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

 Council Membership

The Proceedings record thirty-one meetings of the council in 1441 and a list of members.

Eleanor Cobham

The trial and conviction of Eleanor Cobham, Duchess of Gloucester and her accomplices on charges of witchcraft and treason occupied the Council and the public throughout the summer and autumn of 1441.

The Magnates

Duke of Gloucester. Edmund Beaufort. Lord Cromwell. Earl of Westmorland. Earl of Huntingdon. François de Surienne. Sir John Radcliffe.

Council Proceedings

Frodsham. A mercer of London. Scots Safe Conducts.

The Council as Judges

Thomas Bocher. Sir Robert Ogle. William Flete.

The Church

William Aiscough, Bishop of Salisbury. William Alnwick, Bishop of Lincoln. John Lydgate. Adam Moleyns. Cistercians. Child Oblates. Guild of St Nicholas.

 Affray in Oxford

A clash between Scottish and English students resident in two halls of the University of Oxford.  Unique to Benet’s Chronicle.

London

Genoese Merchants. Mayor of London: Robert Clopton and Ralph Holand.

Trade with the Netherlands

Representatives from Holland and Zeeland hoped to negotiate an easing of the bullion and partition ordinance but the English Council refused.

The Hanseatic League

English merchants complained of their treatment in towns belonging to the Hanseatic League.

Foreign Relations

St John of Jerusalem, Rhodes. Robert Botill. Archbishop of Cologne. Emperor Frederick. 

Peace Talks

King Henry sent envoys to meet French delegates at Calais. The French did not come.

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

Crown jewels. York’s Departure.

Garter King of Arms

Two letters from William Bruges, Garter King of Arms.

War in France

Council in Rouen. Creil. Pontoise

Calais

Calais mint.

Duchy of Normandy 

The council in Rouen warned of the threat to Normandy. Sir John Popham was sent to Rouen. The English Council wrote to Lord Talbot and the captains of garrison towns to prepare for a French attack. The cost of maintain the Duke of York’s army in Normandy was discussed.

The Duchy of Gascony

A delegation came to London from Gascony to warn King Henry of the threat to the duchy. Robert Vere. Augerot de Saint Pée and James Harsage. The Seneschal of the Landes. Tartas. Bayonne. Sir Philip Chetwynde.

The Earl of Devon and Sir William Bonville

The Council attempted to settle the feud between Thomas Courtenay Earl of Devon and Sir William Bonville which had turned violent in the West Country. The protagonists were brought before the Council and ordered to keep the peace on pain of severe penalties.

The Proceedings record thirty-one meetings of the council in 1441. Two in January, three in February, two in March, three in April, five in May, and one in June.  There are no records after June until three in October. The busiest month was November with eleven meetings dealing with a wide variety of issues from instructions to the Duke to York to disputes between unknown and unidentified individuals. Not all of the councillors listed were present at all the meetings.

NB:  PPC V, p. 155, 26 October 1441, is misdated: The king had been informed of a threat to Le Crotoy and the Duke of York was to be ordered to look to its defence lest it fall to the French.  It belongs in 1437.

See Year 1437: Le Crotoy.

NB 2: PPC V, pp. 175-76.  It seems odd, unless the entry in the Proceedings was copied into the wrong place, that the oath sworn by the Duke of Orleans and signed by him in November 1440 should take a year, to 28 November 1441, before it was presented by Adam Moleyns to William Lyndwood, Keeper of the Privy Seal for safe keeping, ‘all the above lords being present.’ Moleyns requested to have it recorded in an act, presumably under the Great Seal, and King Henry commanded it to be done.

Council Membership

The record of attendance at Council from January to May is patchy and incomplete. There is a lacuna in the list for 26 May.  Attendance in October and November is fuller but still   incomplete, ‘and others’ is noted for 13 November.  The meeting on 28 November was attended by the Earl of Warwick [Henry Beauchamp] the Earl of Dorset [Edmund Beaufort] and ‘the Secretary,’ probably Jean Rinel, who were not members of the Council.

Chancellor John Stafford                                          January. May. October.  November

Treasurer, Ralph Cronwell                                         January. February. May. November

Privy Seal, William Lyndwood                                  January. May. October.  November

Cardinal Beaufort.                                                      May. November

Henry Chichele, Archbishop of Canterbury               February. May. November

John Kemp, Cardinal, Archbishop of York:              May. October. November

William Alnwick, Bishop of Lincoln                         February

William Aiscough, Bishop of Salisbury                     October

Earl of Huntingdon                                                     January. May. October. November

Earl of Northumberland                                              January. May.  October.  November

Earl of Salisbury                                                         January. May. October. November

Earl of Suffolk                                                            January. May. October. November

Earl of Stafford                                                           May. November

Lord Tiptoft                                                                January.  October

Lord Scroop                                                                February. October. November

Lord Hungerford                                                         October.  November

Lord Fanhope                                                             October. November

Adam Moleyns, Deputy Keeper of the Privy Seal    May. November

Viscount Beaumont                                                    May. October. November

Lord Sudeley, Chamberlain, from September            October

Sir John Stourton                                                         October

Eleanor Cobham, Duchess of Gloucester

Eleanor Cobham Duchess of Gloucester was arrested on charges of felony and treason in the summer of 1441. Every 15th century chronicle written in England records this extraordinal event. The fullest accounts are the Brut Continuation F and An English Chronicle although the chronology of the latter is confused.

See Chronicle copy below.

The story broke when Roger Bolingbroke, Thomas Southwell, and John Hume were arrested and charged with conspiring to encompass the king’s death by necromancy and witchcraft (1).  It was the prominence of such men, as well as the accusation of witchcraft and treason against the duchess that made the case notorious.

Bolingbroke was a priest in Gloucester’s household. John Hume was Eleanor’s chaplain, and a secretary to both Eleanor and Gloucester

Southwell was well known in court circles. He was a canon of St Stephens Chapel in the palace of Westminster. A graduate in medicine and a respected physician, he may have been Eleanor’s own doctor.  He was an associate of Gilbert Kymer, the Duke of Gloucester’s doctor who was later called in by King Henry, and of John Somerset, King Henry physician (2).

All three were examined by the Council in July 1441 on charges of conspiring to bring about the king’s death, Roger through necromancy, Thomas by celebrating mass unlawfully using strange heretical accoutrements, and Hume as an accessory to both. Bolingbroke features most prominently in the chronicle accounts because he incriminated Duchess Eleanor. As soon as she learned of the arrests she fled to sanctuary at Westminster.

Bolingbroke confessed his guilt and recanted his sins in a carefully staged managed performance on Sunday 23 July at St Paul’s Cross. Seated on a high platform in full public view with the instruments of his black arts around him, his appearance was designed to shock and thrill the expectant crowds.

The exhibition was witnessed by the Mayor, Aldermen, and Common Council of London and members of the King’s Council, as well as foreign visitors.

On Monday 24 July, Eleanor was taken from sanctuary to St Stephen’s chapel at Westminster where she was examined by a panel of bishops, the heavy weights on the Council: Archbishop Chichele, Cardinal Beaufort, Cardinal Kemp, John Stafford Bishop of Bath and Wells the Chancellor, Robert Gilbert Bishop of London, and William Aiscough, Bishop of Salisbury, King Henry’s confessor. She maintained her innocence and was allowed to return to sanctuary.

She appeared again on the following day, to face her accuser. Roger Bolingbroke repeated his accusation that all he had done had been at Eleanor’s instigation. But from the first the charges were exaggerated and distorted. Bolingbroke never admitted to treason. He and his co-conspirators had cast King Henry’s horoscope to reckon how long he might live, because the duchess foolishly wanted to know what chance she had of becoming queen. This was a felony but fell short of conspiring the king’s death, which was treason.

The bishops ordered a second commission of enquiry, entrusted to the secular members of the Council: the earls of Huntingdon, Northumberland and Stafford, Lords Cromwell, Fanhope, and Hungerford, and the chief justices. They were to investigate the existence of a plot to kill the king. Unlike the ecclesiastic commission these secular lords had the power to impose the death penalty. Bolingbroke and Southwell were the main defendants, Eleanor was cited as an accessory.

The case was heard in the Guildhall. Witnesses testified that Bolingbroke, Southwell and Hume had at various times in various parishes of London used magical figures, vestments, and instruments to invoke demons and evil spirits to discover when King Henry would die. They had fashioned a figure of the king (an age-old practice in witchcraft).  They predicted that the king might die in his twentieth year. He would suffer a serious illness (a natural infirmity) not an accident or an attack on his person.  The most likely time for this to occur would be between April 1441 and the end of the year, with July-August the likeliest months. But he could recover provided due care was taken at the appropriate times. This was not technically treason, it fell within the scope of legitimate astrological investigation, but it was a very dangerous thing to do without royal authorisation. They were all found guilty of sorcery, felony, and treason (3).

King Henry returned from Havering atte Bower in Essex to his palace at Kennington on 15 July.  According to one chronicle as Henry entered London at Aldgate and crossed London Bridge a fierce storm raged and this was remembered later as a portent that evil spirits had been conjured up to injure the king.

Henry followed proceedings closely. Eleanor’s arrest and subsequent detention was carried out by men of the royal household. Like most of his contemporises Henry feared witchcraft.

Archbishop Chichele committed Eleanor to prison in Leeds Castle in Kent on 9 August in the custody of its Constable Sir John Steward, a former Master of the King’s Horse.  Her principal gaoler was John Stanley, an usher of the king’s chamber and other members of the royal household.

On the same day Henry forbade anyone to hinder the archbishop’s proceedings against Eleanor. Nothing was to be done to harm her until the proceedings were complete (4, 5).  In his biography of the Duke of Gloucester Vickers interprets this injunction to mean that Henry was trying to protect the duchess (6), but his subsequent treatment of her negates this, it was Henry who ordered her imprisonment for life.

Eleanor feigned sickness and even tried to escape from sanctuary by a boat on the Thames, but she was apprehended and transferred to Leeds Castle to await her fate. The Duke of Gloucester made no move to save her.

Possibly to ally his own fears, King Henry commanded John Langton, Chancellor of Cambridge, and John Somerset, Henry’s personal physician to commission a more favourable horoscope, one which did not predict his death.  Unfortunately, the names of the ‘learned men’ who cast the horoscope are unknown, but they refuted the earlier predictions: the king would not die (7).

Eleanor was brought back to Westminster on 19 October and consigned to the custody of the Constable of England. She was arraigned to appear before Archbishop Chichele n on 21 October, allowing plenty of time for a thorough investigation to gather as much evidence as could be obtained or manufactured.

Eleanor again faced an ecclesiastical tribunal in St Stephen’s chapel:  Robert Gilbert Bishop of London, William Aiscough Bishop of Salisbury, William Alnwick Bishop of Lincoln, Thomas Brouns Bishop of Norwich, and several doctors of theology.

Archbishop Chichele claimed to be ill;, Cardinal Beaufort, and Cardinal Kemp also absented themselves perhaps to ensure that the inevitable condemnation did not appear to be politically motivated. Adam Moleyns, the clerk of the council, read out the articles against her. Eleanor was indicted on no less than twenty-eight points of sorcery, necromancy, felony, and treason.

The hearing was adjourned until 23 October to give time for Bolingbroke, Thomas Southwell, and Margery Jourdemain the Witch of Eye [Ebury near Westminster] to be brought from the Tower to confront Eleanor.  Margery was known to the authorities for suspect practices, she gave evidence that Eleanor had bought magic potions from her (8).

See Year 1432: Sorcery and Witchcraft.

Eleanor was asked if she denied the charges. She admitted to five out of the twenty-eight. Pathetically she claimed that she had only bought magic potions in order to conceive a child and give Duke Humphrey an heir. She abjured her sins and submitted herself to the mercy of the bishops.

On 6 November Archbishop Chichele and Cardinal Beaufort rejoined the bishops to pronounce sentence and impose penance. Brut Continuation F is the only chronicle to record that they divorced her from the Duke of Gloucester at the same time.

Eleanor’s Penance

Eleanor was found her guilty of witchcraft and conspiring the king’s death. Her penance was humiliation. She was ordered to walk bareheaded, dressed  n black, and carrying a heavy candle through the streets of the City on Monday, Wednesday and Friday, market days, when the streets were crowded, and Londoners could enjoy the spectacle.  Even An English Chronicle, otherwise strongly critical of her, recorded that some of the spectators felt compassion for her.

The chronicles vary in reporting the routes she took. On Monday, 13 November, she came by water from Westminster to the Temple landing stage and walked from Temple Bar along Fleet Street to St. Paul’s where she offered her candle as a sign of penitence.

On Wednesday she came from Westminster to the Old Swan Pier near London Bridge and walked through to Thames Street and the church of St. Magnus. She continued up Bridge Street to East Cheap, and on to Grace Church and the Leaden Hall, and so to St. Katherine’s Christchurch in Aldgate where she offered her candle.

On Friday she came from Westminster to Queenhythe and walked along Bread Street to Cheapside and up to St Michael’s Church, Cornhill where she made her third offering.

After giving evidence against Eleanor Thomas Southwell was returned to the Tower.  Knowing what fate awaited him, Southwell died shortly afterwards probably by his own hand.  Margery Jourdemain despite recanting, was burnt at Smithfield as a relapsed witch.

Roger Bolingbroke and John Hume were arraigned at the Guildhall on Saturday, 18 November before the Mayor, the Duke of Norfolk (Earl Marshal of England) and Sir John Hody, the chief justice of King’s Bench.  Bolingbroke was condemned to die.  He was drawn from the Tower to Tyburn where, still claiming that he had not committed treason, he was hanged drawn and quartered, and his head was set on London Bridge. John Hume was adjudged to have been a passive accessory. He was pardoned.

King Henry, with the advice of the Council, condemned Eleanor to life imprisonment and Henry imposed harsh conditions on her confinement. She was placed in the custody of Sir Thomas Stanley, Constable of Chester Castle and Lord of the Isle of Man. Henry ordered him to escort her under guard to Chester and not to listen to any excuses she might make to delay the journey. According to one chronicle he was allowed a mere pittance for her keep.  In 1446 Stanley moved the luckless Eleanor to the remote Isle of Man, and from there to the bleak Beaumaris Castle in Wales. Eleanor outlived her husband, whom she never saw again, and died at Beaumaris in 1452.

Little is known about Eleanor herself. She was the daughter of Sir Reginald Cobham of Sterburgh. She was a lady in waiting to Jacqueline of Hainault and was probably in her early twenties in 1424 when she accompanied Gloucester and Jacqueline on their ill-fated attempt to recover Jacqueline’s patrimony.  Gloucester’s marriage to Jacqueline was politically motivated, and he soon tired of her, and of Hainault.  Eleanor became his mistress, and he brought her back to England in 1425. He married her in 1428 after the Pope declared his marriage to Jacqueline invalid, so presumably it was a love match.

See Year 1424: The Duke of Gloucester and Jacqueline, Countess of Hainault.

See Year 1425: The Duke of Gloucester’s Return to England

It was not difficult for her contemporaries to believe that Eleanor had encouraged Southwell and Bolingbroke to cast the king’s horoscope. Eleanor and Gloucester were known to be interested in astrology, and her reputation has suffered in consequence.

The chronicles portray her as an unpopular, proud and immoral woman.  The English Chronicle is scathing in its condemnation, and it is largely on their testimony that the picture of Eleanor as ambitious and foolhardy has been built.

The Lament of the Duchess of Gloucester, a poem recording her fate in her own words testifies to her pride, her moral laxity, and her guilt.  Each verse ends with the line ‘All women may be ware by me’ (9).

