Henry IV (100 page)

¹⁵
C. Liddy,
The Bishopric of Durham in the Late Middle Ages
(Woodbridge, 2008), 92–101.

¹⁶
Hardyng
, 365–7, for his famous raid up the Firth of Forth with eight ships and nearly 400 fighting men in 1410, from which he returned with so much booty and provisions that he came to be known as ‘Robin Mendmarket’. He was owed £1,700 for this, but was asked to take only 1,000 marks, and may initially have agreed to accept this, but later claimed that he could not sustain such a loss. Since his raid had been such a success, in that there had been no Scottish raiding on the northern English coasts while he was at sea, he was given an extra £100 (E 404/26, nos. 211, 380).

¹⁷
H. Summerson, ‘Robert Umfraville’,
ODNB,
55.883–5; H. Summerson, ‘John Hardyng’,
ODNB
, 25.240–3; C. Kingsford, ‘The First Version of John Hardyng's Chronicle’,
EHR
1912, 262–82;
Foedera
, viii.479, 703–4; E 403/579, 16 July 1409; E 404/27, no. 434 (chamberlain of Berwick, July 1412); Collins,
Order of the Garter
, 49–50, 117. Umfraville, ‘a jewel for a king’ according to Hardyng, spent twenty years as the second earl's deputy in the marches following the latter's restoration in 1416. For the Grays and Cresswell, see King, ‘They Have the Hertes’, 152, and A. King, ‘Scaling the Ladder: The Rise and Rise of the Grays of Heaton, 1296–1415’, in
North-East England in the Later Middle Ages
, ed. C. Liddy and R. Britnell (Woodbridge, 2005), 157–73, at pp. 69–71. See also A. King, ‘Pur Salvation du Roiaume: Military Service and Obligation in Fourteenth-Century Northumberland’, in
Fourteenth-Century England 2
, ed. C. Given-Wilson (Woodbridge, 2002), 13–31.

¹⁸
CPR 1408–13
, 23, 95–6; E 404/24, no. 39; Bell, Curry, King and Simpkin,
The Soldier in Late Medieval England
, 34–8.

¹⁹
SAC II
, 534–5; C. Neville,
Violence, Custom and Law: The Anglo-Scottish Borderlands in the Later Middle Ages
(Edinburgh, 1998), 104; King, ‘They Have the Hertes’, 153–7. In Durham and Yorkshire, men such as Bishop Langley, Westmorland's steward Ralph Euer and Robert Waterton (steward of the northern parts of the duchy of Lancaster from 1407) also played important roles, but their influence was little felt on the marches.

²⁰
PROME
, viii.469–71;
HOC
, ii.211–12; iii.860.

²¹
PROME
, viii.548–9.

²²
Neville,
Violence, Custom and Law
, 96–124; H. Summerson, ‘Peacekeepers and Lawbreakers in Medieval Northumberland,
c
.1200–1500’, in
Liberties and Identities
, ed. Prestwich, 56–76, at pp. 62–4.

²³
Select Cases in the King's Bench VII
, lvii–lx. Under Richard II it had held sessions in many different counties.

²⁴
The parliament of April 1414 saw further complaints of lawlessness in Northumberland (
PROME
, ix.49–50). The second earl of Northumberland held the keeping of the East March of Scotland and Berwick castle from April 1417 until 1434 (R. Griffiths, ‘Henry Percy, Second Earl of Northumberland’,
ODNB
, 43.704–6; Dunn,
The Politics of Magnate Power
, 127–8). Bower called the second earl ‘very friendly’ towards the Scots (
Scotichronicon
, 85).

²⁵
SAC II
, 596–9;
HOC
, iii.619–21, claims they had ‘the moral backing of the whole English coast’.

²⁶
RHL
, ii.297–302;
CCR 1409–13
, 133–4.

²⁷
CCR 1409–13
, 210; E 403/608, 15 May (£1,000 to Beaufort to capture Longe ‘and other rebels on the sea’).

²⁸
SAC II
, 596–7;
CPR 1408–13
, 64, 227, 316–18.

²⁹
SAC II
, 598–9, 602, 616;
CPR 1408–13
, 347, 470.

³⁰
Parker, ‘Politics and Patronage at King's Lynn’, in
Rebellion and Survival
, 210–27.

