Saint Silvain ‘and other places’ to pay the garrisons’ wages and for men-at-arms and archers to recover Torcy, Aumale, and Conches; 8,000 livres tournois were assigned for men-at-arms to protect the workmen building bastilles at Torcy, Chateau Gaillard, Louviers, and Conches (2).

The Cotentin

The peninsula was assessed at 2,000 livres tournois for 85 men-at-arms and archers for two months to protect Avranches and Vire and to attack and demolish any fortifications erected by the French.

Domfront

Domfront’s levy of 975 livres torunois dated 1 March 1430, was to be paid by 8 April. The clerks who handed the accounts would receive 26 livres tournois. The authorization, printed in Letters and Papers, is addressed to Nicolas Normant, the sheriff of Domfront, Bedford’s proctor, but similar letters would have been sent to other districts.

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

(1) Beaurepaire, Les états de Normandie, p. 39 (tax grant).

(2) L&P II, pp.130–136 (Normandy tax and its use).

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

Pays de Caux

Hugh Spencer, the bailli of the pays de Caux, authorized the sheriff of Arques to pay Robert Golduit sixteen livres tournois for six messengers ‘to make several journeys by day as well as by night’ from early April to June 1430, carrying letters and messages relating to the conduct of the war. The going rate was 20 sols for short journeys and 60 sols for longer journeys (1).

1. To Jehan Bourisiersent from Lillebonne to the captains of Harfleur, Neuville, Valmont, and other garrisons on 2 April to warn them to prepare for a summons from the Regent Bedford to join him whenever he should call for them.
2. To Raoul Fillaistrewhom Spencer sent from Torcy to the sheriffs of Caudebecand Montivilliers to bring the money levied on the towns and parishes in their areas to pay the workmen at Torcy.  Fillaistre also travelled to Rouen carrying letters from John Brinkley and Spencer.
3. To Raoul Merieltravelling from Longueville to the sheriffs of Caudebec and Montivilliers to send carts, trucks, and carriages to assist in the repair of the causeway below Torcy which had been damaged.
4. To Pierre de Briliguycarrying secret letters from John Brinkley and Hugh Spencer to Calais concerning the siege of Torcy.
5. To Colin, the trumpeter of Granville, going from Torcy to Beauvaisto gather information on the enemy’s movements.
6. To Eliot, a pursuivant, carrying letters from John Brinkley and Spencer to the king at Calais concerning the siege of Torcy. The last letter in the list dated 22 June and carried by the pursuivant was addressed to Cardinal Beaufortin Calais requesting him to remove some English troops who were marauding in the area and send them elsewhere ‘on account of the ills they had committed.’ It is an indication that by mid-June the administration of Normandy had shifted from the Regent Bedford to Cardinal Beaufort and was being badly managed.

(1) L&P II, pp. 144-148 (payment to six messengers).

Torcy

The citizens of Torcy in Upper Normandy had opened their gates to King Charles after he was crowned at Reims in July 1429. Wavrin described Torcy as ‘the finest and best built [castle] of all the country roundabout.’

John, Bastard of Clarence laid siege to Torcy as soon as he arrived in France. He had indented to lead an advance force of 49 men-at-arms and 700 archers, and he was granted £100 as a reward on 27 November 1429 (2). He mustered on 12 December (3) and sailed in January 1430 (1, 2).

In January 1430 the sheriff of Arques was ordered to pay the miners and other labourers employed at the siege of Torcy from taxes to be raised by Hugh Spencer (3).

Torcy surrendered to John, Bastard of Clarence in August 1430 (4).

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

(1) PPC IV, p. 8 (reward to Clarence).

(2) CPR 1429-1436, pp. 41-42 (Clarence’s muster).

(3 L&P II, p. 128 (payment to miners and labourers at Torcy).

Stevenson’s footnote: Another mandate respecting the payment of the army before Torcy, dated 25 August 1430, occurs in Addit. Charter 3367.

(4) Wavrin III, p. 212 (John, Bastard of Clarence at Torcy).

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

Chateau Gaillard

Chateau Gaillard was one of the strongest castles in France, built by King Richard the Lionheart on a cliff overlooking the Seine fifty miles north of Paris. It was believed to be impregnable, but it was captured by Etienne de Vignolles, known as La Hire, in February 1430, either by betrayal from within or by a surprise attack.  The Duke of Bedford gave orders for its recovery and sent an additional fifteen men-at-arms and forty-five archers to the siege in March.

Carpenters, masons and other workmen were engaged to build bastilles Thomas Ruras (otherwise unknown) wrote to the council in Rouen, i.e. to Bedford, in early April to warn them that he and Thomas de Beaumont were convinced that unless the workmen, who had received no wages, were paid immediately they would abandon their task and looked for work elsewhere.