Contemporary belief in and fear of witchcraft was enough to ensure that Bolingbroke’s evidence would condemn Eleanor. Historians are divided on the motivation behind Eleanor’s condemnation. Harriss believes it was political, engineered by the Duke of Gloucester’s enemies to disgrace him, although he exonerates Cardinal Beaufort who must surely have been the prime mover if this were true (10).  The chronicles do not mention Gloucester; the suggestion that Gloucester was the real target was first made by Tudor historians.

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

(1) Griffiths, ‘The Trial of Eleanor Cobham: an episode in the fall of Duke Humphrey of Gloucester,’ in King and Country: England and Wales in the fifteenth century, (1991) pp. 233-252.

(2) H. Carey, Courting Disaster, Ch. 8, ‘Astrology and disaster at the court of Henry VI’ (1992).

(3) NA, Kings Bench Ancient Indictments, 72/1-6, 9, 11 14

(4) Foedera X, p. 851 (Henry’s prohibition of interference with Eleanor’s trial)

(5) CPR 1436-1441, p. 559 (Henry prohibition of interference with Eleanor’s trial).

(6) Vickers, Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, pp. 274-275

(7) Foedera X, p. 852 (£40 for the horoscope commissioned by King Henry).

(8) J. Freeman, ‘Sorcery at court and manor: Margery Jourdemayne, the witch of Eye next Westminster,’ Journal of Medieval History, 30 (2004) pp. 343-357.

(9) R. H. Robbins, Historical Poems, “The Lament of the Duchess of Gloucester,” pp.176-180

(10) Harriss, Cardinal Beaufort, pp. 322-234

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

An English Chronicle  

And this same yeer in the moneth of Juylle maister Roger Boltyngbroke that was a gret and a konnyng man in astronomye, and master Thomas Suthwelle a chanon of saint Stevene[s] chapel wythynne Westmynstre, were take as conspiratours of the kyngis deth; for it was said that the said maister Roger sholde laboure to consume the kyngis persone by wey of nygomancie, and that the said maister Thomas sholde say massis in forboden and inconuenient place[s], that is to say, in the logghe of Harnesey Park beside London, vpon certayn instrumentis with the whiche the said maister Roger sholde and (sic) vse his said craft of nygromancie ayens the feith and good beleue, and was assentyng to the said Roger in alle his workis. 

And the Sunday the xxv day of the same moneth, the forsaid maister Roger with all his instrumentis of nygromancie – that is to say a chaier ypeynted, wherynne he was wont to sitte whanne he wroughte his craft, and on the iiij corners of the chaier stood iiij swerdis, and vpon euery swerd hanggyng an ymage of copir – and with meny othir instrumentis accordying to his said craft, stood in a high stage aboue alle menne[s] heddis in Powlis chircheyerd befor the cros while[s] the sermon endurid, holdyng a suerd in his right hand and a septre in his left hand, araid in a marvaillous aray whereynne he was wont to sitte whanne he wrou[g]te his nygromancie. 

And afir the sermon was don he abiurid alle maner article[s] longyng in eny wise to the said craft of nigromancie, or mys sownyng  to the Cristen feith.

And the Tywisday next folowyng dame Alienore Cobham, duchesse of Gloucestre, fledde by ny[gh]te on to sayntewary at Westmynstre; wherfore she was holde suspect of certayn article[s] of tresoun.

In the mene tyme the forsaid maister Roger was examned before the kyngis counsel; where he confessid and saide that he wroughte the said nygromancie atte stiryng of the forsaid dame Alienore, to knowe what sholde falle of hir to what astat she sholde come. 

Wherfore she was cited to appere befor certayn bisshoppis of the kyngis; that is to say, befor maister Harri Chicheli, archebisshop of Cauntirbury, maister Harry Beaufort bisshoppe of Wynchestre and cardinalle, maister Johan Kemp archebisshoppe of York and cardinalle, maister William Ayscoughe bisshoppe of Salisbury, and othir, on the Monday the xxij day off Juylle next folowyng, in saint Stephene[s] chapelle of Westmynstre, forto ansuere to certayn article[s] of nygromancie, of wicchecraft or sorcery, of heresy and of tresoun. 

Atte whiche day she apperid; and the forsaid Roger was brou[gh]t forth forto witnesse ayens hir, and saide that she was cause and first stirid himme to laboure in the said nygromancie; and thane be commaundement of the said bisshoppis she was commmittid to warde of sir Johan Stiward knyghte, and of Johan Stanley squier, and other of the kyngis hous, forto be lad to the castelle of Ledis, there to be safli kept vnto iij wikis aftir Mighelmasse next thane coming. 

But the said dame Alienore was lothe to go out of the sayntwary and fayned her seek, and wolde haue stole away priveli be watir, but she was let of her purpos and lad forth to the castel beforsaid.

 Annone aftir, a commission was direct to the erl of Huntyngdoun, to the erl of Stafforde, to the erl of Suffolk, and to certayn juges of bothe benchis, to enquire of al maner treasons, sorcery, and alle othir thyngi[s] that my[gh]te in eny wise towche or concerne harmfulli the kyngis persone; befor whom the said maister Roger and maister Thomas as principalle, and the said dame Alienore as accessory, were enditid of treson, yn the Guyldehalle of Londoun.

      And this same tyme was take a womman callid the wicche of Eye whoo[z] sorcerie and wicchecraft the said dame Alienore hadde longe tyme vsid; and be suche medicine[z] and drynkis as the said wicche made, the said Alienore enforced the forsaid duke of Gloucestre to loue her and to wedde her.  Wherfore, also for cause of relaps, the same wicche was brend in Smythfeld in the vigily of Saint Simon and Jude [28 October]

            Ferthirmore on the Satirday the xxj day of Octobir, in the chapel beforesaid, befor the bisshoppis of Londoun, maister Robert Gilbert and of Lincoln maister William Alnewik and of Norwich maister Thomas Brouns to whom the said archebisshoppe of Cauntirbury, maister Henry Chichele, hadde committid his power be his commissioun because of his seeknesse to fynyshe and ende this mater, the said Alienore apperid. 

And maister Adam Moleyns thanne clerc of the kyngis counsel, redde certayn article[z] obiectid ayens hir of sorcerie and nygromancie, wherof some she denyed and some she grauntid.

            Thanne was this processe prorogued vnto the Monday the xxiij day of Octobir, thanne next folowyng at whiche day the said Alienore apperid and witnesse[z] were broughte forth and examned, and she was convict of the said article[z].  Thanne it was axed of hir, yf she wolde eny say ayens the witnesse[z], and she said Nay, but submitted hir onli to the correccioun of the bisshoppis; and on the Friday next, the said Alienore abiurud before the bisshoppis the article[z] abouesaid. 

And thanne she was enioyned forto appere before the said archebisshoppe of Cauntirbury or his forsaid commissioners, the Thursday the ix of Nouembir next folowyng, forto receyue her penaunce. 

And in the mene tyme the forsaid maister Thomas Suthwelle deide in the tour of Londoun.

            The Thursday abouesaid the said dame Alienore apperid befor tharchebisshoppe and othir in the forsaid chapelle, and receyued her penaunce vnder this fourme;

Nota penitenciam Alienorae Cobham, sibi iniunctam

that she sholde go the same day from Templebarre with a meke and a demure countenaunce vnto Poulis beryng in her hond a tapir of a pound and offer it there atte highe auter. 

And the Wednesday next, she should go fro the Swan in Thamyse strete beryng a tapir of the same weighte vnto Crichirche in Londoun, and there offer it vp. 

And the Friday next, she shold go in lik wise fro Quenehide berying a tapir of the same weighte vnto saint Mighele[z] in Cornhulle, and there offer it vp.  The whiche penaunce she fulfilled and dede righte mekely, so that the more part of the peple hadde on hir gret compassioun.

And aftir this she was committid ayen to the warde of ser Thomas Stanley, wherynne she was al her lif aftir, hauyng yeerli C marc., assigned to hir for hir fyndyng and costis; whoo[z] pride, fals couetise and lecherie were cause of her confusioun.  Othir thyngis myghte be writen of this dame Alianore, the whiche atte reuerence of nature and wommanhood shul not be reherced

And the Satirday the xviij day of Nouembir next sewyng, maister Roger Boltyngbroke at Guyldehalle at Londoun befor the said lordis and justice[z] was arreyned of the forsaid article[z], of tresoun ayens the kyngis persone, and therof be xij men of Londoun he was founde gilty. 

Wherfore be the iugement of ser Johan Hody that tyme chieh justice of the kyngis bench, he was drawe fro the tour of Londoun vnto Tyburne; and there he was hanged and leet doun half alive, and his bowellis take out and brent, and his hed smyte of and set on London brigge, and his body quartrid and sent to certayn tounes of Englond, that is to saye, Oxenford, Cambrigge, York and Hereforde.

And whanne the said maister Roger sholde die, he confessid that he was nevir gilty of eny treson ayens the kyngis persone; but he presumed to fer in his konnyng, as he sayde, wherof he cride God mercy; and the justice that yaf on him iugement livid not longe aftir. An English Chronicle, ed. Davies, pp. 56-60.  (Marx’s edition, pp. 61-64).

Brut Continuation F

And in this same yere, the xv^th day of Iuyll, Kyng Henry the vj^th come oute of Essexe to London, in at the port called Algate, and went ouer London Brigge, and so thurgh Suthwerk to his Maner of Kenyngton.  And at his comyng in at Algate, the Maire, Aldermen and Comons, in theire best aray, welcomed the Kyng into the Cite; and made grete Ioye of his comyng.  And godely the Kyng thanked the Maire and his brethren and all the Comons. 

And the Kyng was not so sone passed the Cite, bot þat it hayled, rayned and eke lightned, þat well was hym þat was within house; and so ayenst even it fared in the same Maner, wherof the people were sore agast, and aferd of the grete tempest. 

And so it was spoken emonges the peple, þat þer were som wikked fendes and spirites arered out of helle by coniuracion, forto noy þe peple in the Reame, and to put theym to trouble, discencion and vnrets.  An þen was it knowen þat certyn clerkes, and women þat ar called ‘wicches’ had made theire operacion and theire craft to destroy men and women, or whom they list, vnto deth by theire fals craft and worching.

            Wherof Dame Alianore Cobham, which was þe Duchesse of Gloucestre, was named principally of these actes and fals dedes forto destroy the Kyng, whom God saue and kepe! 

But as God wold saue his hande-werk and seruaunt, made it be knowen openly, all theire fals werkys and tresoun þat they ymagyned and wroght, which was openly shewed afore all peple þat wold com to Seint Paules Crosse on the Sonday, the xxiij day of Iuyll, by Roger þat was hir Clerk, a Nigromancier, by the deuels crafte and ymaginacion in his worching, which was shewed openly in þe sermon-tyme, the day aboueseyd, to all peple þat wold come to se it, of here scriptures, ymages of siluer, of wexe, and of oper metalles, and swerdys, with many oþer dyuers instrumentes of this fals craft of Nigromancy and the devels powere. 

            And þere Roger, this Clerk, stode vpon an high stage, with all his Instrumentes about hym, spoyling of his garment;  and did vpon hym a surplyce with a crowne of papir vpon his hede, forto forsake all his fals craft of the devell, and forto relapse all þat he had doon and wrought by the devyell and his powere, in presence of the Archebisshope of Canterbury, the Cardynall, þe Bisshop of Wynchstre, þe Bishop of London, the Bisshop of Salesbury, and many oper grete clerkys beyng there present; and of oþer lordes temporalles, therle of Huntingdon, therle of Northumberland, and therle of Stafford and moo oþer lordes of the Kynges Consayl, and the Maire and Aldermen, with þe Comons of the Citie of London, and many moo people of dyuers partyes, and straungers of the Reame, and aliens of oþer straunge landes beyond the see, beyng in þe Cite of London þat tyme.

            And on þe Tewesday, which was Seint James Day þe Apostell, Dame Alianore Cobham come out of the seintwary at Westminster into the Kinges Chapell which is within the Kinges paleys, to the high autere of the same Chapell, which is of Seint Stephen, before the principall clergye of the Reame which were present, þat is to sey the Archebisshop of Caunterbury, primate of all England, the Cardynal of Wynchestre, the Cardynal of York, the Bisshops of London, Bathe, and Salesbury, and of other many principall Clerkes of the Reame which were there present, and examyned Dame Alinore Cobham of xxviij dyuers poyntes, bothe of felony and of treason, which pey opened and shewed there to hir. 

And she ansuered to the Clergye and sayde ‘not gilty’; and so they left hir go sauf ageyn to the Seintwary vnto the morowe, pat was Seint Anne day.  And thider she come ageyn as she was charged of the Bisshops; and there was Roger hir Clerk present, and vouched all these poyntes vpon hir pat were shewed the day aboueseyd to hir, whereof she knowleched somme poyntes at that tyme, the nombre of .v., – and so she went ageyn into Westmynstre for a certyn tyme tyll þat the Kyng with his Consayll wold do correccion and remedy of al this fals actys and dedys, thus ymagyned and doon to his person, and his lordes and lieges.

And on þe same day the Kyng sent to London to the Maire and Aldermen and Comons of the Cite, and also to therle of Huntingdon, þe Erle of Stafford, therle of Northumberland, the Tresorer of England, Sir Rauf Cromwell, the Lord Fawnehop, Sir John Cornwayle, Sir Walter Hungerford, and oþer knyghtes and Squyers, to fele and see what was to be doon to amende and destroy this fals dede and cursed ymagynacion to the Kyng and to þe Reame. 

And they, of theire good discrecion and wysedom, as trewe liege peple predyned iiij. enquestes within the Cite, of substantiall peple; to brynge and shewe trewe inquisicion of all crymes and trepasses þat she was accused of.  And they found hir gilty bothe of treson and of felony; and so, thurghout Middlesex, the questes were charged at Westminster of knyghtes and squyers, to brynge in their verdite ; and they indited her in the same poyntes, bothe of felony and of treson. 

            And so, the xi day of August, Dame Alianore was taken into the handes and ward of Sir John Steward and Sir William Wolff, knyghtes, and to oþer persones as the Kyng and his consayle ordeyned and devised to her, and to oþer of hir consyale ordyened and devised to her, and to oþer of hir consayle and affinite, as they haue deserued, after his tyme and leyser;

and she to be kept in holde strongly in the Castell of Ledes in Kent, vnto þe wille of the Kyng and of his Consayle, and all þe oþer persones, bothe men, women wicches, and oþer, to be kept in the Toure of London to his likyng, leyser, and tym to do theym as they haue deserued. 

And so, the xix day of Octobre next, by the Kynges comaundment, and his Consayl, Sir John Steward, knyght, with strength of peple, brought Dame Alianore Cobham from the Castell of Ledes in Westminster into the Kynges paleys; and there she was put and kept in warde of ϸe Constable vnto hir answere and examynacion.  And the Friday next she was brought into Seint Stephens Chapell, called ‘the Kynges chapel, and ‘the Kynges college’, afore the Clergye; and ϸere was examyned of hir sorcery, and wicchecraft and treson. 

And so all the poyntes were opened and shewed there to hir by certeyn Bisshops and clerkys, ϸat is to sey: the Bisshop of London, ϸe Bisshop of Lincoln, the Bisshop of Salesbury, and the Bisshop of Norwiche, with moo oϸer doctors and maysters of diuinite, being ϸere present. And then she withneyed and withseyd all the poynte[s] ϸat were put and shewed to hir ϸat tyme.