³¹
CPR 1408–13
, 224;
Concilia
, iii.324, 328;
PROME
, viii.456–7;
CE
, 417;
Records of Convocation IV
, 357–8; J. Thomson, ‘John Oldcastle’,
ODNB
, 41.668–72. The chaplain, John Lay, was later seized as Oldcastle's accomplice; as a peer of parliament, Oldcastle probably promoted the Disendowment Bill in 1410.

³²
Usk
, 248–9; Catto, ‘Wyclif and Wycliffism’, 247–52.

³³
SAC II
, 570–9 (wrongly dated by Walsingham to 1409). For Arundel's
Constitutions
, see above, p. 373.

³⁴
Signet Letters
, no. 745 (22 October 1410). It was also about this time that Peter Payne, the most outspoken dissenter, was promoted to principal of St Edmund Hall (F. Smahel, ‘Peter Payne’,
ODNB
, 43.208–13).

³⁵
Records of Convocation IV
, 372–3, where it is dated to June 1410, but 1411 (the date on the document) is surely correct (Catto, ‘Wyclif and Wycliffism’, 248).

³⁶
R. G. Davies, ‘Courtenay, Richard’,
ODNB
, 13.684–5.

³⁷
Signet Letters
, nos. 749, 751 (15 and 24 July).

³⁸
Usk
, 244–5; Wylie,
Henry the Fourth
, iii.442–9.

³⁹
Signet Letters
, nos. 753–5; Catto, ‘Wyclif and Wyclifism’, 247–53.

⁴⁰
PROME
, viii.523–6;
CPL
vi.303–4.

⁴¹
PROME
, viii.519–22; the dispute was about turf-cutting and hay-mowing on neighbouring properties; accompanying Roos to Wrawby were Henry Lord Beaumont and Thomas Lord Warre.

⁴²
The livery legislation was also re-enacted in 1411 (
PROME
, viii.547–8, 558).

⁴³
PROME
, ix.57–61; Musson and Powell,
Crime, Law and Society
, 126, 140;
Select Cases in the King's Council
, ed. Leadam and Baldwin, xxxi.

⁴⁴
This is one reason why he cared less than the king about the payment of annuities (above, pp. 472–3).

⁴⁵
Foedera
, ix.3; H. Lacey,
The Royal Pardon
(York, 2009), 179 and
passim
; Powell,
Kingship, Law and Society
, 229–46. General pardons were also issued in November 1403, on the queen's initiative, and January 1404, to draw a line under the Percy revolt. They also raised revenue, for individual charters still had to be sued out for payment of a fee.

Chapter 32

BURGUNDIANS, ARMAGNACS AND GUYENNE (1411–1413)

In the spring of 1411 the long-threatened civil war between Armagnacs and Burgundians broke out in France, and the appearance in England of ambassadors from both sides seeking support opened a new era of opportunity for Anglo-French diplomacy and English arms. First to arrive, at the end of April, were envoys from the dukes of Orléans (Charles, son of Duke Louis), Berry and Brittany and the count of Armagnac, but whatever they offered Henry it was evidently not enough, and after nine days they returned to France.
¹
Two months later, French royal emissaries operating under Burgundy's instructions crossed to England offering Duke John's eldest daughter in marriage to Prince Henry; in return they wanted an expeditionary force to fight alongside the Burgundian army. The king, however, was more concerned with the threat posed to Calais by the massing of both sides' troops in Picardy and Artois.
²
He did not rule out the possibility of helping the Burgundians in the future, but for the moment ‘he would none men give them’, instead advising the envoys to tell their master to conciliate Orléans, whom he had wronged by procuring his father's murder.
³
In the middle of August the king announced his intention to lead an expedition in person to save Calais and its marches from ‘certain enemies of France, who are hastening thither with their whole power’; his ships, retainers and annuitants were to be ready by 23 September. A council was summoned on 28 August to discuss the king's plans.
⁴
In the meantime, Duke John's envoys had also spoken with Prince Henry, whom they found
more receptive, and who persuaded his father at least to explore their offer.
⁵
The king's response, dated 1 September, was cagey; the English envoys were to find out what Burgundy was prepared to offer in terms of land and jewels along with his daughter, whether he was prepared to bear the cost of any expedition, who was to be excluded or included in the alliance, and, crucially, whether he was willing to help with the recovery of Guyenne. Their remit was limited to discussion of a marriage and nothing was to be agreed until they had reported back to the king. These were, explicitly, the prince's proctors, and it was the prince's retainer, Thomas earl of Arundel, who headed the embassy.
⁶
Yet already Prince Henry had decided to take matters into his own hands, and when Arundel crossed the Channel on 26 September he took 200 men-at-arms and 800 archers, a force which doubled in size once reinforcements arrived.
⁷
What the king intended as an embassy had thus metamorphosed into an army, almost certainly contrary to his wishes, for on 6 September he had still been planning to go abroad himself.
⁸
It was, as contemporaries observed, the prince who ‘sent forth’ Arundel to fight alongside Duke John.
⁹
English government records make no mention of the campaign, which was financed out of the prince's estate revenues backed by the promise of repayment from the Burgundian
chambre des comptes
.