They reported that John Lunberry, the under marshal in charge of the siege operations, had paid the men out of his own pocket to keep them on the job. Ruras urged that sufficient funds should be entrusted to the bearer of his letter to be brought back to Chateau Gailard immediately or the siege might have to be abandoned (1).

But the siege continued and La Hire surrendered to Edmund Beaufort, Earl of Mortain in June 1430 (2).

Bedford was so incensed by its capture that he charged its captain, the long serving Sir William Bishopton, with gross negligence. Bishopton was imprisoned in Rouen and heavily fined (3).

A Chronicle of London (Julius B. I.) records its surrender as the thirteenth of the seventeen ‘journeys’ in the campaign of 1430.  “The xiij^th Journey Castel Gailard was wonne.”

See  ‘Seventeen Journeys’  below

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

(1) L&P II, pp. 136-39. (workmen at Chateau Gaillard).

Stevenson’s Footnote: An acquittance for the payment of 15 men at arms and 45 archers serving at the siege before Chateau Gaillard occurs in the Addit. Charter 3656 dated 11 March 1430.

(2) Jones, ‘Beaufort Family,’ pp 75-76 (surrender of Chateau Gaillard).

(3) Barker, Conquest, p. 142 (Chateaux Gaillard capture and recovery).

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

The Campaigns of 1430 

King Henry was accompanied by the largest army sent to France thus far during his reign, but what was the English plan of campaign for 1430, if there was one?

Most of the country between Reims and Rouen was in French hands. Was the army to clear the way for King Henry to be taken to Reims to be crowned? Or to secure the route along the Seine from Rouen to Paris and crown Henry in the capital?  There was no overall commander, magnates split into individual commands, each directing his own part in the war piece meal.

“And the Kynge anon aftur by his Counseill sent dyuerse lordis knyghtis and capitainys with her men of armys and archeris and ordynauncis to dyuers tounys Castelles and Garysonys of his in Fraunce and Normandie for keypynge and strengthynge of his liege pepull and kepynge of his titull and right.”  Brut Continuation D p. 439

“And in the tyme of his abiding in þe Cite of Roan there were many iourneyes done in dyuers partyes of Fraunce and Normandy, which be not titled in this boke; for y haue not full conusuaunce of theym, how, ne it what place nor where they were doon.” Brut Continuation F, pp. 457-458

Compiègne

The town of Compiègne on the river Oise northeast of Paris was in French hands. The citizens had opened its gates to King Charles in August 1429, and part of the deal between Cardinal Beaufort and the Duke of Burgundy was that English troops would serve with the Burgundian army to re-capture it.

See Cardinal Beaufort and the Duke of Burgundy above.

The siege of Compiègne was begun in April by the Duke of Burgundy himself, but he soon left it in the hands of John of Luxembourg and the Earl of Huntingdon. Although it ended in failure the siege of Compiègne had an important, perhaps the most important effect, on the war in France.

Joan of Arc Captured at Compiègne

Joan of Arc left the French court without the king’s permission to go to the aid of Compiègne. She took part in a number of skirmishes around the town until on 23 May 1430, she led a sortie and was repulsed. She failed to retreat to safety inside the town’s gate and was captured by Burgundian soldiers under the command of John of Luxembourg.

“The first Journey was at Pountnake: the Pucelle with a grete power put to flight. “The second Journey was in a wodde biside Compeigne: the Pucelles mayny ij^c were discounfeited of xxx Englishemen and there were xj Armynake prisoneers. “The iij^d Journey the Pucelle was taken at Compeigne and many of her mayny slayne and drowned.” A Chronicle of London, Julius B, I., pp. 170-171

John of Luxembourg was away from the siege when Joan was captured, but he was the Burgundian commander and under the laws of medieval warfare Joan became Luxembourg’s prisoner. She remained in his custody for seven months until John sold her to the English for a ransom of  10,000 livres tournois. She was brought to Rouen on Christmas Eve 1430 to stand for trial.

“And in the same yere the xv day of May ther was made a Journey in Fraunce bisidis the toune of Compyne; and at that Journey were slayn of Frensshe men Armynakkis and Scottis the nombre of viij c of good mennnys bodyes; and there were take also of the Frensshe and of her compeny many Cote armuris. 

And at that same Journey was take the wicche of Fraunce that was callid th[e] Pusshell; and she was take alle armyd as a man of armys; and by her crafte of sorserie alle the Frensshe men and her company trystid for to haue ouyrcome alle the Englisshe pepull.  But God was lord and maistir of that victorie and scomfiture and so she was take and brought and kept in hold bi the Kynge and his counseill all tymes at his commaunement and wille.”                        Brut Continuation D, p. 439

The prominence given to Joan’s capture obscures the number of men who were killed or captured at Compiègne. Brut Continuation D claims that 800 French and Scots were killed, and a number of French gentlemen captured. Sir John Montgomery and Sir John Stewart, Henry’s master of horse, were wounded in the fight, Montgomery in the arm, while Stewart was struck in the thigh by a crossbow bolt.