              And than she had respite and day of ansuere till the Monday next.  And ϸere she come ageyn to the same chapell, tofore all the Clergye and Bisshops and doctors and maystres of diuinite.  And then  come Roger, hir Clerk, with all his Instrumentes ϸat were shewed at Seint Payles Crosse aforetyme, and they were shewed to Dame Alianore Cobham; and she withneyed and seyd ‘it was not so; bot ϸat she did it froto haue borne a child by hir lord, the Duke of Gloucestre,’ and ϸere was Maister Thomas Suthwell, parson of Seint Stephens in Walbroke and chanon of ϸe Kynges Chapell, ϸat was of fir craft and consayle ayenst hir; and the wicche of Eye, beside Westminster, ayenst Dame Alianore Cobham; and seid ϸat she was causer and doer of all this werk and dede; And so they were all put vp ageyn as for tht tyme. 

And the xxvj^th day of October next suyng, deyed the seid Mayster Thomas Suthwell, in the Toure of London.  And the Friday next, the wichhe of Eye was brought from the Towre of London into Smythfeld, and ther brent for hir fals believe and wicchecraft ϸat she had vsed of longe tyme.

And in this same yere, and the yere of grace M¹CCCC xlij the vj day of Novembre, the Archbisshop of Canterbury and the ij Cardynalles of Wynchestre and of York, and ϸe Bisshops of London, Lincoln, Salesbury and Norwiche, with dyuers doctors and maistres of diuinite, deuorsed and departed the Duke of Gloucestre and Dame Alianore Cobham, as for matrymony made before betwene theym two. 

And so Dame Alianore Cobham, by  orynaunce and charge of the Archebisshop of Canterbury and his brethren, was Joyned to hir penaunce for ϸe grete offence and trespasse ϸat she had doon ayenst God and holy Chirche, and for the fals sorcery and wicchecraft ϸat she vsed and longe tyme had wrought, ϸat she shuld go from Westminster to London iij market dayes in the weke, Monday, Wednesday and Friday, with a taper brennyng in her hande: oon to Seint Paules, an other to Cristchirch, and ϸe thridde to Seint Michelles in Cornhill. 

And the Monday, the xiij^th of Nouembre, Dame Alianore Cobham come by water from Westminster to the Temple brigge, forto do hir charge of penance, on fote thurgh Fletestrete to Seint Paules; and ϸere she offred hir first taper.  And the Wednesday next, she come from Westminster by Water to the Swanne in Tamystrete, and come on fote with a taper in hir hande, and come vp Tamystrete to Seint Magnus corner and vp Briggesrete, and Eschepe and Graschirch, and so to the Corner of Leden-Hall, and so to Cristchirch; and there offred the second taper.  And the Friday next, she come from Westminster by water to the Quene-Hithe, and so vp ϸurgh Bredstrete into Chepe; and thurgh Chepe into Cornhill to Seint Michelles chirch, and ϸere offred a taper of a pound wexe; And then was she brought ageyn to Westminster, into the Constable ward.

            And the Seturday next, ϸe xvij day of Nouembre, Roger Bultyngbrok, Dame Alianore Cobhams Clerk of Nigromancy and sorcery, was brought to the Guyldhall of London, and ϸere dampned for his fals treson [and for his fals treason – repeated] and sorcery and Nigromancy ayenst all holy Chirch: wherthurgh he was dampned to deth by landes lawe.  And was ledde to the Toure of London and leyd vpon a hirdell, and drawen thurgh the Cite to Tybourne galowes, and ϸere hanged, and let downe ageyne all  quyk, and his bowelles cutte out of his body, and brent afore hym.  And then was his hede smyten of, and his body quartered; and oon sent to Oxenford, the secund sent to Cambrigge, the thirde to Bristowe, and the fourth to [         ]; and his hede was set vpon London Brigge; and ϸus he ended his life in ϸis world

And Dame Alianore Cobham yet kept in warde in ϸe Constablery of Westminster, vnto the Wednesday, the xxiiij day of Januare; and then she was brought thens to ϸe Maner of Neyte, which is the Abbotes of Westminster; and ϸere she was kept Wednesday, Thursday and Friday till noon.  And when she was brought first out of Westminster, ϸere was such wedryng of thonder, lightnyng, hayll and rayne, ϸat the peple were sore adredde and agast of the grete noyse and hydous of ϸe weder ϸat sodenly was doon and shewed ϸere at theire passage at ϸat tyme. 

            And on the Friday at after-None, she was had at the Kynges comaundment and wille, forth to the Cite of Chestre, in an hors-bere, with strenght of peple; and from Chestre into ϸe Ile of Man, to be kept ϸere in sauf gard, etc. Brut Continuation F, pp.  477-482

Chronicles: Great Chronicle, p. 175; Bale’s Chronicle, p. 115-116; Benet’s Chronicle, pp.188-189; Six Town Chronicles (Rawlinson B 355) p. 102; Short English Chronicle, p. 63; Gregory’s Chronicle, pp 183-84’ Chronicle of London (Harley 565) pp. 127-29; Chronicles of London (Cleopatra C IV) pp. 148-49 and Vitellius A XVI p. 154; Brut Continuation G pp. 508-509; Hardyng’s Chronicle  p. 400

The Magnates

Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester

The Duke of Gloucester was in South Wales in the summer of 1440.  He presided over judicial sessions at Carmarthen and Cardigan.  In March 1441 he petitioned for remuneration for his ‘grete costes and labour,’ citing as examples John Merbury, who had received 100 marks, and the Earl of Suffolk who received 200 marks for holding past sessions. Gloucester was awarded 200 marks, to be paid by the Chamberlain of South Wales (1).

 (1) PPC V pp. 138-139 (Gloucester’s claim, South Wales).

Edmund Beaufort

Edmund Beaufort returned to England from Rouen at the end of December or early January after the celebrations for the capture of Harfleur.

See Year 1440: Harfleur

He set about putting his domestic affairs in order. He had been constable of Carmarthen and Aberystwyth castles for life since 1438 (1). In February 1441 he petitioned the king for payment of overdue wages for the garrison at Aberystwyth: one man at arms and twelve archers from 7 March 1438 to the present time. The Treasurer was ordered to make the payment (2).

Edmund, styled Earl of Dorset, was also granted ‘by service of one watch,’ a dwelling in Calais called ‘Old Calais’ comprised of cottages and gardens, previously held by the Duke of Bedford. It grant was back dated to Bedford’s death 1435 (3). This is interesting because although Edmund had defended Calais in 1436, he had not been nominated to any permanent post there.

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

(1) CPR 1436-1441, p 188 (constable of Aberystwyth).

(2) PPC V, pp. 134-135 (payment of wages). _

(3) CPR 1436-1441, p. 499 (grant in Calais).

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

Ralph, Lord Cromwell

King Henry granted the surveyorship of the ‘vert and venison’ in the forest of Rutland to Lord Cromwell in 1440.  Cromwell or his deputy was assigned 20 marks in 1441 as surveyor of Leighfield to ‘make’ (possibly repair?), a lodge there. Leighfield was part of the royal hunting forest of Rutland (1, 2).

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

(1) PPC V, p. 142 (lodge at Leighfield).

(2) CPR 1436-1441, p. 367 (lodge at Leighfield).

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

Ralph Neville, Earl of Westmorland

Ralph Neville, heir to his grandfather Ralph, Earl of Westmorland, came of age in 1429. Thereafter devoted all his energies to recovering as much of his inheritance as he could from his stepmother Joan Beaufort, Countess of Westmorland. When she died in November 1440 some of her dower lands in Newcastle, Northumberland, Durham, and Westmorland reverted to him.

See Year 1435: The Westmorland Inheritance.

Westmorland married his son John to the Earl of Huntingdon’s daughter Anne in 1441 and settled estates on the couple, without purchasing a royal licence (1). As a member of the Council Huntingdon interceded with King Henry to protect Westmorland and obtain a pardon for him (2).

The transactions are recorded obscurely in the Proceedings under 28 November 1441 but are set out clearly in the Calendar of the Patent Rolls for February 1442.

“Licence at the request of John Earl of Huntingdon for Ralph Neville, Earl of Westmorland to grant to Richard Caudrey, John Richard, Richard Drax, and Robert Cavell the manors of Bywell, Bolbek and Styford in Northumberland, held in chief; and £90 16s 8d of rent in Newcastle upon Tyne of its fee farm by a fine to be levied between them before the justices of the King’s Bench to hold them their heirs and assigns on condition that if the earl or his heirs or any other recover against John Neville and Anne his wife the manors of Kenton, Lyfton, Shaftesbeare and Chetecombe, the hundred of Lyfton and £18 18s 4d of rent in Brampton co. Devon, the manor of Weston  . . . and £50 6s 8d of rent in Cotyngham Yorkshire, or any parcel thereof, and they be expelled therefrom, the said four clerks shall enfeoff the said John and Anne or either of them of so much of the manor of Bywell, Bolbek and Styford and the rent in Newcastle and the annual value of all that is recovered of the manors of Kenton etc. against them is extended immediately after the said recovery or ejection; provided that after the death of John and Anne their estates in the said manors and rent wholly cease” (3).

It was a generous bequest, but for life only, their heirs are not included. This appears to be amended in the next entry:

“Pardon to Ralph Neville Earl of Westmorland for granting the manors of Kenton etc. to John his son and Anne his wife by a fine levied before  the justices of the King’s Bench between John and Anne plaintiffs and the earl, deforciant, to hold to them and the heirs of John of the earl and his heirs forever rendering a rose at Midsummer with reversion to the earl and his heirs, without the royal licence and grant to the said John and Anne the premises in like terms.

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

(1) J. Petre, ‘The Nevills of Brancepeth and Rabay 1425-1469,’ Ricardian 55, No. 75 (Dec 1981) p. 245.

(2) PPC V, pp. 179-80 (pardon for Westmorland).

(3) CPR 1441-1446 dated 2 February 1442, p. 67 (grant and pardon).

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

John Holand, Earl of Huntingdon

Jonh Holand, Earl of Huntingdon, attended council meetings throughout 1441.  As well as the affairs of the Earl of Westmorland he intervened, as the king’s lieutenant in Gascony, in the affairs of the duchy during a Gascon delegation’s visit to England.

See The Duchy of Gascony below

King Henry V had granted the castle of Southampton [Snith] to Sir John Popham for life. In 1441 Popham agreed, possibly at King Henry’s request, to surrender his grant, and at the end of the year Henry granted it to Huntingdon for life. Theres is no known connection between Huntingdon and Popham, but Popham was getting old. Southampton would be a first line of defence if the French decided to raid or even invade the south coast, as the Council nervously anticipated. Popham and the Council may have thought Southampton would be safer in Huntingdon hands (1).

(1) PPC V, p. 179 (grant of Southampton castle).

Francois de Surienne

Francois de Surienne, known as L’Aragonais was a war captain in English service.  He and his companion Perrinet Gressart had recaptured the town and castle of Montargis for the Duke of Bedford in 1433.

See Year 1433: Montargis

De Surienne was a successful war captain, but he was also a mercenary, his first allegiance was to himself and to those who paid him.  He came to England in the spring of 1437 to claim payment for his costs in defending the town, but apparently, his claim was ignored.

Dunois, Bastard of Orleans, laid siege to Montargis in the autumn of 1437, and after two months de Surienne agreed to surrender it if he did not receive reinforcements from Lord Talbot. No relief reached him, and de Surienne surrendered Montargis to Dunois.

See Year 1437: Montargis and Francois de Surienne

De Surienne recognised which way the wind was blowing and took steps to secure his future in so far as he could. In 1441 he petitioned King Henry to reward his loyalty and services. He and his men had not received wages for the past year, except for those he had sent in response to the Earl of Mortain’s summons to the siege of Harfleur (1, 2).

See 1440: Harfleur.

With flamboyant exaggeration de Surienne claimed to have served Henry faithfully for seventeen years (with no mention of the occasional surrender to the French) and to have lost possessions in France to the tune of no less than 100,000 livres.

He had defended and repaired the town and castle of his base at Longny at considerable expense and he asked the king to give special consideration to this when peace was declared. In other word he wanted to hold on to Longny as part of any peace settlement.

The ambiguous position of a war captain in the uncertain conditions in France is illustrated by de Surienne’s complaint that he could not maintain himself as he had in the past by waging war against the king’s enemies, the French inhabitants of Normandy and elsewhere, because they had been promised protection by the king’s officers. In other words, he could no longer live off the land. He hoped an exception would be made in his case and the safeguards would not apply to him.

Like his contemporary Sir John Fastolf, de Surienne had no hesitation in advising even the king on how the war – and the projected peace – should be conducted.  In his opinion only experienced diplomats, well informed of the state of the war, should be entrusted with the negotiations.

De Surienne did not want a grant of lands in Normandy as might be expected, he wanted an estate in England, for himself, his wife and his children. King Henry granted him 100 marks.

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

(1) PPC V, pp. 147-150 (de Surienne’s petition).

(2) Bossuat, Perrinet Gressart et François de Surienne, pp. 273-274 (de Surienne’s petition).

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

Sir John Radcliffe, a synopsis

Sir John Radcliffe died early in 1441. The Council acknowledged their indebtedness to him, not only in money but in unpaid services for over twenty years.

Radcliffe was a younger son with few prospects who made his career in military service to the Lancastrian kings.  His date of birth is not known, but he fought for King Henry IV at the battle of Shrewsbury in 1403 when he was probably in his late teens.  He served under Thomas of Lancaster, later Duke or Clarence, in Ireland and in France under King Henry V and Thomas Beaufort, Duke of Exeter.

Henry V made him Constable of Bordeaux in 1419, and the crown was in debt to him when the king died.  One of the Minority Council’s first acts in 1423 was to promote Radcliffe to become Seneschal of Gascony, the highest military post in the duchy, and captain of the strategically important castle of Fronsac on the Dordogne.  Radcliffe campaigned to recover towns and cities previously lost to the French.

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

Radcliffe came home in 1425 and petitioned Parliament to discharge him as seneschal  with the responsibility for defending Gascony. He was not prepared to take the blame ‘if it happened that God allowed any mischance’ to befall the duchy. The Council and Parliament took no notice of his plea and continued to treat him as the Seneschal of Gascony.

See Year 1425: Parliament, Sir John Radcliffe.

The Council did their meagre best over the years to pay Radcliffe. They granted him several warships and marriages, including that of Ralph, Earl of Westmorland.

See Year 1426: The Minority Council, Sir John Radcliffe.

Although wardships were valuable, they were not permanent, they ended when the ward came of age or married. Radcliffe’s only permanent acquisition of land through wardship was that of Elizabeth, the only child of Lord Fitzwalter. Radcliffe married her to his younger son John to retain the Fitzwalter inheritance.

Radcliffe remained in England for several years. He captured the outlaw William Wawe in 1427, but the Council were anxious for him to return to the duchy.

See Year 1427:  William Wawe.

In 1428 they granted him the estates in Gascony of Amaniu Béguey ‘during pleasure,’ a somewhat dubious enticement since there was another claimant to them.

See Year 1428 The Duchy of Gascony, Sir John Radcliffe.

Radcliffe was made a Knight of the Garter in 1429 and granted £1,000 a year from the customs of the port of Melcombe. This may have tipped the scale.  He committed to returning to Gascony, but he and the force raised to go with him were diverted to meet the crisis in France that required the despatch of a large an army. Radcliffe’s reputation as a war captain was sufficiently well known in England for the chronicles to take an interest in him.

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

Radcliffe lost the income from the Béguey estates when the Council, with little consideration for Radcliffe, granted them to the Gascon Bernard de Montferrand.

See Year 1430: The Duchy of Gascony, Sir John Radcliffe.

Nevertheless, he returned to Gascony in 1431. Perhaps it was a trade-off: Radcliffe was assigned the income not only from Melcombe but from four other ports in the West Country.  Financially it was the best offer he ever received.