During the autumn Armagnac troops had been converging on Paris, forcing Duke John to retire northwards, so that it was not in Paris but in Arras that Arundel and Burgundy joined forces on 3 October.
¹⁰
By this time Saint-Denis, spiritual home of the French monarchy, and the vital bridge across the Seine at Saint-Cloud, were in Armagnac hands, and they were threatening the capital from both the north and the west. On
23 October, however, Burgundy and Arundel returned to Paris and on 9 November their army, along with a contingent of Parisians, launched a night attack on Saint-Cloud and recaptured the bridge, following which Charles of Orléans's troops abandoned Saint-Denis and drew back from the capital, leaving it in Burgundian hands.
¹¹
English chroniclers claimed that Arundel's men were principally responsible for the victory, as well as for saving several prisoners from summary execution, while the monk of Saint-Denis gave most of the credit to the Parisians.
¹²
The English were certainly well treated: Arundel was twice invited to dine with King Charles and Duke John at the Louvre, and his men were paid as promised in Burgundian gold. Burgundy's hold on power was now stronger than ever. Armagnacs in Paris were proscribed and before Christmas a brief campaign led by the dauphin drove their garrisons out of several towns south of the city. By this time Arundel had returned to England, having enhanced his reputation and encouraged Prince Henry's belief that he had backed the right horse, but in fact the success of the Anglo-Burgundian alliance sowed the seeds of its own demise, for the Armagnacs were now desperate.

Henry's reaction to his son's presumption was to issue writs on 21 September for a parliament to meet on 3 November.
¹³
There was no financial rationale for a parliament, for the grant of the wool customs would not expire for another year, the third half subsidy granted in 1410 was not due for collection until November 1412, and the king had agreed not to ask for further taxation until then. Nor was there any discussion of foreign affairs, or if there was it was not recorded on the roll; presumably the prince's behaviour made it too delicate a topic. Yet there was no sign of repentance from Prince Henry, quite the contrary. Convinced that his father was acting too cautiously, he and Bishop Beaufort now tried to persuade him to abdicate on the grounds that he was too debilitated to govern effectively. Henry retorted that he would govern for as long as he drew breath, and on 5 November, despite the frailty that had prevented him from attending the opening three days earlier, came to Westminster to reassert his authority.
¹⁴
His response to the choice as speaker (for the third parliament in a row) of Thomas Chaucer was to tell him that he had no intention of permitting ‘any kind of novelty’, but would exercise his liberties and franchises in the same way as any of his predecessors had done; the restraint imposed on the king eighteen months earlier was annulled and on 30 November the prince's councillors were dismissed, albeit with royal gratitude.
¹⁵
No new council was formally appointed, but those who sat on it for the next fifteen months were the king's nominees. Sir John Pelham, a Lancastrian retainer for the past twenty-five years, displaced Henry Le Scrope as treasurer, Archbishop Arundel embarked on his fifth term as chancellor, and the earls of Arundel and Warwick, the Beauforts and Lord Burnell made way for the reliably royalist William Lord Roos and Henry Bowet.
¹⁶
Moreover, although there was no question of asking for a fifteenth and tenth, the commons did grant the king a subsidy of one-third of a pound on every £20 of landed income, convocation granted half a clerical tenth, and wool and cloth exports recovered strongly after two sluggish years.
¹⁷
Henry was also allocated £13,333 to be spent as he wished, and wasted no time in procuring a down payment of £4,000 of this from the exchequer.
¹⁸
The grant was doubtless meant to appease the king, who was in no mood for mulishness. On the last day of the session, 19 December, Speaker Chaucer ventured to ask him if there was truth in the rumour that he harboured ill-will towards some members of the commons, assuring him that they were his ‘faithful lieges and humble subjects’; Henry rather grudgingly ‘granted and allowed’ Chaucer's request and issued a general pardon ‘in those places where it seems necessary’. The prince contented himself with the observation that had the commons been more generous in the spring of 1410 his council would have been able to do more.
¹⁹