“And at that Journey of Englisshe men weren Capitaynys Sir John Mountegomere and Sir John Steward, knyghtis of the Kyngis houshold with her retenewe.  And there was Sir John Mountegomere smyte his arme vn two; and Sir James Steward was shotte unto the thye with a quarell and yet God sent hem good hele and welfare and Scomfiture of all her enemyes: blessid be God!” Brut Continuation D, p. 439

It was the greatest stroke of luck to come England’s way for many a year and it came as an enormous relief. The Duke of Bedford and most English soldiers believed Joan to be a witch; she posed a far graver threat than any French army. Modern accounts dramatize and romanticise Joan’s capture because of her subsequent fate, and the enduring power of her legend.

(1) K, Devries, Joan of Arc a military history, pp. 169-176.

 Joan and the Duke of Burgundy

The Duke of Burgundy wrote to Henry VI to tell him the good news and to associate himself with Joan’s capture.

To my moost doubted lord the kyng

My moost doubted lord I recommaund me to you as moche and as mekely as I may And please it you to wete my moost doubted lord that this day the xxiij day of May aboute vj after none youre adversaries and myne that were with grete power in the toune of Compeigne afore which toune I am logged with myne and with these that ye senden under governaunce of sir John Mongomory  and sir John Styward come oute with grete puyssaunce upon the vaunwarde which was next hem.  And with hem come she that they calle the pucelle with mony of here chief chevteyns and ageyn hem come anone my Cosyn sir John Luxenburgh and other of youre folkes and of myne which made right grete and sharpe resistance. And I come thider in myne owne persone. And founde that the said Adversaries were putte abakke. And by the pleasaunce of oure blessed creature it fill so And  god gave me such grace that she that they calle the pucelle was taken.  And with here mony Capitaynes knyghtes and squyers and other taken and drowned and dede whos names I knowe not [y]it.” Great Chronicle, p. 155

Burgundy visited Joan (out of curiosity?) but what he said to her is not recorded.  Monstrelet, coy for once in his usually vivid and detailed chronicle, says only “the duke . . . spoke some words to her; but what they were I do not now recollect, although I was present” (1). Possibly Joan had the best of the exchange?

(1) Monstrelet I, p. 472 (Burgundy visited Joan).

 

 John Holand, Earl of Huntingdon

John of Luxembourg was rewarded for capturing Joan but it was John, Earl of Huntingdon who conducted the unsuccessful campaign to recapture Compiègne. The chronicle Julius B I records his efforts somewhat haphazardly:

“the viij^th Journey therle of Huntyngdon toke gonnes quarrells and crosbowes comyng toward Compeigne the nombre of an c and xx men of armes and vileyns many.”

“the ix^th Journey the seid erle of Huntyngdon and his compeigny token vi strengthes and chirches and brent many; and he gate a grete towne callid Crepynaloys. And thei praied hym that thei myght stand in the same forme that thei of Compeigne shulde, and therto thei sent hym ij m¹ salves of golde for expenses.”

“the x^th Journey the seid erle of Huntyngdon made a rode frome the duke of Burgoyne and met with a compeigny of Scotts distressid them and toke there capitayne.”

“The xvj^th Journey the first day of July, there were comyng towards Compeigny of Scotts and of Armynakes to the nombre of iiij m¹ and in theire comyng thiderward therle of Huntyngdon met them and there toke the capiteyne of the Scotts and iiij^xx other gret capiteyns; and there were slayne and taken xv^c of Scottis and Armynakes.”

Huntingdon intercepted a French convoy bringing armaments to Compiègne; he captured 120 men-at-arms and ‘vileyns many.’ Wavrin mentions that the French employed ‘peasants’ to repair damage to roadways and fornications.

Huntingdon took the town of Crépy en Valois, ‘Crepynaloys,’ between Senlis and Soissons. The citizens paid him a large tribute of 2,000 saluts. He raided the surrounding countryside taking castles and churches (for their wealth). He plundered the church at Verberie and hanged the leader of the local resistance, but, more lucratively, he held others to ransom and exacted tribute, eventually returning to the siege with the spoils (1).

At some point, he encountered company of Scots and captured their captain. Julius B I is the only source for this encounter. It may refer to the contingent of Scots sent by Charles VII to join Dunois and the Count of Vendôme who were at Senlis in June. He faced an army of 4,000 French and Scots coming towards Compiègne on 1 July. He captured the Scots captain and eighty other captains and killed or captured 1500 Scots and French. This account is not corroborated by Wavrin or Monstrelet

Julius B. I. recounts two encounters with Scottish forces in which the Earl of Huntingdon captured a Scottish captain. It conflates Huntingdon’s presence at Compiègne with an earlier episode in his military career under Henry V, possibly to gloss over the ignominious flight of the English army from Compiègne: On 3 March 1420 “a force of French and Scots, which had left le Mans with the object of relieving Fresnay-le-Vicomte was ambushed by a detachment under the Earl of Huntingdon and cut to pieces, the marshal de Rieux and the war chest of the Scots being captured” (2).