Radcliffe stuck it out for two years. but in 1433 he came home again to claim payment for himself and his men. He also requested Parliament to grant him lands in England as compensation for those he lost in Gascony.

See Year 1433: Parliament, Petitions, Sir John Radcliffe.

The crown owed him £7029, and the Council granted him an income from the principality of Wales which, however welcome, would fall short of what he was owed. He was appointed Chamberlain of North Wales in 1434.

See Year 1434: Royal Finance, Sir John Radcliffe.

Radcliffe was sent with William Lyndwood Keeper of the Privy Seal as the advance party to the Congress of Arras in 1435, possibly in his capacity as seneschal and therefore representative of Gascony.

See Year 1435: The Congress of Arras.

In 1436 the Duke of Gloucester named him as his lieutenant in Calais when the town was threatened by the Duke of Burgundy. Gloucester had a high opinion of Radcliffe’s military skills and of his loyalty, which was not misplaced.  The Brut Continuation H praised Radcliffe and his part in preparing for the siege of Calais.

See Year 1436: The Siege of Calais.

Radcliffe probably left Calais for England in the autumn of 1436.  He was growing old and was not expected to return to Gascony.  He was formally discharged as Seneschal of Gascony and captain of Fronsac.

In 1439 a special assignment was made to him to repay £1,100 he had loaned to the crown (1).  But when he died in 1441, he was still owed £7015 for services.  The Council awarded his son Thomas Radcliffe and his executors £7,015 for the period from 1 September 1423 to 6 November 1436, and a belated £68 for his expenses in attending the Congress of Arras (2). Radcliffe was respected and praised by his contemporaries, but he derived little material benefit from his long years of service.

(1, 2) CPR 1436-1441, p. 247 and p. 542

www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1386-1421/member/radcliffe-sir-john

Council Proceedings

The Manor of Frodsham

King Henry had granted the manor of Frodsham in Cheshire to Thomas Daurell for life, believing it to be worth £20 p.a.  The Treasurer, Lord Cromwell advised him that the manor with appurtenances was of far greater value. Henry was known to grant over generous gifts, and John Troutbeck, the chamberlain of Chester had not in fact executed Henry’s original letters. Did he warn Cromwell of the discrepancy?

Henry instructed Troutbeck to revoke the grant and deliver the letters patent back to Westminster.  He still wished Daurell to receive the £20, and he ordered Troutbeck to see that it was paid out of the income from Frodsham (1).

(1) PPC V, pp. 144-145 (Frodsham).

A Mercer of London

A licence was granted to [. . . . ] Wollesley, a member of the Mercer’s Guild in London to import tapestries and furs without paying customs duties.  The otherwise unidentified Wollesley may have been buying goods for the royal household as the licence was granted ‘during pleasure,’ or he may have made loan to the king (1).

(1) PPC V, p. 180 (Wollesley).

Safe Conduct

A safe conduct was issued in November for Thomas Tulloch Bishop of Orkney, Thomas Penbyn, a chaplain, and Patrick Falconer now in Flanders, coming from Rome, to pass through England to Scotland (1) .

(1) Foedera XI, p 1.

The Council as Judges

Thomas Bocher a prisoner in King’s Bench impeached John Combe, John Balman, John Steere former mayors of Colchester, and a woman called Julia Savage of treason in November 1441. Any criticism of the king, however mild, could be construed as treason. They came before the Council to deny the accusation and ‘offered their bodies to due punishment if the information were found to be true.’

They swore to answer truthfully any questions put to them. Each of them was asked if they had ever held any conversation with Thomas Bocher in which words critical of the king had been spoken, and they each said that they had not. Julia Savage appears to have claimed that one Thomas Bently who had not been summoned, had also spoken against the king.

The case was sufficiently serious for John Hody, chief justice of Kings Bench, and Richard Newton, Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas, to attend the hearing. They found that the accused were ‘simple people’ who had come to council to defend themselves, they were not guilty of any crime. And, considering Thomas Bocher’s  bad reputation and ‘unthriftiness,’ the case against them should be dismissed, but they should be willing to present themselves in council again if the king desired it. They promised to do so (1).

A dispute between Sir Robert Ogle, Constable of Roxburgh Castle, and ‘oon’ Bedford, otherwise unknown, was under consideration by the Council. On 17 November attorneys were appointed, Danby to represent Bedford and [Thomas?] Young for Ogle.  They were to present their case to the council on the following day, but the hearing was then postponed to 22 November (2).

William Flete had submitted a bill of complaint to the Council against one Ryman who had been commanded to appear before the council to hear and answer the charges against him.  He was present on 25 November, but the Council found it needed more time to discuss and adjudicate on Flete’s complaints.  Their judgement was postponed, and Ryman was ordered to reappear on 15 January 1442 (the quinzaine of St Hilary) (3).

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

(1) PPC V p 166- 167 (Thomas Bocher).

(2) PPC V, pp. 162 and 167 (Robret Ogle).

(3) PPC V, pp. 168 and 172 (William Flete).

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

 The Church

William Aiscough, Bishop of Salisbury

King Henry promoted his confessor, William Aiscough, to become Bishop of Salisbury in 1438. A curial bishop, Aiscough was avaricious. In 1441 he petitioned the king for payment from the Exchequer of £6 5s. 8d., as his costs for sending a messenger from Henry at Sheen to Archbishop Chichele at Maidstone. The amount seems excessive for what was a short journey (1).

In April he requested ‘of your gracious gift’ a breviary covering the liturgical year in two parts. This would have been a valuable book (2).

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

(1) PPC V, p. 130 (Aiscough payment).

(2) PPC V, p. 141 (Aiscough Breviary).

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

William Alnwick, Bishop of Lincoln

Richard Harweden Abbot of Westminster died in 1440.  In January 1441 William Alnwick, Bishop of Lincoln, petitioned King Henry to confirm the gift to him by Harweden (in his will?) of four valuable books, which are listed (1).

(1) PPC V, pp. 140-141 (gift to Alnwick).

 

John Lydgate

King Henry had granted John Lydgate, the poet monk of Bury St Edmunds a pension of 10 marks from the Ipswich customs in 1439. In May 1440 Henry substituted £7 13s 4d. from the farm of Waynflete, but Lydgate received only half that amount.

In November 1441 Lydgate petitioned that he had not received anything more owning to an irregularity in the grant which caused the Exchequer to reject it (this was not unusual in some of King Henrys grants). Lydgate petitioned to have the grant reissued  to him and John Baret, the treasurer of the abbey, under the Great Sea. The earlier letters patent would be surrendered by the Abbot of Bury St Edmunds to be cancelled. This was not at a council meeting, only the Earl of Suffolk and Adam Moleyns who recorded the grant, were present (1, 2).

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

(1) PPC V, pp. 156-57 (Lydgate’s petition)

(2)  DNB ‘John Lydgate’ vol XII, p. 308

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

Adam Moleyns

Moleyns became clerk of the council in 1438. He petitioned King Henry in February 1441 to be presented to the church of Cottingham in the diocese of York.  His petition was granted at the request of the Earl of Suffolk and Sir John Beauchamp (later Lord Beauchamp of Powick, one of King Henry’s favourite knights of the body) (1).

He was rising steadily through the ranks in royal service. He also acted as Deputy to the Keeper of the Privy Seal. In June he claimed the same annual reward and clothing as William Lyndwood, Keeper of the Privy Seal, had when he served in the office of deputy (2). He had accumulated a number of benefices as he had no income of his own, and he became Dean of Salisbury in October 1441 (3)

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

(1) PPC V, p. 135 (church benefice).

(2) PPC V, p. 150 (annual allowances).

(3) Reeves, Lancastrian Englishmen.

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

Cistercians

The Cistercian order, the White Monks, had been permitted by the Council to carry out a visitation of all the Cistercian houses in England and Wales in 1432.

See Year 1432: Cistercians.

The entry in the Proceedings dated to 19 Henry VI with no day was assigned by Nicolas to 30 April 1441 with the note: date added in a modern hand.  It may relate to the visitation of 1432:

The Abbots of the Cistercian monasteries of Furness, Byland, Sawley, Kirkstead, Hailes and Margam informed the king and council that they had been instructed by the primate of their order to institute reforms from top to bottom, “head and members.”  They had called a meeting of all the Cistercian abbots in England and Wales to Northampton on 8 May. They requested the king to authorise the attendance of all those summoned and to command all royal officers to give them protection and any help they might require.  King Henry agreed (1).

(1) PPC V, pp. 151-152 (Cistercian visitation).

Child oblates

Did King Henry encourage monasteries to accept children to be raised and educated for a religious life? In October 1441 a schedule of payments by ‘letters close’ issued under the privy seal authorised payment to the abbots of Glastonbury, Bury St Edmunds, and St Albans for the admission of child oblates into their care (1).

(1) Foedera X, p. 852 (child oblates).

Guild of St Nicholas

The parish clerks in the City of London petitioned King Henry in December to be excused from paying the mandatory fine in the hanaper for the founding of a guild, which they could not afford. Lacunae in the text obscure parts of the petition but mention ‘the special devotion which youre said besechers hath to the glorious confessor Saint Nicholas,’ the guild was to be founded in his honour.  King Henry was born on St Nicholas’s Day, 6 December. The petition was granted (1).

(1) PPC V, p. 182 (guild of St Nicholas).

An Affray in Oxford

The affray in Oxford in 1441 is unique to Benet’s Chronicle. Harriss believed it was written by an eyewitness, perhaps because of its precise details.

William Wytham was the Principal of White Hall, an Oxford college where Scottish students were trained to become lawyers. At the end of August 1441 some English students ‘men of the south’ of an unidentified college, attacked Wytham’s lodging yelling ‘Fire! Fire! Fire’ to entice the Scots ‘men of the north,’ to come out into the street where they could be got at more easily. They taunted the Scots, calling them ‘Scottish dogs.’ Wytham either opened a door or gate when he heard the commotion and the attackers fired arrows through the opening, but no one was hurt.

William Grey, Chancellor of the University and Thomas Bayley the mayor of Oxford ordered the combatants to disperse, but they reassembled the next afternoon outside Broadgates Hall. Wytham was formerly the Principal of Broadgates Hall, so perhaps the animus was against him. Street fighting broke out and the English students had the worst of it. Many of them were beaten or knocked unconscious by the Scots; some took shelter and some hid in the cellars of Broadgates.

Twenty-four triumphant Scots made their way towards Carfax where they encountered thirty Welshmen rushing to defend Broadgates. (Broadgates subsequently became Pembroke College so perhaps it housed Welshmen?).  The Scots felled some of them and the others fled. One Welshman was wounded in the neck by an arrow and died eight days later.

There is no explanation as to why the riot started, but the chronicler’s sympathies appear to lie with the Scots.

“And during the night after the Feast of the beheading of John the Baptist [30 August ] suddenly and for no reason, an affray broke out in Oxford involving about sixty well-armed southern students ‘men of the south.’  They behaved riotously; they broke a window of Master William Wytham, a doctor of civil law, at that time principal of the White Hall in vico Cathenarum. 

On the following day, a Wednesday, the feast of  St Felix and Adauctus [31 August ] despite injunctions issued by the chancellor assisted by the mayor of Oxford, Thomas Bayley, an encounter between armed men from both parties took place around two o’clock in the afternoon on the king’s highway, opposite the gate of the college which is commonly called Broadgates in the parish of All Saints. The fighting was fierce, and many of the southern student were beaten and felled to the ground.  Thirty of them hid in the college cellars at Broadgates. Fearing for their lives, they did not dare to show themselves.

About twenty-four of the triumphant northern men ran towards Carfax while thirty Welshmen hurried to defend Broadgates.  The northerners beat some of them, knocked over others, and the rest fled. One Welshman was wounded in the neck by an arrow and died eight days later.  However, thanks to the Lord’s protection not one of the northerners was injured.”         Benet’s Chronicle, pp. 187-188

London

Mayor of London

The mayor of London was chosen by the aldermen on St Edward’s Day, 13 October, from names submitted by the Common Council. The two candidates in 1441 were Robert Clopton, a Draper, and Ralph Holland, a Tailor. Holland had challenged the exclusive right of the mayor and alderman to select the next mayor in 1426, but he became an alderman himself in 1435 and so was eligible for nomination.

Robert Clopton, Mayor

Clopton was elected, but a group of tailors cried out “Nay, nay, not this man but Raulyn Holand.”  They created such a disturbance that they were committed to Newgate prison (1).

The Tailors were at loggerheads with the Drapers. They had purchased a charter from King Henry in 1439 (for the large sum of £71 5s. 3d) granting them the right of search and measurement of woollen cloth sold in the City, a privilege which traditionally belonged to the Drapers.

The Drapers had appealed against the king’s grant in August 1441 and King Henry was forced to concede that the rights and privileges of the Mayors and the City had been breached. Clopton succeeded in getting the powers granted to the tailors revoked (2).

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

(1) C.L. Kingsford, ‘London in the Fifteenth century’ in Prejudice and Promise in Fifteenth Century England’ (1925), p. 108.

(2) Letter Book K, ed. Sharpe, pp 259-261 (charter revoked).

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

  “Also þis yere, at chesing of þe Mair of London, þe commones named Robert Chapton, & Raulyne Holand, taylor.  & þe Aldermenn toke Robert Clapton, & brought him at þe right hond of þe Mair, as þe custome is.  And þan certeyn tayloures & other hand-crafty men cried “nay! nat þat man, but Raulyn Holand!”  Wherof þe Mair, þat was Padesly, sent þo þat cried so to Newgate, where they Abode a gret while, & wer wel ponysshed.”    Brut Continuation G, p. 509                          

“Thys mayers tyme alsoo upon the daye of the translacion of Seynt Edward when the Comonys were assemblyd at the Guyldhalle to chose a newe mayer, and by agrement of the said comonys Robert Copton draper & Rowland hubbard Taylour were laid & presentid to the mayer & aldyrmen to take that oon of those two which by theym was thowgth moost habelest, and the said mayer & aldyrmen chase þ^e fforenamyd Robert Clopton ffor mayer for the yere ffolowyng, and aftyr that elecion made as yerely is accustumyd, The mayer browgth doun the said Robert upon his Rygth hand Into the utter halle, Whereof when the Taylours were advertysid, anoon they Cryed Nay Nay, Not this man but Rawlyn hubbard, and soo contynuyd this unresonable Cry tyll the mayer were sett & his brethyr, and  notw’standyng the monycions govyn to theym by the mayer & shyrevys offycers; They In noo wyse wold ceas of theyr indyscrete noyse, Tyll the mayer sent doun the Shyrevis, Commaundyng theym to bryng all such Ill avysid personys to pryson. The which was by the said shyrevis executid. And soo seacid þ^e Rumour, and the said undyscreet persons Remaynid in Newagte & othir prisonys to theyr grete payn long afftyr.” Great Chronicle, pp. 175-76                  

NB: The Great Chronicle misspells ‘Clopton’ twice and names Ralph Holand as ‘Rowland hubbard,’ indicating that it was written or copied long after this event.                                              

“In the day of Eleccion of this forsaid Robet Clopton to be mayr, at yeldhalle after the lawdable custome the Comons of the Cite namyd Robet Clopton and Rawlyn holand,  tailour, for their eleccion of a mayr for the yere folowyng.  And the mair and Aldermen chase Robert Clopton.  And when the mair brought downe the said Robert upon his Right hand, as the custume is, certeyn Tailours and other hand craftymen cried:  Nay, nay, not this mand but Rawlyn holand; wherfore the mair, John Paddesley, sent those persons that so cried vnro Newgate, where as they abode a long while and were punysshed there for their mysse demeanour.” Chronicles of London (Vitellius A XVI) pp. 54-55

Item the same yer upon seint Edwards day the xxiij day of Octobr in chesing of the mair clept Robert Clopton [divers persons] wer at Guyldhall endited of pety treson by the avyse of the Aldremen or they departed out of the hall and comyt to newgate þerto abide the kings grace because they made a newe proclamacion upon Rauf holond aldreman aftr that the same Robert Clopton was presented mair. Bale’s Chronicle, p. 116

Genoese merchants

The Mayor and Aldermen of London raised the question of socage owed to them by the Genoese. The Council decreed that the Genoese should offer security for the payments owed, to be tested from time to time in the king’s court as to what and when payments were due (1).