At the end of October, a French army, 4,000 strong (no mention of the Scots) entered the town and the siege was lifted. The Duke of Burgundy never recovered Compiègne.

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

(1) Wavrin III, pp. 221-222 (Huntingdon captures towns).

(2) Wylie & Waugh III, p. 216 (Huntingdon in 1420).

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

Seventeen ‘journeys’  

A Chronicle of London (Julius B. I. pp. 170-171) records seventeen ‘journeys’ or armed clashes of varying importance throughout 1430: “Journeis that were done after the kyng was landid at Caleis.” The chronicle records only English victories and some are difficult to elucidate where dates and details are not given.

NB: Cottonian MS Julius B I ends with the death of Edward IV in 1483 and so was compiled long after the events it describes.

Lord Willoughby and Lord Scales

“the iiij^th Journey the lord was the lord Wilby brent a chirch and vj^xx men and boies therynne. The v^th Jounrey the lorde Scales toke and slough of the dukes men of Launson iij^c.”

Robert, Lord Willoughby and Thomas, Lord Scales were veterans of the wars in France.

 Lord Willoughby was already in France when King Henry arrived in Calais, although it is not known where. The chronicle records that he burned a church with men it, which would have been standard practice at this time if they refused to surrender.

Lord Scales would certainly have taken part in the 1430 campaign if he was free. He had been captured at the Battle of Patay in 1429 and the date of his release is not known. He is listed by Wavrin but not The Great Chronicle, as accompanying King Henry to France (1, 2).  Julius B I claims he encountered the Duke of Alençon’s men, killed 300 of them and captured others.

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

(1) Wavrin III, p 219 (Lord Scales with King Henry).

(2) Curry, p. 36, n. 39 ‘Scales did not cross with the king but was already in France.’

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

Saint Maur les Fossés

“the vj^th Journey the kyngs householde mayny biside Parys an Englisehe mile out of Boys seint Vyncent token a strong abbeie with tretis.”

A detachment of French forces had occupied and fortified the Benedictine abbey of  St Maur des Fossés seven miles from Paris beyond the Bois de Vincennes (6). On 2 June English troops, described as ‘household men’ were sent from Calais to besiege the town and the abbey. The inhabitants negotiated a surrender and were permitted to leave. The English then ransacked the abbey and the town (1).

(1) Bourgeois, pp. 249-50 (Saint Maur des Fossés).

Lewis Robessart, Lord Bourchier

“the vij^th Journey the lord Chamberleyne distresssid La Here and slough and toke of his meyny into iij^c and at the same Journey was slayne S^r Symon Filbrigges sone and his heire.”

Robessart was King Henry’s chamberlain. His encounter with La Hire is not confirmed by any other source and may refer to an earlier otherwise unrecorded incident near Rouen. I have been unable to identify ‘Sir Filbrigge’ or his son.

Wavrin claims that the Earl Huntingdon and Robessart with 1,000 men were stationed at Vendette, a town on the River Oise not far from Compiègne in June (1).

Robessart and Thomas Beaufort were on their way to reinforce the Burgundians at Compiègne when they encountered a superior Franco-Scottish force under Poton de Xaintrailles at Conty fifteen miles from Amiens, on the Evoissons River. Robessart, as a Knight of the Garter, refused to flee and was killed (2)

The Compete Peerage II, (p. 248) dates Robessart’s death to 26 November 1431 but gives no source. This may be an error for November 1430 as a writ of diem clausit extremum was issued in respect of him on 26 January 1431 (8).  Gregory’s Chronicle (p. 171) says he was buried in Westminster Abbey but not where, when, or how he died.

[Inserted in MS 1431-1432] this yere died Robsert lord bourchier & is beried att Westminster. Great Chronicle, p. 155

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

(1) Wavrin III, p. 220 (Robessart).

(2) Sumption, Triumph and Illusion, p. 358

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

Senlis

“the xj^th Journey ij^c Englisshemen of the kyngs house were bifore seint Lis and token bestes and lx prisoners, whose capitayne was called Arnold of Gilias of Alaffert Baynarde, the whiche as men wende myght paie a m¹ marc of golde, and another was La Heres brother.”

Senlis, a fortified town on the River Oise, was attacked by two hundred men ‘of the household,’ i.e. a contingent of the army of 1430. They captured the castle and took sixty prisoners including La Hire’s brother, Amado [Maddok] de Vignolles and the wonderfully named ‘Arnold of Gilias of Alaffert Baynarde’ who was rumoured to have paid 1,000 marks for his release. The name of the English captain and the date of the attack is not given, but the capture of La Hire’s brother at Senlis is confirmed in the Duke of Burgundy’s complaint King Henry and the council at Rouen in November 1430 (1).  The attack was a raid probably a raid, or the French recovered tit quickly, Senlis was in French hands September.  It was the gathering point for the French army to relieve the siege of Compiègne.