Socage probably refers to land or buildings owned by the Corporation of London but rented or occupied by Genoese merchants. Since London merchants actively discouraged ‘aliens’ from remaining in London for any length of time this may have been a form of harassment.

(1) PPC V, p 169

Trade with the Netherlands

Holland and Zeeland

Holland and Zeeland were not signatories to the trade treaty of 1439 between England and Flanders.  The Dutch had not conformed to the Duke of Burgundy’s trade embargoes, but they objected strongly to the English bullion and partition ordinance of 1430 that required immediate payment for wool bought through the Staple at Calais.

See Year 1439: Trade Treaty and Truce with Burgundy.

See Year 1430: Parliament, Bullion and Partition Ordinance.

In July 1441 William Lyndwood, Keeper of the Privy Seal, Roger Hunt, a Baron of the Exchequer, Richard Andrew, John Stokes, William Sprever, Robert Whitingham Treasurer of Calais,  and four prominent London merchants, Sir William Estfeld, Henry Frowyk, William Cotesbrook, and Thomas Brough were named to treat ‘for an alliance and mercantile intercourse’ with Holland, Zeeland and Friesland (1).

Lyndwood, Hunt, Stokes, Sprever and Cotesbroke  were authorised to conduct the negotiations. Stokes, Sprever, and Cotesbroke had been commissioners in 1439.

The Dutch hoped to persuade the English to ease the bullion requirements of the partition ordinance in their favour, but the English negotiators refused. ‘Despite the severe damage which the bullionist conflict had inflicted upon England’s chief export trades, the King’s Council still showed no willingness to relax the Staple regulations.’ Nevertheless, the merchants of Holland and Zeeland continued to trade in the English cloth (2).

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

(1) Foedera X, p. 848-849 (negotiators)

(2) Munro, Wool, Cloth, and Gold, p 120

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

The Hanseatic League

                          

In November 1441 a consortium of English merchants presented ‘a bill of divers complaints against Prussia and the Hanse’ to the Council at the suit of John Aderley, alderman and citizen of London, Thomas Limberey of Colchester, and Simkin Horn of London (1). English merchants trading in the Baltic towns of the Hanseatic League had long complained of unfair treatment, that German merchants trading or residing in London enjoyed far greater privileges than Englishmen trading in the Baltic.

See Year 1428: The Hanseatic League

Hanse delegates and English representatives had hammered out a trade treaty in 1437 that was acceptable to the English but received with suspicion by the Prussians and the Hanse.

See Year 1437: The Hanseatic League

But relations did not improve. English merchants continued to complain that the Hanse failed to implement the terms of the treaty, and to importune the Council for redress.

The Council accepted the 1441 petition. They directed letters of privy seal to the mayors and bailiffs Southampton, Sandwich, Colchester, Ipswich, Kings Lynn, Hull, York, Bristol, and Boston commanding them to enquire of returning merchants how Englishmen in Prussia and the Hanse and Danzig were being treated, what loses they have suffered from the time of the agreement in 1437, by whom and when.  They were to send their findings in writing to the king and council by two credible men of the towns at the octave of St Hilary next [January 1442] so that the king, by the advice of the council, could issue letters for the relief of his subjects (2)

A cleric and a merchant would be sent to the Grand Master of Prussia and to the Hanse towns to explain the English complaints. The merchants themselves were to suggest a suitable candidate, while the Council would inform the king, and ask him to name a cleric.

The Council also summoned representatives of the Hanse and instructed them to write to their countries’ governors forwarding the English complaints, and to the Grand Master of Prusia, reminding him of the privileges he had granted in 1428.  They were to require an undertaking that in future Englishmen merchants would be treated according to previous agreements, otherwise the king and council would ’ordain’ against the Hanse (3).

The Council did not recognise, and would not have admitted, that England needed trade with the Baltic more than the Hanse needed trade with England. Imports from the Hanse, especially of timber and grain were vital, and so were exports of English wool and cloth to markets in the north.

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

(1) PPC V p. 167 (bill of complaint to the Council).

(2) PPC V pp. 177-178 (instructions to the ports to report injustices).

(3) PPC V, pp. 170-171 (the Council’s reaction).

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

The Order of St John of Jerusalem at Rhodes

Robert Botill was elected Prior of the Order in England in 1439. He was licenced in April 1441 ‘to go abroad on the king’s mission’ taking plate and money with him (1). He mission was to attend the Emperor Frederick and the meeting of Diet of the German Princes in Mainz, but Botill requested permission to visit Rhodes. This was granted, although he was expected to return to Mainz by September. But Botil remained in Rhodes.

King Henry wrote to John de Lastic, Grand Master of the Knights Hospitallers and to Botill early in 1442 ordering Botill to proceed to the meeting of the German Diet which had been transferred to Frankfurt ‘without fail, on pain of royal displeasure’ (2).

Sir John Ellam, a knight of the Order of St John of Jerusalem in England may have travelled in Botil’s company. Ellam was licensed in May to travel to Rhodes taking with him £40 in gold, costly assorted cloths, and two silver plates (3). These items were too valuable to be Ellam’s personal possessions, they probably represent the English Order’s contribution to the maintenance of the Knights Hospitallers at Rhodes.

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

(1) DKR, French Rolls, p. 346 (Botil to go to Rhodes).

(2) Bekyngton, Correspondence I, pp. 87-91 (Botil at Rhodes, ordered to return).

(3) Foedera X, p. 848 (Ellam and valuable goods).

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

Emperor Frederick

King Henry had promised to send ambassadors to the Diet, the assembly of German Princes, that the Emperor Frederick proposed to hold, initially in Mainz.  Henry wrote in February 1441 to express his surprise at the frequent changes of venue. He wrote again in July to say he was awaiting safe conducts for his ambassadors, and he found the delay irksome. His letter must have crossed with one from Frederick who issued a blanket safe conduct for Henry’s ambassadors on 4 July with no names mentioned (1).

Payment for John Lowe, Bishop of St Asaph and Reginald Boulers, Abbot of Gloucester travel to Frankfurt, where the Diet had been transferred, was authorised at the end of October (2) but they did not leave England until March 1442.

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

(1) Bekyngton, Correspondence II, pp 97 and 102 (Henry VI’s letter and Fredreick’s safe conduct).

(2) Foedera X, p. 852 (payment to Lowe and Boulers).

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

The Archbishop of Cologne

Dietrich, Prince Archbishop of Cologne sent John Frauwremborg to England to remind the Council that his annuity, agreed under the terms of the alliance of 1440, had not been paid.

See Year 1440: Dietrich, Prince Archbishop of Cologne.

The Council directed Frauwremborg to return to Cologne in November with letters reassuring the archbishop; the annuity would be paid early in 1442, payment was late because the Treasurer was absent (1, 2).  This may be a prevarication; Cromwell attended council meetings in January, February, May, and November 1441, but there was no money available to meet the archbishop’s requirement.

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

(1) PPC V, p 176 (Frauwremborg, his name is left blank in the order, was to be paid 10 marks).

(2) PPC V, p. 181 (repeated in a modern transcript from a different source.)

 Both dated 28 November.  In the second Frauwremborg whose name is given, was to be paid 60 marks which seems too high.)

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

The Duchy of Brittany

The problem of Breton piracy periodically occupied the Council’s attention. Meetings with Breton envoys on the subject took place in 1432, and Garter King of Arms visited the Duke of Brittany in 1433 to pursue the issue.

See Years 1432 and 1433: The Duchy of Brittany.

The Council received a complaint in 1441 from merchants or ship owners, identified only as ‘the king’s subjects,’ that ships and cargoes had been captured by Breton pirates. English merchants complaining of Breton piracy was a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Relying on an earlier promise by the Duke of Brittany, ever the conciliator, to make restitution for his subjects’ depredations, the Council agreed to apprise him of the complaint.  There is an obscure reference in the minutes of the meeting on 28 November that the complainants may have requested letters of marque to legalise private retaliation.

See Year 1428: Trade with the Netherlands: Letters of Marque.

On the same day, 28 November, that they declared their intention to send a cleric and a merchant to the Hanse, the Council decided to send a cleric and a merchant to Brittany, presumably to discuss reparations for unlawful seizure at sea (1). There is no record in the Proceedings or in the Foedera of who, if anyone, was sent.

(1) PPC V, p. 177

Spain

Safe conducts for three Spanish merchant ships of 300 to 400 tons were extended for one year only from 28 November 1441. The Council ordered that any new safe conducts issued to Spanish ships must specify the name of the ship and the ship’s master (1).

This too may have had to do with complaints of piracy (2). Merchants and ships ‘of Spain’ probably meant Castilians, as Castile was an ally of France and known to have a formidable navy. Keeping a check on Spanish ships may be another example of the apprehension felt by the Council at this time (1).

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

(1) PPC V, p. 177

(2) Power and Postan, English Trade, pp.218-219 (piracy).

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

Richard Duke of York, the King’s Lieutenant in France

 York’s appointment

Richard, Duke of York had been appointed to a second term as the king’s lieutenant in France in July 1440, but he delayed his departure until all his conditions for service had been met or assured. He did not leave England for Rouen until late June 1441 (1).

See Year 1440: Richard, Duke of York.

York’s indentures gave him a free hand in Normandy, with promises of sound financial and military support. His authority had been curtailed in 1436 by the council in Rouen, but in 1440 he was granted the same powers as the Regent Bedford had enjoyed.

He was to receive £20,000 a year, which was not to be assigned for any other purpose. An allowance of 30,000 francs (presumably from the treasury in Rouen) to maintain his household in a style befitting his position. And control of all revenues raised in Normandy.

York was to appoint duchy officials and all captains of garrison towns. More ominously he could dismiss and replace any man he deemed unfit for command (2, 3).

York expected, or was expected, to wage war. In February 1441 the Treasurer was ordered to ‘purvey in all haste’ to the Duke of York (or give him the cash equivalent) 8,000 lbs saltpetre; 2,000 lbs brimstone; 4 fothers of lead; 2,000 long bows; 4,000 sheaves of arrows, 100 gross of bow strings; and 500 spears (4).

York complained that these amounts fell short of the requirements specified in his indentures, but Adam Moleyns negotiated with him in May to accept what was on offer as ‘reasonable,’ (all he was likely to get) or take cash in lieu (which he was unlikely to get).  Moleyns persuaded him, and York agreed (5).

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

(1) Johnson, York, pp. 33-39.

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

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

(4) PPC V, pp. 132-134. (ordnance).

(5) PPC V, pp. 145-146 (ordnance short fall).

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

Crown Jewels

York had been promised a large army, but there was no money to pay for it.

In February 1441 King Henry ‘wishing to render all the aid in his power’ instructed the Treasurer to coin (melt down), sell, or pledge crown jewels as quickly as possible to raise the sum required (1). To sell, or even worse, to melt down crown jewels was unprecedented, they belonged to the crown.

King Henry V had pledged crown jewels extensively throughout his reign for loans to finance his war, but it was clearly understood that these jewels could not be sold. They had to be held, sometimes for years, until such time as the Treasurer could redeem them, often at a discount. Successive treasurers from 1423 made it a priority to recover as many of the jewels as they could to be used as pledges for future loans.  They negotiated for or demanded their return.

In 1423 Walter Hungerford, an executor of Henry V’s will, was ordered to surrender the ‘pledges’ given to him by the late king. The Treasury would retain them until such time, if ever, as the administrators of Henry’s will paid him their true value.

In 1437 Lord Willoughby was pardoned for retaining crown jewels pledged to him by Henry V for services to the crown. He compounded with the Treasurer for what he was owed and was probably required to surrender the jewels at the treasury’s estimation.

There were a few exceptions: Cardinal Beaufort, the largest lender to the crown had been given permission to sell some jewels when it looked as though the Exchequer would be unable to repay his larger loans, but in fact he never did so.

Thomas Beaufort, Duke of Exeter claimed that jewels he held from Henry V were a gift, not a pledge, so he was entitled to keep them, but the Council disagreed. In 1423 Treasurer Stafford was authorised come to a ‘reasonable agreement’ with Exeter for their return (2).

The only other exception until 1441 was for the Duke of York himself in 1438.  The Council pledged jewels to him for a debt, and promised they would be redeemed by September or the following Easter 1439. If repayment was not made York would be entitled to keep or sell the jewels (3).

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

(1) PPC V, p. 132 (Henry VI’s instructions).

(2) PPC III, p. 101-102 (Duke of Exeter).

(3) L& P II, Preface, pp. lxxi-lxxii (Duke of York).

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

 York’s Departure

York petitioned in March for a licence, to be confirmed under the Great Seal, to enfeoff manors in Dorset, Essex, Gloucester, Suffolk, and Surrey, to protect them while he was away (1).

The first muster of York’s army was scheduled for 15 March. His departure was postponed (2). He was to muster at Portsmouth, Southampton, and Poole by 1 April, with 700 men-at-arms and 2,100 archers. Ships were requisitioned in February to be at Portsmouth by the end of March at the latest (3).

John Yerde received £10 in April to take the muster of 200 men-at-arms and ‘the proportionate number of archers’ assembled to accompany York (4).

A large chest filled with coins to pay 150 men-at-arms at the going rate for service in France was entrusted to Walter Colles and Lewis John with a key each required to unlock it. They were to take a muster as soon as the army arrived in France and the chest was not to be unlocked until the muster was compete. Lewis John was to join the council in Rouen; he was paid  £50 (5).

The Council became increasingly impatience with York’s delay. They had received credible reports that the French were besieging Creil and York was expected to go to its relief (6, 7). On 16 May they urged York to speed up his preparations and depart as soon as possible. Sufficient shipping had been assembled to transport his whole army at one time, a considerable feat of logistics.

York had reason to mistrust the promises of the king and council, but his delay was inexcusable in view of the situation in France. Creil was captured and a French army under King Charles and the Dauphin Louis was threating Pontoise. Only Lord Talbot stood between them and victory.

See The War in France below

York probably left London for Portsmouth in May, but he did not cross to France until the end of June, not long after the council in Rouen had written to complain of his non-arrival. His first warrant issued in Rouen is dated 6 July.

York set up his court in Rouen in some style. According to the chronicles he was accompanied by his wife, Cecily, who may have delayed York’s departure. She gave birth in February to their first son, named for the king, but the baby lived only a short while.

Sir Richard Woodville and his wife Jacquetta, Dower Duchess of Bedford were no strangers to Rouen. Henry Bourchier, the English Count of Eu, was York’s brother-in-law. John de Vere, Earl of Oxford and his wife Elizabeth. John, Lord Clinton and the young Sir James Butler the son of the Earl of Ormond.

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

(1) PPC V, pp. 136-38 (petition in French, enfeoffment in Latin).

(2) CPR 1436-1441 p 529 (York’s muster).

(3) CPR 1436-1441, p.  538 (ships of 20 tons and over)

(4) PPC V, p. 142 (John Yerde to muster).

(5) PPC V, pp. 142-143 (chest of coins to pay the army).