See  John Holand, Earl of Huntingdon, below

(1) L&P II, pp. 178-179 (La Hire’s brother captured).

John Mowbray, Duke of Norfolk

“The xij^th Journey the duke of Norfolk met with Lumbardes vj^xx speres distressid them. and toke their capiteyne and many moo chirches abbeis and castells that were strong viij or ix and hangid them that were therynne and breke downe castells and chirches that were  right strong.”

Norfolk defeated 120 Lombard men-at-arms, mercenaries in King Charles’s pay, and captured their captain. He hanged inhabitants of the towns who resisted him, broke down their fortifications and ransacked their churches.

“The xvij^th Journey the duke of Norfolk gate Dammartyn and two other grete townes; and the dolphin was that tyme at Jargowe v leges byonde Orliunce.”

Pockets of Charles VII’s forces occupied fortified positions around Paris. They had to be cleared out before it would be safe to bring Henry VI to the capital. The Duke of Norfolk campaigned in the Isle de France where he ‘put many fortresses into the obedience of King Henry’ including Dammartin (1). Twelve fortresses were captured in June and July (2).  King Charles VII, still ‘the dauphin’ in English accounts, was at Jargeau in May and June 1430 (3).

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

(1) Wavrin III, p. 225 (Norfolk’s campaign).

(2) Bourgeois, p. 251 (Norfolk and Stafford campaigns).

(3) Beaucourt, Charles VII, vol. II, p. 265 (King Charles at Jargeau).

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

Humphrey, Earl of Stafford

“The xiiij^th Journey therle of Stafford gate Arlmarle and therynne was vj^xx and vj men; of the which v^xx were hangid and the remenaunt in the kings wille.”

The Earl of Stafford besieged Aumâle in July. He captured 126 men and hanged 100 of them (1). The rest submitted!  Monstrelet mistakenly wrote the Earl of Suffolk and said he hanged thirty men who had previously sworn allegiance to the English (2).

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

(1) Wavrin III, p. 214 (Stafford’s campaign).

(2) Monstrelet I, p. 566 (mistakes Suffolk for Stafford).

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

Sir Ralph Butler

“The xv^th Journey Sir Raffe Butler gate a pile and brake it downe.”

Butler was one of the Duke of Bedford’s war captains defending Normandy.  There is no record of what ‘pile’ (building) he took and demolished. He had successfully besieged Le Crotoy in 1423.

See Year 1423: The Siege of Le Crotoy

Thomas, Lord Roos   

The Duke of Burgundy had abandoned any pretence of governing Paris within weeks of the governorship being granted to him in October 1429.

See Year 1429: The Duke of Bedford and the Duke of Burgundy.

In 1430 Thomas, Lord Roos, the twenty-four-year-old son-in-law of the Earl of Warwick, was the Council in Rouen’s somewhat surprising choice to become the governor of Paris.  He had served under the Duke of Bedford in 1427 and accompanied Henry VI to France in 1430.

He entered Paris ostentatiously on 16 August, with ‘four musicians going ahead of him with bugles and trumpets,’ but the new governor did not enjoy his office for long (1).

Two days later French raiders carried off a herd of sheep and cattle from outside the city walls (a common occurrence). Lord Roos immediately gave chase.  The French forded the Marne, but in their haste Roos and some of his men missed the ford, plunged into the river, and drowned. The Bourgeois of Paris records that ‘another English knight, who was Captain of Bois de Vincennes,’ whom he does not name, was also drowned.

Sir John Butler was among those killed in the pursuit. He may have been a relative of Sir Ralph Butler who was in King Henry’s entourage (2).

Lewis Robessart, Lord Bourchier also died in 1430, but at Conty near Amiens, not with Roos on the Marne.

“And about All Saints’ Day Lord Roos and Lord Bourgchier were killed.” Benet’s Chronicle, p. 183

[Inserted in MS] this yere died Robsert lord bourchier & is beried att Westminster. Great Chronicle, p. 155

“In the same year about the feast of St Michael [29 September] Lord Roos was drowned and Lord John Butler was killed” submerses Dominus le Roos et dominus Johannes Butteler occisus.      

English Historical Literature (A Northern Chronicle 1399-1430) p. 291

Lewis Robessart, Lord Bourchier also died in 1430, but at Conty /Amiens, not with Roos on the Marne

See Lewis Robessart, Lord Bourchier above.

Humphrey, Earl of Stafford, who had taken Brie-Comte-Roger southeast of Paris and  captured the town of Aumâle, was chosen to replace Roos and appointed the English Constable of France (3).

An order to John Gage, the receiver of Fécamp, issued in Paris on 3 September instructed him to deliver 16,000 francs to Etienne Braque ‘the king’s treasurer of the wars’ for payment to the Constable of France (4).

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

(1) Bourgeois, p. 251 (Roos entered Paris).

(2)  CFR 1430-1437, pp. 1–2. (Writs of diem clausit extremum for Thomas de Roos, knight, were issued on 16 September 1430, and for John Botiller, Kt., on 14 October 1430).

(3) Bourgeois, p. 253 (Stafford governor and constable).

(4) L&P II, p. 150 (payment to Stafford).

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

Conduct and Costs of the War

Desertions

The army’s wages for the first six months had been paid in England, but from October 1430 the Exchequer in Rouen was expected to foot the bill for the second six months and payment became erratic. By the end of 1430 desertion in the ranks was a major problem.

The Duke of Gloucester issued an order to the sheriffs of London, to the Constable of Dover and the Wardens of the Cinque Ports, and in five other counties, to arrest men who had returned illegally from France before their indentures expired.  Rymer’s heading to this order in the Foedera is unfortunate and inaccurate. Men did not desert because they feared the Maid, who had been captured and defeated: they deserted through boredom, homesickness, lack of pay, lack of leadership, and a sense that the war was going badly (1).

(1) Foedera X, p. 472 (order to arrest deserters).

Shipping

It was of vital importance to keep the sea lanes open and protect the channel crossing while King Henry was in France if regular communication between London and Rouen was to be maintained. Two Friars Minor were paid £10 in June for bringing letters and messages to England from ‘the king’s council in Paris’ (1). Such messengers would have gone back and forth on a regular basis.

Commissioners were appointed to take the musters for ships impressed in Exeter, Dartmouth, Plymouth, Southampton Fowey, Falmouth, and Bristol to serve at sea for six weeks. Robert Burton, one of the commissioners, was allotted 2,100 marks ‘for the victualing of the armed forces sent to sea against the king’s enemies.’ It was little enough, but it was all the government could afford (2).

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

(1) PPC IV, p. 52 (Friars Minor and ships’ musters).

(2) CPR 1429-1436. p. 74 (ships’ musters).

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

Taxation in Rouen

The Council in Rouen under Cardinal Beaufort’s direction collected outstanding taxes, subsidies, and other revenue due to the crown wherever monies owing could be detected. Local clerks suddenly became ‘treasurers of the wars’ to collect what was due.  The examples in Letters and Papers are only two of the many demands which were sent out all over Normandy.

No delay or excuse for failure to collect was accepted. From Savigny, on a Wednesday at the end of September, Thomas de la Becque, clerk of Jacques Renart ‘treasurer of the wars’ instructed Raoul Campion, Receiver General of Lower Normandy, to transfer to Le Mans the 7,200 francs still owing out of the 11,200 francs assessed on his area, and to waste no  time in sending it. Becque himself would be at Le Mans on the following Tuesday to receive it. He commended himself to the royal officials in Caen if Campion should see them. This may not have been a threat, but it sounds like one (1).

A lapse of time was no impediment. In October the city officials of Rouen borrowed 40 livres tournois from Michiel Basin to make up the 12,000 saluts still owed by the city from its terms of surrender to Henry V in 1419!  (2).

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

(1) L&P II, p. 152 (Lower Normandy’s debt).

(2) L& P II, pp. 154-155 (Rouen’s debt).

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

 Taxation in England  

Repayment of loans raised to send King Henry to France had been guaranteed against Parliament’s second tax grant. In May the Council ordered assignments for the repayment of £6,666 13s 4¼d to the Mayor and Common Council of London levied on eight counties. A schedule of individuals and towns to be repaid for their loans in varying amounts, beginning with Sir John Cornwall, lists 141 names (1).

At the end of June payment or assignment was made on the tax voted by Convocation to repay the 3,500 marks lent to the king by the Mayor of the Calais Staple for the men-at arms and archers sent to defend Paris before King Henry arrived in Calais. This may be the Bastard of Clarence’s army that left England in January (2).

See Recovery in Normandy above

By the autumn of 1430 it had become obvious that more men and money would be needed in the New Year if King Henry was to proceed to Paris, and that the cost would fall heavily on the English Exchequer.

The council in England decided in October that Parliament must be summoned and further taxes sought. The council in Rouen agreed, and on 27 November ‘the king’s letters having been read in the Star Chamber at Westminster,’ William Alnwick, Keeper of the Privy Seal was directed to authorise Chancellor Kemp to issue a warrant for Parliament to convene in January 1431 (3).