(6) PPC V, pp. 146-147 (York urged to cross to France).

(7) L&P II, Preface lxxi-lxxii (York’s commission and instructions to leave England, misdated to 1438 by Stevenson).

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

Bale’s Chronicle (p. 115) and the Annales date York’s departure to 16 May, but 25 June in Benet’s Chronicle, or even later, appears more likely.

“Ande the xvj day of May the Duke of Yorke, the Erle of Oxynforde, the Erle of Ewe, the Earle of Ormounde, and Syr Richard Woodevyle, whythe many othyr knyghtys and squyers toke the way towarde Fraunce, and they schippyd at Portysmouthe. Gregory’s Chronicle, p. 183

“Henry, the first son of Richard Duke of York was born at Hatfield on Friday, 10 February [1441] at 5 in the morning. And this same year on 16 May the Duke of York left England for France, having been created Regent of France for five years.”  Annales. p. 763

“And in 1441 on the day after the Nativity of St John the Baptist, [25 June] Richard Duke of York went over to France with 5,000 men of war.”  Benet’s Chronicle, p. 187

“In this same yere went the duke of York in to Normandy, with the erll of Oxenford, the erlle of Ewe, Sir Richard Woodvyl, Sir Jamys of Ormond, the lord Clynton, and many other gentyles with a fayre retenewe of peple, and whas made Regent of ffraunce for v yere; and he schipped at portysmowth.” Chronicles of London (Cleopatra C IV) p. 148 and A Chronicle of London (Harley 565) p. 127

“And in this same yere, the xvj^th of Maye, the Duke of York, the Erle of Oxenford, the Erle of Ewe, Sir Richard Wodvyle, knyght, with oþer Barons, lordes, knyghtes and squyers, men of armes and archers, went ouer the See with all good aray, as armoure and all oþer stuff þat belongeth to werre, to gouerne and kepe the Kynges right in Fraunce and Normandy, and in all Cuntrees in those partyes to the worship and profite of the Kyng and of the Reame of England. 

“And with theym went ouer the see the Duchesse of York, the Duchesse of Bedford, the Countesse of Oxenford, the Countesse of Ewe, and many oþer mo ladyes with theire lordes, and other gentelwomen and damysels þat bilongd to theym: Almyghty God gouerne theym all, and kepe in his saufgard! Amen!”  Brut Continuation F, p 477

Peace Talks

While the Council urged the Duke of York to cross to France and continue the war, the idea being that a strong military presence would make the French take fright and force them to negotiate, King Henry, encouraged by Cardinal Beaufort and Cardinal Kemp, pursued his conflicting policy of peace with France. It was pure wishful thinking.

On 10 April Henry, ‘advised to send his grete and solemn ambaxiat to his towne of Caleis ther to endtende to ye tretee of peas’ instructed the same delegates who had waited in vain in Calais throughout 1440 to return to Calais: Lord Dudley, Stephen Wilton, Thomas Kyriell, and Robert Whitingham (1, 2).

Duke Philip of Burgundy, John, Duke of Brittany, and Charles, Duke of Orleans formed an alliance for mutual protection on the pretext of promoting a ‘general peace’ between England and France, at which they would act as mediators, the latter supposedly fulfilling his oath to King Henry. They were joined by the Duke and Alençon and the Duke of Bourbon, who had recently taken part the short-lived rebellion against King Charles known as the Praguerie. Charles had defeated this coalition of recalcitrant nobles without much difficulty, but the threat of royal reprisals remained.

Burgundy and Brittany had little to fear from England, but everything to fear from their overlord the King of France who would not hesitate to invade their territories if it suited him. Charles had an excellent spy service. He was well aware of the duplicity of his magnates especially now that the Duke of Orleans was free and under the Duke of Burgundy’s control (3).

Safe conducts, addressed first to Philippe, Lord of Culant who was with King Charles at the siege of Creil, to attend a peace convention in the marches of Calais in May were issued to a bewildering number of potential French delegates. Twenty five in all, including four members of the Duke of Orleans household, five French bishops, the Duke of Alencon, the Duke of Bourbon, the Count of Eu, the Count of Vendôme, and the son of the Count of Armagnac. The most extraordinary inclusion is that of Georges de la Tremoille, King Charles’s favourite minister who had been forced to leave court in disgrace in 1433 (4).

Who supplied King Henry with the list of French nobles to be invited?  The Duchess of Burgundy?  The Duke of Orleans? Certainly not King Charles. At a meeting of his council in Laon on 28 April Charles revoked all previous commissions to treat with the English. He had also politely but firmly rejected the overtures of his former ally the Duchess of Burgundy when she came to Laon to urge him to make peace and reconcile with the Duke of Orleans (5, 6).

Towards the end of May, despite complaining that his envoys had been kept waiting in Calais for three weeks, Henry issued a new commission to those same envoys plus Sir Robert Roos, to meet French delegates and fix a time and a venue between Gravelines and Calais for a meeting (7). It never took place. Without Charles VII’s consent it was a dead letter.

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

(1) PPC V, pp. 139-140 (Henry’s envoys).

(2) DKR, French Rolls, p. 347 (Henry’s envoys, dated 24 April).

(3) Beaucourt, Charles VII, vol. III, pp. 200-201(league of French princes).

(4) Foedera X, pp. 844-847 (safe conducts for French delegates).

(5) Monstrelet II, pp. 110-111 (Isabelle, general peace and the Duke of Orleans)

(6) Beaucourt, Charles VII, vol III, p. 197-199 (Charles VII at Laon).

(7) Foedera X, p. 847 (King Henry’s second commission).

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

The Duchess of Burgundy

Isabelle was still meddling in the affairs of England and France.  Clarenceaux King of Arms was sent from London to the Duke of York with ‘a copy of the article contained in the instruction late sent unto the King by the Duchess of . . . [igne] by the which she desired that  . . . .’ The sentence is unfinished (1, 2). The ‘article’ was probably her latest suggestions for English participation in peace talks.

Stephen Wilton, Edward Grimston, and William Port were instructed to visit the Duchess of Burgundy.  Port either would not or could not go. The Council ordered the £20 allocated for the journey to be split between Wilton and Grimston in part payment of their expenses (3).

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

(1) PPC V, p. 165 (Isabelle’s article)

(2) PPC V. p. 176, repeated p. 181 (Clarenceaux was paid 500 shilling [£25]).

(3) PPC V, pp 169 and 176 (Wilton 100 marks [£66 13s 4d and Grimston £20).

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

Garter King of Arms

Two letters from William Bruges, Garter King of Arms, printed by Stevenson, are dated 21 July, the eve of St Mary Magdalen. One was written in Caen, apparently to the English Chancellor John Stafford. A covering letter written from Cherbourg to the comptroller of ‘Pol’ instructed him to forward the letter to Stafford without delay.

Stevenson noted that it was unlikely that both could have been written on 21 July in towns sixty-five miles apart.  Garter was travelling from Honfleur via Caen to Cherbourg on his way to Brittany. The simplest explanation, if the letters are genuine, is an error in the copying: one was dated 21 July (on the eve St Mary Magdalen.) at Caen and one on 22 July (on the saint’s day) at Cherbourg.

The original letters written in English are not extant. They were translated into French by Nicole Chambre and witnessed by Adam Rolant. Stevenson suggested that Nicole Chambre was ‘probably the captain of the Scottish guard in the service of Charles VII’ and Adam Rolant was a notary public. So Garter’s letters were intercepted and never reached England.

Stevenson misdated the letters to 1447 an error he should not have made: the Duke of York was not the king’s lieutenant in France in 1447. The date was corrected to 1441 by Beaucourt, who quoted an extract from the French version. This dating was followed by Wolffe, but he accepted Stevenson’s identification of Garter as John Smert (1, 2, 3).  Smert did not become Garter until William Bruges died in 1450.

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

(1) L&P I, pp. 189-194 (Garter’s letters)

(2) Beaucourt, Charles VII, vol. III, p. 23

(3) Wolffe, Henry VI, p. 152

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

William Bruges

William Bruges, whom King Henry V made his senior herald as Garter King of Arms, was an experienced diplomat, well used to supplying detailed reports of what he learned on visits to foreign courts. A sequential reconstruction of his muddled letter, supposedly to Chancellor Stafford throws up several anomalies. It is worth noting that while the copy published by Stevenson carries the heading Monseigneur, le Chanceller d’Angletere, the actual letter opens Mon tres honnorable seigneur without further identification.

Bruges had been sent from Rouen by the Duke of York on embassy to the Duke of Brittany. He travelled down the Seine making for the port of Honfleur ‘with a fair wind.’  His ship encountered a supply ship sailing from Honfleur to Rouen. This ship hailed Bruges’s ship to ask if he was abroad. On leaning that he was, a pursuivant of the Duke of Alençon came on deck to speak with him. By now the winds were so high that neither could hear what the other was saying.  Nothing daunted, the pursuivant wrote a note asking Garter to wait at Honfleur or at Caen until the pursuivant could return there, as he had important information from the Duke of Alençon to impart.

Garter met up with the pursuivant probably at Caen since his second letter is dated from there and learned that Alençon had sent to warn him of a plot to capture Argentan, a town in Normandy. It was to be betrayed, ‘and many more places’ (a conveniently vague phrase) from within by the English (or possibly the Norman?) garrison.  Alencon had sent his pursuivant to Rouen via Argentan to obtain the latest information. He was to warn Louis of Luxembourg, the chancellor in Rouen, and the captain (or the lieutenant) of Argentan.

The ‘treason’ had been uncovered, and the malefactors committed to prison.  The danger had passed, so why was it important to intercept and inform Garter King of Arms, unless the duplicitous Alençon wanted to make sure that the King of England knew of his intervention?

Bruges questioned the pursuivant as to the Duke of Orleans whereabouts  and was told that Orleans and the ‘other lords’ were waiting for Bruges to arrive in Brittany.  ‘These lords’ had bound themselves to avoid a war.  Bruges promised the chancellor that he would get there as soon as he could and would report through the pursuivant what he found out. Garter knew that Jehan de Campas and Brittany Herald had been sent to the Duke of Burgundy; they had crossed from Harfleur to Honfleur (while Bruges was there?) and have not yet returned.

Bruges’s letter, to ‘the coutumier and controller of Pol,’ opens with the dramatic phrase “Look to yourself!” Why? It is merely a request that the controller whoever he was, should forward the letter to the chancellor as quickly as possible by safe means. He stressed that the letter was urgent as it contained information vital to King Henry’s interests.  He was sure that Stafford would be delighted with his news. Again why?  Stafford might have been pleased to hear that the Argentan plot had been foiled, but it was old news which should more properly have been sent either to the Duke of York or to Louis of Luxembourg, Chancellor of Rouen.

The letter to the chancellor is dated at Caen. Bruges (as Garter King of Arms?) had received letters from the chancellor ‘very late’ on the same day as he met Alençon’s pursuivant. His information was relevant war news, but the last paragraph is a non sequitur:

York had only recently taken up his post, and Bruges had taken leave of him on the same day that the duke sent off for the siege of Pontoise. He had given York confidential information, not about the war, which was within his remit, but about the injustices prevailing in the Duchy Normandy ‘and of the vices and sin which were among the people of our nation.’ Bruges reverted to animadversions on the state of Normandy, he had ‘great hopes’ of York as the king’s lieutenant. York would return triumphant from Pontoise and remedy the evils prevailing in Normandy.  He prayed to God to assist York, and the people of Normandy. York was known for his loyalty, he would ‘cure our necessities, injustice and other sins that are in great abundance here.’ He also refers to ‘our prince’ rather than to ‘our king,’ on odd slip by King Henry’s senior herald.

Surely the sentiments expressed are not only presumptuous but highly unlikely from the King of Arms? There is nothing in either letter that would have been unknown in King Charles VII’s chancellery where the original letters were supposedly translated. Are the letters a forgery?

The War in France

Creil

On 19 May, while King Henry was issuing safe conducts for French delegates to come to a peace conference, King Charles and the Dauphin Louis laid siege to Creil one of only two strongholds on the river Oise not far from Paris still in English hands (1). Creil was situated on an island and defended by fortified bridges. A large French army took up positions on both sides of the river. French artillery opened fire and on 24 May after five days of bombardment and some fighting in the rubble as the walls were breached, Sir Wiliam Peyto surrendered in return for being allowed to march out with the garrison (2, 3, 4).

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

(1) Bourgeois, p. 342 (Charles laid siege to Creil).

(2) Monstrelet II, pp. 112 (Monstrelet, followed by Wavrin IV, pp. 312-313 mistakenly name William Chamberlain as captain of Creil).

(3) Chartier II, pp .13-15 (Creil)

(4) Berry Herald, Les Chroniques de roi Charles VII, ed. Courteault, pp.  232-233 (Creil)

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

Pontoise

Creil was only a preliminary. King Charles’s main objective was the strategically important town of Pontoise on the west bank of the Oise seventeen miles northwest of Paris. Lord Talbot had captured Pontoise by a ruse in February1437, taking advantage of the harsh winter conditions (1) and he very nearly saved it again in 1441.

Pontoise was well fortified with the Oise to the east, the River Viosne, a tributary to the Seine to the south, and deep ditches to the west and north. As its name implies a wide stone bridge with twelve arches, fortified at each end, crossed the river. The castle, built a spur of rock 150 feet high overlooking the town, was protected by its own walls. But Pontoise with its English garrison was isolated: Conflans and Poissy to the south were occupied by French garrisons.

King Charles and a large French army appeared on the east bank of the Oise in June and laid siege to Pontoise. They could not surround the town completely because of the complex waterways, so the northwest sector was left open.  French artillery pounded the bridge and wrecked three of its arches; on 12 June 1441 they captured and garrisoned the fortified gate at its eastern end.

Charles VII took up residence with his court at the Abbey of Maubuisson half a mile away.  The French constructed a pontoon bridge to enable them to cross the river and establish a fortified outpost in the Abbey of Saint Martin on the west bank just south of Pontoise.

John, Lord Talbot remained in charge of the military situation in France both before and after the Duke of York’s arrival in Rouen. He was at Pont de L’Arche, trying to raise a relief force when Creil fell.

On Talbot’s orders William Forsted, master of ordnance in Rouen, had hired two men to supply four draught horses to transport artillery and victuals to Pontoise. The men and their four horses were employed from 17 May to 12 August. One wonders how many trips they undertook (1).

(1) L&P II, ii, pp. 463-464

Talbot was at Vernon thirty miles away when King Charles appeared at Pontoise. He somehow managed raised an army of 3,300 men from all over Normandy by withdrawing garrison troops, recruiting free booters, and summoning landowners who owed military service.

On 22 June Talbot, Lord Fauconberg and Lord Scales marched on Pontoise bringing supplies and munitions with them. Arthur de Richemont, the Constable of France favoured offering battle, but King Charles ordered him to avoid an encounter with Talbot. Charles was gradually rebuilding his armies, he was not yet ready to risk a pitched battle, especially against Lord Talbot. Although most of Charles’s courtiers and war captains were with him, his most able general, Dunois, Bastard of Orleans, was not.

Talbot revictualled and reinforced Pontoise. Leaving Lord Scales in command Talbot returned to Normandy. The Duke of York finally arrived in France at about the same time, the end of June. He joined forces with Lord Talbot on 13 July. Their combined armies were reckoned at about 6,000 strong, the largest English army to take the field since 1429. They marched on Pontoise, bringing in additional supplies, and on 15 July they entered the town by the Beauvais gate.

The Duke of York was now in command, but the tactics employed were Talbot’s. He planned to force the French to give battle just as the English Council hoped. But French army remained on the east bank guarding the crossing to keep the English on the west side.