A note of desperation or panic is reflected in the orders to the Exchequer dated 2 December: the Treasurer and Chamberlains were to make whatever payments were necessary ‘for the king’s service.’ The sum of £10,000 should be sent before Christmas to John Hotoft, ‘treasurer of the household and of war’ but if this amount could not be raised, then smaller sums were to be sent at the discretion of the Treasurer.  Two ships with 100 archers as well as the ships’ crews were to be impressed to carry whatever cash was available from Winchelsea to Dieppe (4).

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

(1) Foedera X, pp. 461–467 (repayment to London and 141 others named).

(2) PPC IV, p. 52 (repayment to the Calais Staple).

(3) PPC IV, pp. 67-68 (Parliament to be summoned).

(4) PPC IV, pp. 72-73 (money from the Exchequer for ‘the king’s service’).

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

Debt Repayment

Money might be desperately short, but on 6 November the Council authorised payment to Cardinal Beaufort of £1,000 for his quarter’s wage for attending on the king as agreed at the council meeting on 16 April (1, 2). A loan from Beaufort to continue the campaign in France might be needed if Parliament proved recalcitrant.

Other debts had to be honoured: on 9 November the Council assigned 2,000 marks to John Hotoft, ‘treasurer of the household and treasurer of war’ to repay Pope Martin’s servant, Master Leonard. The money had been borrowed by the king’s council while King Henry was in Calais. Payment was to be made to John Obizis the papal collector (3).  Curry notes that on 24 November arrangements were made to repay the Calais Stapler’s loan of 3,500 marks made in the previous June (4).

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

(1) PPC IV, 68 (payment to Cardinal Beaufort).

(2) Foedera X. p. 472 (payment to Cardinal Beaufort).

(3) PPC IV, p. 71 (repayment to Pope Martin’s representative).

(4) Curry, ‘Coronation Expedition,’ p. 39, n. 56 citing E404/47/149 (repayment to Calais Staplers).

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

 

The Duke of Burgundy   

The Duke of Burgundy laid the blame for his failure to capture Compiègne squarely on King Henry and the council in Rouen. His letter to King Henry of 4 November 1430 and his instructions to his envoys of the same date form one long litany of self-righteous repetitive complaints: (1).

Burgundy said he had not wanted to fight at Compiègne (despite the fact that he had been jubilant when the Maid was captured there and had attended the siege in person) indeed he had not wanted to fight at all, he had been persuaded by Cardinal Beaufort’s promises made on behalf of the English king and council. He had performed his part and kept his word, and as a result his lands in the County of Burgundy, in the Marches of Picardy, and in Namur had all suffered ‘in the business of your war of France.’

Cardinal Beaufort had promised him a subsidy of 19,500 francs a month as wages for his soldiers, plus the costs of his artillery.

See Cardinal Beaufort and the Duke of Burgundy above.

Payment was now two months in arrears, and he had been forced to defray some of the costs himself, which not part of the agreement. Despite his best efforts his men had deserted for lack of pay and so had the Earl of Huntingdon’s, which had resulted in the loss of Compiègne. Burgundy hoped and expected to receive the money owed to him as soon as his letter reached the king since it was by no means the first time he and his war captains had written to complain, and his officials had been waiting at Calais for months.

Burgundy issued a warning and a threat: he could not maintain an army in the field unless he was paid promptly and regularly. He had summoned reinforcements to assemble at Corbie by 10 November and he hoped the Council planned to do likewise.

The ‘enemy’ was gaining ground everywhere while the English were losing it, without a more concerted military effort they could end up losing the war, the implication being that if he withdrew (as he had at the siege of Orleans in 1428) this was a likely outcome.

Burgundy’s instructions to his envoys, Pierre de Bauffremont and Jehan de Tressy are addressed to King Henry, to the Duke of Bedford, to Cardinal , to the Earl of Warwick and the rest of the council in Rouen. They are more detailed than his letter although the theme is the same: the English have let him down.

The envoys were to state that the duke had agreed to take part in the war against his better judgment and the advice of his councillors, he had performed all that he promised, and his lands had suffered heavily as a result. He had sent archers to secure towns along the frontiers and written to local officials to stand firm: his envoys could show the Council copies of his letters. The French had overrun the area between the Oise and the Seine and boasted openly that this was just the beginning. He had summoned reinforcements, and he urged the English to do the same. They should make more of an effort to stem the French advance, it was their war, and they could not afford to lose it. He could not be expected to continue to contribute troops without immediate payment. Thus far the instructions echo Burgundy’s letter.

Failure to pay the subsidy and the loss of Compiègne were not Burgundy’s only bones of contention. His envoys were instructed to raise further points at issue and to demand answers:

Burgundian territories were surrounded by enemies, especially the County of Burgundy in the east, and that the ‘Dauphin’ was about to make alliances with the Duke of Austria and the princes of the German states who would be well placed to invade the County.