On 20 July Talbot and York made a night march along the Oise under cover of darkness carrying light weight pontoon boats which they used to cross the river upstream from the French. By daybreak the English army was on the east bank.

The French retreated but did not quit the field. They moved their artillery to the fortified Abbey of St Martin. Charles VII fled south to the safety of the Abbey of Poissy on the Seine and the Duke of York had the satisfaction of occupying the royal apartments in the Abbey of Maubuisson.

The fortification of the gatehouse at the bridge, abandoned by the French was quickly repaired. The English now had easy access to the town. But the veteran Lord Scales was replaced a captain of Pontoise by the less experienced Lord Clinton who had come to France with the Duke of York.

Talbot marched in pursuit of King Charles. He crossed the Seine at Mantes intending to trap Charles at Poissy. The Duke of York was supposed to occupy take and occupy Conflans to cut off Charles’s escape towards Paris, but York took his army back to Rouen and Charles reached Saint Denis unscathed.

Thwarted of his plan to corner the French king, Talbot he sent two men at arms, Henry Amourer and Richard Vernon, from Mantes to report on conditions in Pontoise, and on the supplies in the town.  Amourer was to go to Conflans and report on the disposition of the army there (did Talbot suspect that the Duke of York was not there?) while Vernon was to ascertain which lords were still at Pontoise and to report back to him at Mantes as quickly as possible (2).

King Charles had sensibly avoided giving battle, but the imputation of cowardice or ineptitude could not be ignored.  He regrouped rapidly and by the third week of August another French army appeared outside Pontoise and its artillery opened fire once again.

After a month of siege, it was obvious that Pontoise could not be starved into surrender. On 16 September the French stormed the church of Notre Dame which stood outside the town walls on high ground in the south west  They could direct artillery fire into the city from the church tower.

On 19 September the French launched a three-pronged attack, one from south east of the town, one from barges moored in the River Viosne, and a third at the hitherto ignored Beauvais gate to the west.  The fighting lasted for four hours until the superior numbers of the French enabled them to scale the walls. The English suffered heavy losses, about 500 men killed and 300 captured, including Lord Clinton.

The French chronicles praise Chares VII and gloss over, as does Beaufort, the treatment meted out to the defeated (3). Those who were worth ransoming were taken to Paris to be paraded through the streets as prisoners, bound in chains.  The rest were killed or drowned in the Seine to entertain the onlookers (4, 5).

The siege of Pontoise and the French victory is covered in sometimes contradictory detail by the French chronicles, but there is no mention of it in the London chronicles or The Brut.

Thomas Basin, writing many years later, excused York’s retreat through lack of supplies, he had no food for his men owing to the impoverishment of the countryside (3).  The dearth in parts of France was a favourite theme, lamented time and again by Basin, but Talbot consistently made provision for his army, apparently without too much difficulty.

The excuse that it was impossible for York to keep the field for any length of time without adequate financial support is accepted by later historians. But York only kept the field for barely a month before retreating to Rouen. That his army was starving is surely no more than a triumphal cry in the French chronicles.

York may have thought that he had accomplished all that was necessary. He had relieved Pontoise. York was a cautious commander, and he may have disapproved of Talbot’s willingness to take risks. But by retreating precipitously to Rouen he put paid to any chance Talbot might have had of bringing the French to battle, if only to rescue their king.

Evereux

During the battle for Pontoise the English suffered another serious loss. Lord Fauconberg, the captain of Evreux had stripped his garrison to supply men for the siege.  Four days before they recovered Pontoise the French attacked and took Evreux. They had carried the war into Normandy.

Pontoise Sources

(1) Barker, Conquest, pp. 257-258 (Talbot and Pontoise).

(2) L&P II, pp. 320-322 (Talbot’s agents. Thomas Hoo, the bailli of Mantes paid 10 livres tournois to Amourer and 4 livres 10 sols to Vernon Richrd for their services).

(3) Beaucourt. Charles VII, vol. III, pp. 177-192.

(4) Pollard, Talbot, pp. 54-57

(5) Sumption V, Triumph and Disaster, pp. 582-583

French Chronicles

Basin, ed. Samaran I, pp.  263-277

Berry Herald, ed. Courteault, pp. 23-241.

Chartier II, pp. 20-27.

Gruel, Richemont, pp. 163-171.

Monstrelet II, pp. 113-118.

Wavrin IV, pp. 315-348.

Calais

The loss of Pontoise and Evreux in quick succession unnerved the English Council. They discussed the vulnerability of Calais at a meeting in October 1441 with King Henry present.

Robert Manfeld, a marshal of the household, had travelled to Calais with letters to Thomas Kyriell, lieutenant of Calais, and to the garrison. He returned with disquieting news (1, 2).  The garrison was restless and unsettled, their wages were in arrears as usual, and the Council feared they might mutiny as they had in 1433.

See Year 1433: A Mutiny at Calais.

Provision of food, artillery and military supplies must be sent urgently to defend the town against enemies without, and discontent within.

Kyriell had permitted men from the port of Dieppe, which was held by the French, to fish for herrings in the waters off Calais. He was to be ordered to revoke this safe conduct immediately, the numbers of fishermen entering Calais was excessive, and posed a threat. He was to expel them from the town and forbid them to enter it the future (3).

The garrison must be paid, but where was the money to come from? Cardinal Beaufort had not offered any substantial loan after the Duke of York rather than his nephew John Beaufort became the king’s lieutenant in France. The council decided to appeal to the Calais Staplers for a loan as they had in the past.

Manfeld would return to Calais in November with letters of credence to reassure the garrison and approach the Staplers. Richard Sharp, a merchant of the Staple, would accompany Manfeld, presumably to persuade his fellow merchants, since the Council awarded him five marks for the journey (4).

King Henry and the Council made a practice of granting ‘special’ licences to certain rich merchants who made loans to the crown. These licences were naturally resented by the Staplers since they undercut the Staple’s monopoly on their conditions for the sale of wool. It was of paramount importance to conciliate the Staplers while the Council was soliciting a large loan; the Staplers may even have made suspending special licences a condition of the loan.

William Cantelowe, had a licence to sell wool in Calais whenever and to whomever he pleased (6). His licence was rescinded in November and the Mayor of Calais was ordered not to allow him to sell any more wool under its terms (5, 6).

On 22 November 1441 the Staplers agreed to lend £10,000, to be repaid by their retention of four marks from the subsidy on each sack of wool sold in Calais (7).

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

(1) PPC V, p. 154 (Manfeld was paid £30 in October, £20 for his previous visit and £10 for his projected visit)

(2) Foedera X, p. 852 (payment to Manfeld).

(3) PPC V, pp. 153-154 (Kyriell to expel fishermen).

(4) PPC V, pp. 154-155 (Manfeld and Sharp).

(5) PPC V, 168 (Cantelowe).

(6) Munro, Wool, Cloth, and Gold, p. 121, n. 99 (special licences).

(7) PPC V, pp. 163-64 and 167 (assignment for repayment of Staplers’ loan).

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

Calais Mint

A writ of January 1441, signed by the council to Robert Whittingham, Treasurer of Calais and Keeper of the king’s mint, commanded him to mint coins for circulation in Calais.  The writ is the same as that issued to the previous treasurer Richard Buckland in 1435 except that fewer coins were to be issued: ‘96 crosses and 12 piles’ in 1441 as against ‘350 crosses and piles’ in 1435.

See Year 1435: The Calais Mint

Whittingham was to arrange with John Orewell, the engraver of the mint, to coin the money. He would be paid the same as in 1435 (1).

Robert Whittingham’s accounts as treasurer of Calais came under scrutiny at the Exchequer. He presented a bill along with his accounts asking that the Exchequer accept his statement that he did pay everything due for the period when there was no comptroller of Calais. A warrant was issued on his petition commanding the Treasurer and the Exchequer to make allowance to him in his accounts for his office of Treasurer of Calais for a period of a quarter of a year and 18 days during which time there was no controller of Calais (2).

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

(1) PPC V, pp. 139-131 (authority to mint coins).

(2)  PPC V, p. 165 (Whittingham’s accounts).

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

The Duchy of Normandy  

The Council in Rouen

In the first six months of 1441 after John and Edmund Beaufort left for England, the council in Rouen carried on as best they could. They wrote time and again to King Henry warning of the danger to the security of Normandy unless help was sent to them. All they got were empty promises. They had been told that the Duke of Gloucester would come, but he had not. They were promised that the Duke of York would come, but he had not. They wrote in despair in the third week of June, likening themselves and the duchy to a ship without a captain or helmsman or even sails!  They no longer believed that King Henry or the English Council cared what became of them (1).

The King’s Council was well aware of the threat to Normandy; their anxiety centred on the safety of Harfleur, Caen, and Honfleur (2). Harfleur had only been recovered a year earlier, Caen was the second largest city in Normandy, and Honfleur opposite Harfleur at the mouth of the Seine was a valuable alterative port to Harfleur.

See Year 1440: Harfleur

The Duke of York

Uncertain as to how the Duke of York planned to defend these ports, the Council appointed Sir John Popham, who had served under York in Normandy in 1436, to go to Rouen in November 1441 (3, 4, 5).

Popham was to take a copy of York’s indenture as the king’s lieutenant with amended instructions: York must order his captains in towns and fortresses throughout Normandy to maintain a strict watch at all times, for fear of attack.

Popham would reply verbally to four questions from York to King Henry, carried back to London by Sir Lewis John and Jean Rinel, who had accompanied York to Rouen in the previous summer (6).

Two ships and a ballinger were to transport Popham to France (7, 8) and a protection for one year was issued to John Derby, Doctor of Laws, who was ‘going to the Duke of York.’ What his mission was is not stated (9).

They left England on 1 December carrying with them the £5,000, the first quarter of Duke of York ‘s second year’s wages (10). While making it clear that that the crown was not liable for the costs of transporting the money ‘by water and by land’ (presumably this was a part of York’s costs?) King Henry had in this instance ordered the costs to be paid. Pierre Bowmen, a royal clerk, would accompany the assignment (11).

What were the four questions that Popham was to answer?  They must date to events between York’s arrival, early July, and October/November when Lewis John and Rinel carried them to England.  York would surely have wanted to know the political ramifications of the arrest and trial of the Duchess of Gloucester.  He was in touch with the Duke of Brittany, how far and in what way should he commit himself to the putative peace conference? Pontoise had been captured, should he attempt to recover it and if so could he expect to receive reinforcements? Was he to pursue peace or war with King Charles?  This is speculation, but the questions, whatever they may have been, were sensitive, since Popham was to reply to them verbally.

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

(1) L& P II ii, pp. 603-607 (letter from the council in Rouen).

(2) PPC V, p. 162 (Harfleur, Caen, Honfleur).

(3) Roskell, Parliament and Politics III, ‘Sir John Popham’ pp. 364-365

(4) PPC V, p. 155 and 168 (Popham’s expenses, 40s a day).

(5) Foedera X, p. 852 (Popham’s expenses).

(6) PPC V, pp. 157- 159 and 162 (instructions to Popham for the Duke of York)

(7) PPC V, p. 162 (ships)

(8) CPR 1441-1446, p .48 (ships)

(9) PPC V, p. 170 (Master John Derby)

(10) PPC V, pp. 162 and 178 (£5,000 for York)

(11) PPC V, p. 178-179 (King Henry authorised transport costs).

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

The Council’s intervention

The Council dealt with Lord Talbot independently of the Duke of York.  Letters of 22 November warned him specifically of the threat to Harfleur: the enemy planned to take it by ‘stealth, treason, invasion, and subterfuge.’  Talbot was to reinforce Harfleur, stock it with supplies of food and weapons, and prepare its defences.

They reminded Talbot of the value of Harfleur, of how much it had cost King Henry V in men and money to capture and maintain it, and what the cost of its recovery had been in 1440 (as if he needed reminding!).  It must not be lost to the French a second time through negligence (1).

Separate letters were directed to the garrison towns in Normandy warning them that the French were preparing to attack them by assaults, sieges, and even through treason. The captains were to make strict watch and ward, and if they failed in their duty the king would punish them by making an example of them as a warning to others. The received the same reminder as Talbot: King Henry was aware that towns had been lost in the past through negligence, and he did not want it to happen again.

These injunctions were addressed to ‘Harfleur, Arques, Newcastle Gournay, Gisors, Mantes, Vernon in Perche, Esse, Alencon, . . . . [Lacunae] Falaise, Liseux, Caen, Bayeux, Saviles, Domfranc ,Vire, Constance, Cherbourg, Avranche, Tome, and Eleyn.’  The letters do not sound much like Henry, they reflect a state of near panic and demonstrate the Council’s uncertainty, apprehension, and a lack of any cohesive plan (2).

To shore up the support of the inhabitants of Normandy, the Council  ordered letters in King Henry’s name to be sent to all the towns in ‘France and Normandy’ thanking them for their loyalty, their ‘trew acquitailles’ (for paying their taxes?) ‘and praying a continuance’ (3).

The Army in Normandy

At a meeting in the Star Chamber on 27 November, with only the Chancellor, the Privy Seal, Cardinal Kemp, the Earl of Suffolk and Lord Scroop present, the cost of maintaining the army in Normandy was discussed. It was agreed that 800 mounted men-at-arms, 800 men-at-arms on foot, and 2,200 archers was a minimum requirement to defend Normandy.

But the allocation of £20,000 a year from the Exchequer to the Duke of York, plus the tax voted by the Three Estates of Normandy calculated at 340,000 livres tournois for 1441, would be insufficient to recruit and sustain these numbers. The quorum had presumably met to suggest a solution, but if so, none was recorded (4).

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

(1) PPC V. p. 163 (Letters to Talbot).

(2) PPC V, pp. 164-65 (Letters to captains of town in Normandy).

(3) PPC V, p. 158 (King Henry’s thanks to towns).

(4) PPC V, pp. 171-172 (expenses and shortfall of York’s army).

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

The Duchy of Gascony

It was a short-sighted policy, despite economic constraints, not to maintain the Earl of Huntingdon in Gascony. The administration fell into disarray after he left in 1440.

The Emperor Frederick complained to King Henry in August that his subjects had been seized in Gascony and goods belonging to them had been confiscated. Henry replied optimistically that he had ordered restitution (2).

A large delegation came to England from Gascony in 1441 to inform King Henry and the Council of the state of affairs in the duchy, to warn them of the threat posed by French activity, and to demand action. Individual members had a number of issues they wished to raise with the Council.   They presented letters from the council in Bordeaux, and the Council in London, reviewed earlier confidential correspondence, (‘secree,’) which was in the keeping of the Privy Seal (1).

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

(1) PPC V p 159 (Gascon delegation).

(2) Foedera X, p. 849 (Emperor’s subjects seized in Gascony).

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

Tartas

The Gascon delegation was especially concerned to know what steps the Council planned to take to send an English army to Gascony to ensure that the town of Tartas remained in English hands (1).

The Earl of Huntingdon, the king’s lieutenant in Gascony had left his seneschal Thomas Rempston, to continue the siege of Tartas, when he rturned to England in 1440.

See Year 1440: Tartas

Rempston did a deal in January 1441 with Charles d’Albret, the defender of Tartas, to restore certain lands previously held by Albret in return for Albret agreeing to surrender Tartas to Rempston under a temporary truce until a journeé, a trial by battle, could decide the town’s fate (1, 2).