Burgundy had asked the Council to provide him with two, or even one thousand archers to defend his frontiers, and had received a provisional undertaking which had subsequently been indefinitely delayed.  He had reliable information that the ‘Dauphin’ was at Moulins in the Bourbonnais with a large army and that other French armies are massing along the frontiers of Burgundy in the Mâconnais and Auxerrois. The inhabitants there were naturally anxious, they had sent to the duke for assistance. The Burgundian army has men- at- arms but is desperately in need of archers and the envoys are to request the Council to appoint a reliable war captain and send him with archers to join the defence of Burgundy’s frontiers.

Burgundy had offered to accept custody of the Duke of Bourbon in part payment of what he was owed, and if the money for artillery could not be found, his offer still stood.  John, Duke of Bourbon was not as closely related to King Charles as the Duke of Orleans, but he was still a prince of the blood. He would have been an invaluable bargaining chip in any negotiations Duke Philip chose to initiate with King Charles. Charles would not bargain with the English for Bourbon’s release, but he might with the Duke of Burgundy.

The envoys were to suggest that it was time consider a negotiated settlement of the war (Burgundy had referred to shortening the war in his letter). Pope Martin had selected two cardinals, the Cardinal des Ursins and the Cardinal of St Peter ad Vincula, to come to France but not at papal or Burgundian expense. Cardinal des Ursins expenses should be paid by King Henry and Cardinal of St Peter ad Vincula’s by the ‘Dauphin.’ Pope Martin might agree to levy a clerical half tenth to pay for des Ursins, but as this would take time to collect and delay des Ursins arrival, immediate payment in ready money would be best.

Four Burgundian war captains, Jehan, Lord of Créquy, Jacques and Florimond de Brimeu,  and Waleran de Beauval had been captured by the French at Compiègne. They would undoubtedly be treated badly and possibly executed unless they were exchanged. he English were holding André, Lord of Rambures, who had been captured at Aumâle by the Earl of Stafford and sent as a prisoner to England  and La Hire’s brother captured at Senlis.

See Campaigns, 1430 above.

The Burgundian captains had served King Henry well and it was fitting that he should agree to an exchange and not release his prisoners for ransom.

The people of Cassel, a castellany in Flanders, who had rebelled against the Duke of Burgundy unjustly and unreasonably, had the temerity to appeal to the parlement of Paris and the parlement had upheld the appeal despite King Henry’s order to them not to interfere (2).  Burgundy feared that the rebellion might spread to the rest of Flanders ‘which God forbid!’ The envoys were to request King Henry to command the parlement and the royal officers in Amiens and Montreuil not to support or encourage the citizens of Cassel to continue their outrages.

The Council made a small gesture to propitiate the Duke of Burgundy.  Sir John Montgomery had recovered from the wound he received at Compiègne and was at Calais in November.  He was ordered to join Burgundy with 17 men-at-arms and 207 archers for forty days service. He was to receive £229 13s 4d for their wages, at 8 pence a day and 6 pence a day respectively, with an additional sum of £643 for the grooms and pages in his retinue (3).

And to ensure that John of Luxembourg was not discouraged by the defeat at Compiègne, the English council authorised a second payment of £500 (possibly on instructions from Beaufort) under the terms of service negotiated with Luxembourg (4).

See Cardinal Beaufort and the Duke of Burgundy above.

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

(1) L&P II, pp. 156-164 (Burgundy’s letter) pp. 164-181 (instructions to his envoys).

(2) C.A.J. Armstrong, ‘La double monarchie et la maison de Bourgogne,’ in England, France and Burgundy,  pp. 359-360.

(3) PPC IV, p. 72 (Montgomery and Luxembourg).

(4) Foedera X, p. 481 (Montgomery and Luxembourg).

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

Bibliography 1430

Primary Sources

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

Bourgeois of Paris, A Parisian Journal, trans. J. Shirley (1968)

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

CPR. Calendar of the Patent Rolls 1422-1429

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

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

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

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)

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)

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

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

Rotuli Parliamentorum V

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

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

Secondary Sources

Armstrong, C.A.J., ‘La double monarchie et al maison de Bourgogne,’ in England, France and Burgundy in the Fifteenth Century (1983)

Barker, J., Conquest (2009)

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

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

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

Curry, A., ‘The Coronation Expedition and Henry VI’s Court in France 1430 to 1432,’ in The Lancastrian Court, ed. J. Stratford (2003)

De Vries, K., Joan of Arc: a military leader (1999)

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

Given Wilson, C., Henry IV (2016)

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

Lloyd. T.H., The English Wool Trade in the Middle Ages (1977)

Munro, J.H. Wool, Cloth, and Gold (1973)

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

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

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

Ratcliffe, C., The Staffords, Earls of Stafford and Dukes of Buckingham 1394-1521 (1978)

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 vol V, Triumph and Illusion (2023).

Thielemans, M-R, Bourgogne et Angleterre (1966)

Vale, M.G.A., English Gascony (1970)

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

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)

Thesis

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