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

(1) PPC V, p. 161 (Tartas)

(2) Vale, English Gascony p. 85 and 161 (Rempston and Tartas)

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

Robert Vere

In London in August 1441 Huntingdon replaced Rempston with Robert Vere, another member of his 1439 expedition. The Gascon delegation may have complained that Rempston was unpopular or that they doubted his ability to defend Tartas.  Rempston is not mentioned in Huntingdon’s appointment of Vere who was to receive the same wages and profits as Sir John Radcliffe had when he was seneschal (1). Vere, described as Huntingdon’s cousin, was the Earl of Oxford’s brother.  His rank may have made him more suitable as seneschal, the highest-ranking official in the duchy in the absence of the king’s lieutenant.

See 1440: The Duchy of Gascony.

The Duke of Gloucester

Understandably the Duke of Gloucester did not attend council meeting while his wife Eleanor was imprisoned in Leeds Castle. He was at his palace of Pleasaunce at Greenwich in September. Augerot de Saint Pée, representing the Gascon lords in the Landes, may have visited him there. On 2 September Gloucester granted Augerot the bailliage of Labourd in the Landes, a lordships in Gascony granted to Gloucester in 1433.

See Year 1433: The Duchy of Gascony.

Gloucester relinquished Labourd into the king’s hands with a request that it be granted to Augerot. The transfer was confirmed in March 1442 (1). Gloucester may have thought it prudent to retain Augerot to look after his interest in Gascony.

(1) https://www.gasconrolls.org/edition/calendars/C61_131/document.html

Huntingdon had made several key appointments during his time in Gascony as the king’s lieutenant. In October 1439 he had appointed Augerot de Saint Pée to the council in Bordeaux.

Augerot de Saint Pée and James Harsage

James Harnage, an English retainer of Sir John Tiptoft, the former seneschal of the Landes, may have come to England at the same time as the Gascon delegation.

Harnage had brought about 500 men at his own cost to the siege of the town and castle of Gamarde in the Landes in 1435. King Henry granted the lordship of Gamarde to Harnage ‘for life’ in January 1438 in recognition of his part in its recovery.

In October 1439 Huntingdon had granted Gamarde to Harsage and his heirs ‘forever;’ and this was confirmed by the king in May 1441.

In London, Augerot de Saint Pée reminded Huntingdon that he, Arnaud Guillaume de Caupenne, Bernardon de Cauna, the prévôt of Dax and men-at-arms from the city of Dax and of the town of Saint-Severn, had also taken part in the recovery of Gamarde, and they claimed compensation.

Huntingdon granted Augerot and the other claimants £1,000, to be levied on the income from Gamarde, to be paid to them by Harsage.

In August Augerot requested and received King Henry’s confirmation of the grant. Henry or the Council routinely endorsed whatever grants Huntingdon chose to make as the king’s lieutenant, even after he had returned to England.

Harsage was outraged. He petitioned King Henry to order the Chancellor to issue a writ under the Great Seal to subpoena Augerot ‘now present in London’ to appear in chancery on 13 November under pain of a fine of 500 marks should he fail to appear. Augerot should be examined by the chief justice and made to produce the letters patent for the £1,000 and the king’s confirmation of it.  If the chief justice declared Augerot’s letters patent invalid, the Chancellor should repeal and cancel them under the Great Seal.

Augerot appeared to defend himself and his case.  He testified that he and the other claimants had besieged and recovered Gamage from the Count of Armagnac at their own cost. Augerot cited Magna Carta and other statutes, that no one should be forced to defend himself in any court other than a court of common law in a question of freehold.  He requested that the case in chancery be dismissed, and his costs paid.

Augerot argued that from time immemorial it had been recognised that any man who conquered a castle or town at his own cost should be granted it, and it profits. Even the king could not grant it away until those who bore the cost of its recovery had been compensated.  Furthermore, the £1,000 had been granted to him jointly with the other claimants and he should not, in justice, be summoned alone under the law.

He asserted that the case should be transferred to Gascony and heard under customary law in the duchy, as the duchy’s laws were not the same as the laws of England.

James Harsage exercised his right of reply: the king had taken the lordship of Gamarde into his hands by right of conquest and he had granted it to Harsage as a just reward for Harsage’s contribution to its recovery. Huntingdon, as the king’s lieutenant had confirmed it to him and his heirs in perpetuity for the same reason, and this had been confirmed by the king. The grant predated the grant to Augerot, and it was lawful, as Harsage was ready to prove.

Both arguments were heard in the court of chancery on 13 November 1441 before the Chancellor, the judges and other ‘experts’ of the king’s council. The decision went in Harsage’s favour.  He was confirmed in possession of Gamarde and the letters patent to Augerot were nullified (1, 2, 3). Thus, the authority of the king and the king’s lieutenant were set aside and the judges found in favour of an Englishman over the claims of the Gascons.

(1) https://www.gasconrolls.org/edition/calendars/C61_128/document.html

(2) https://www.gasconrolls.org/edition/calendars/C61_130/document.html

(3) https://www.gasconrolls.org/edition/calendars/C61_131/document.html

Seneschal of the Landes

Perhaps in retaliation for what he considered an injustice, Augerot requested that Arnaud Guillaume de Caupenne whom Lord Huntingdon had made Seneschal of the Landes, and who had been with Thomas Rempston at the siege of Tartas, should be confirmed in the office by the Council.

Th Council answered that they had no powers to make such a grant, only the king could appoint a seneschal, but they would put the question to King Henry and act on his wishes. Some members expressed their opinion that the office of Senechal should only be occupied by an Englishman. Augerot’s request was refused (1).

(1) PPC V, p. 161(appointment of Seneschal of the Landes)

Bayonne

Representatives from Bayonne had come to protest against a threat to revoke the mayor and council’s right to levy an assize (a tax on foreign merchandise). King Henry had confirmed this privilege for forty years in 1438 when the council in Bayonne complained that they had borne the cost of defending or recovering towns in the Landes attacked by the French.

See Year 1438: Bayonne.

Apparently, there was an agreement between Bayonne and the merchants of Bristol dating back to 4 December 1422, the very beginning of Henry’s reign, that exempted Bristolians from the tax. (This agreement not recorded in the Gascon Rolls). Recently, (perhaps after King Henry had renewed the right?) this exemption had not been honoured.

“For the mayor, council and community of Bayonne. Notification that the assize formerly granted for 40 years to the city of Bayonne would be nullified if the agreement made between Bayonne and Bristol on 4 December 1422 exempting the merchants of Bristol and their factors of the payment of this assize is not respected” (1).

Trade between Bristol and Bayonne was important to the economies of both cities and the Council had threatened to revoke the privilege if Bayonne continued to levy the tax unlawfully.

The men from Bayonne requested that their case should be put to King Henry, and that the Council would ‘deliberate’ on their articles. They hoped for ‘a good and gracious answer.’ The Chancellor replied that the Council would advise the king, and they would be answered: “Hit was answered to þambassadeurs of Baionne þat my lordes of þe kyng’s counsail shold shewe þerie matiers unto þe Kyng and þei shal be answered in þeir desires” (2).

It is interesting that on 29 November the Council, far from conciliating the deputation, sided with the Bristol merchants and confirmed the threat. If Bayonne continued to disregard Bristol’s exemption the right to an assize would be revoked. All in all, the Gascon delegation was not well received.

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

(1) https://www.gasconrolls.org/edition/calendars/C61_131/document.html

(2) PPC V, pp. 161-162 (request and reply).

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

Sir Philip Chetwynde

Sir Philip Chetwynde had accompanied the Earl of Huntingdon to Gascony in 1439. He returned to England with the delegation from Gascony to request that his appointment as Mayor of Bayonne ‘during please’ should be confirmed by King Henry, his term of office to be ten years (1).

It seems probable, although it is not on the Gascon Rolls, that Chetwynde was appointed by Huntingdon in 1440. (Huntingdon’s appointment of Rempston as Seneschal of Gascony is not on the Rolls either).  These were temporary or ‘acting’ appointments needing the king’s confirmation to become permanent).

Chetwynde landed at Bristol. As Mayor of Bayonne, he may have had discussions with the merchants of Bristol over the imposition of the tax on merchandise to which the Bristolians claimed exemption. However that may be, he travelled to London in the company of two Bristol merchants with an armed escort as they were carrying money and valuables.

At Hungerford they were held up on the road outside the town by a small gang of armed men.  In his deposition to the Council Chetwynde said sixteen men.  They were asked who they were and where they were going.  A skirmish between one of Chetwynde’s retainers and a member of the gang attracted the attention of about thirty townsmen who, according to Chetwynde, came out so investigate.  In the end he and his fellow travellers were allowed to continue their journey (2).

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

(1) https://www.gasconrolls.org/edition/calendars/C61_131/document.html

(2) PPC V, pp. 160-161 (Chetwynde’s deposition).

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

The Earl of Devon and Sir William Bonville

The attack on Chetwynde occurred at the same time as the Council was adjudicating on the feud between the Earl of Devon and Sir William Bonville. Chetwynde was called to give evidence.

The Courtenay earls of Devon were the leading magnates in the West Country. Thomas Courtenay inherited the earldom at the age of eight and was granted livery of his lands in 1435, but until her death in 1441 his mother retained many of the Courteney estates that his father had settled on her. The young earl had little to offer in the way of local patronage, while Sir William Bonville, a Somerset landowner, enhanced his position and local influence by marrying Thomas Courtenay’s aunt (1).

King Henry unwittingly exacerbated the situation. In November 1437 he appointed Bonville to the lucrative position of steward of the royal duchy of Cornwall, and in May 1441, he granted virtually the same position to Thomas Courtenay at the latter’s request (2). Armed clashes between Bonville and Courtenay retainers ‘debates and disturbances’ became more frequent and more violent.

“And around this time there were disputes (litigaciones) in divers parts of England. Benet’s Chronicle, p. 189

Harriss suggests that ‘litigaciones’ may refer to the dispute between the earl of Devon and Sir William Bonville.

In November 1441 the Council ordered Devon and Bonville to reconcile their differences and stop disturbing the king’s peace. Each was required to put up a bond of £1,000 for future good behaviour; if either failed to comply his bond would be awarded to the other according to the law (3, 4).

The Earl of Devon agreed to put the dispute over the office of steward of the duchy and steward of the county of Cornwall to arbitration. And, after further discussions with the Council, he agreed to submit ‘the enmities, dissensions, disorders and debates that from the beginning of the world until now’ existed between him and Bonville.  Arbitrators were to [. . . . be appointed?] to find a solution. Final judgement would be made by the two chief justices, and the matter was to be settled by Easter 1442 (5).

On 28 November Devon and Bonville appeared before King Henry with most of the Council present.  The culprits were admonished by Chancellor Stafford. He informed them that King Henry was displeased; the king had heard that armed liveried servants on both sides were guilty of killing their opponents. The king would not tolerate individuals of whatever degree resorting to force in the pursuit of private quarrels.  Grievances should be brought to the king’s attention and settled by his justices according to the law.

Devon and then Bonville were straightly charged by their faith and allegiance to end their feud and to do no further bodily harm themselves or by their servants to each other or to the servants, friends, well-wishers or allies of the other.   They were required to swear an oath to keep the peace in future. Which they did. The Chancellor also informed them that they were expected to accept the arbitration of the council and the chief justices in their dispute over the stewardship of Cornwell. The award would be made on 1 April 1442 (6).

Sir Philip Chetwynde’s account of the attack on him outside Hungerford got caught up in the speculation and rumour during the Council’s investigation into the Courtenay/Bonville feud: “But as some seyde thei supposed þt þe said Sir Philip and his men had be toward Boneville.” The Chancellor asked Chetwynde if he could identify his attackers. He replied that he did not know who they were, but he thought some of them wore the Earl of Somersets livery, and his servant had been told they were the Earl Devon’s men (7).

This has led to a misinterpretation by later historians, taking the ‘evidence’ out of context.  Chetwynde was a Staffordshire man, he was not involved in the West Country feud did not know either Devon or Bonville personally in 1441.  Chetwynde was formally appointed Mayor of Bayonne in 1442, and Bonville led an army into Gascony in that year, so they may have become acquainted at that time. This does not justify reading history backwards.

=========================================================

Vale, English Gascony, p. 120: “The assaults by Courtenay’s men against Philp Chetwynde, may have influenced the council in their decision to appoint Chetwynde, a retainer of Bonneville, as mayor of Bayonne for seven years on 26 November 1442”

Storey, End of Lancaster, pp. 87-88: “Sir Philip Chetwynd, a friend of Bonville, was attacked on his way from Bristol to London by men whose livery was identified as the Earl’s [Courtenay]

Griffiths, Henry VI, p. 575: “One of Bonville’s old friends Sir Philip Chetwynd was attacked on the road between Bristol and London near Hungerford by men who were said to be wearing Devon’s livery”

=========================================================

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

(1) Martin Cherry, ‘The struggle for power in mid-fifteenth century Devonshire’, in Patronage, Crown and Provinces, ed. Griffiths, pp. 123-144.

(2) CPR 1436-52 p. 133 (Bonville), p. 532 (Devon).

(3) PPC V, p .158 (bonds for good behaviour).

(4) PPC V, p. 408 (a letter from King Henry reminded Devon of his bond and its consequences. Nicholas dated it to ‘probably November 1441’ but as it refers to the £1,000 it must post date November and may belong in 1442).

(5) PPC V, pp. 165-166 (Devon agreed to arbitration).

(6) PPC V, pp. 173-175 (Chancellor’s rebuke).

(7) PPC V, p. 160 (Chetwynd’s deposition).

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

Bibliography 1441

Primary Sources

Annales Rerum Anglicarum in Letters and Papers Illustrative of the Wars of the English in France during the reign of Henry the Sixth, J. Stevenson, (ed.) 2 vols in 3, Rolls Series, 1864

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CPR. Calendar of the Patent Rolls, 1436-1441

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

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

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

 DKR. Report of the Deputy Keeper of the Public Records, 48^th Report, French Rolls (1887)

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

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

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

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

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

Hardyng’s Chronicle. ‘The First Version of Hardyng’s Chronicle,’ ed. C.K. Kingsford, English Historical Review 27 (1912)

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

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

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

Robbins, R.H., ed., Historical Poems of the XIV and XV Centuries

Sharpe, R.R., (ed) Calendar of the Letter-Books of the City of London: Letter Book K, (1911)

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

Secondary Sources

Barker, J., Conquest (2009)

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

Bossuat, A., Perrinet Gressart et François de Surienne (1936)

Carey H., Courting Disaster, (1992)

Cherry, M., ‘The struggle for power in mid-fifteenth century Devonshire’, in Patronage, Crown and Provinces, ed. R.A. Griffiths (1981)

Dictionary of National Biography ed. L. Stephen and S. Lee

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

Freeman, J., ‘Sorcery at court and manor: Margery Jourdemayne, the witch of Eye next Westminster,’ Journal of Medieval History, 30 (2004)

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

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

Johnson, P.A., Duke Richard of York 1411-1481 (1988)

Kingsford, C.L., Prejudice and Promise in Fifteenth Century England (1925)

Munro, J.H, Wool, Cloth, and Gold: the struggle for bullion in Anglo-Burgundian trade 1340-1478 (1972)

Pollard, A.J., John Talbot and the War in France, (1983)

Petre, J., ‘The Nevills of Brancepeth and Rabay 1425-1469,’ Ricardian 55, No. 75 (Dec 1981) p. 245.

Roskell, J.S., Parliament and Politics in Late Medieval England, 3 vols., (1981-83)

Storey, R.L., The End of the House of Lancaster (1966)

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

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

Wolffe, B.P. Henry VI (1981)

 Theses

Dicks, S., ‘The Question of Peace, Anglo-French Diplomacy 1439-1449,’ Unoversity of Oklahoma, Ph.D., (1966)

Online

www.historyofparliamentonline.org

gasconrolls.org