Skip to main content

Full text of "Henry Beaufort, bishop, chancellor, cardinal"

See other formats

FX L! rn ^ 

ST. BASIL o c — - illCATE 
wo- SH-3L1 

Makers of National History 

Edited by W. H. HUTTON, B.D. 



From a recumbent effigy (late 17th century) 

on the tomb in his chantry chapel in 

Winchester Cathedral 

Photo by W. G. Green 


Henry Beaufort 







&^U~~> /t/2 4 _ IMH] 

EX U£§*§ 


no, £rtA7. 

— . — -i— 

No. 1 AMEN CORNER, E.C. 1908 

Printed by Sir Isaac Pitman 
& Sons, Ltd., London, Bath 
and New York . .1908 

FEB 1 3 


It is intended in this series to commemorate im- 
portant men whose share in the making of national 
history seems to need a more complete record than 
it has yet received. In some cases the character, 
the achievements, or the life, have been neglected 
till modern times ; in most cases new evidence has 
recently become available ; in all cases a new estimate 
according to the historical standards of to-day seems 
to be called for. The aim of the series is to illustrate 
the importance of individual contributions to national 
development, in action and in thought. The foreign 
relations of the country are illustrated, the ecclesias- 
tical position, the evolution of party, the meaning 
and influence of causes which never succeeded. No 
narrow limits are assigned. It is hoped to throw 
light upon English history at many different periods, 
and perhaps to extend the view to peoples other than 
our own. It will be attempted to show the value in 
national life of the many different interests that have 
employed the service of man. 

The authors of the lives are writers who have a 
special knowledge of the periods to which the subjects 
of their memoirs belonged. 


S. John's College, Oxford, 
August, 1908. 


This book is an attempt to do neither more nor 
less than justice to an Englishman who has not 
yet received the recognition which is his due. A 
generation ago Dr. Stubbs in his Constitutional 
History of England reversed the unfavourable verdict 
upon the character of Henry Beaufort to which the 
genius of Shakespeare has given an undeserved 
vitality ; and the final estimate of the tribunal 
of history will probably have but few deductions 
to make from the tribute paid to Beaufort in that 
masterly review of the evolution of English govern- 
ment. The plan of that work, however, left room 
only for a brief and incidental treatment of Beaufort, 
and that too confined to his statesmanship. " The 
Cardinal of England " deserves a biography of his 
own. His public life of nearly half a century was one 
of the main threads of continuity between three 
Lancastrian reigns. His activity was an important 
factor in the course of events at more than one critical 
stage in the history of England, and perhaps of 

The present volume is an attempt to furnish such 
a biography. It grew out of a brief sketch of Beau- 
fort written for the Church Historical Society's 
second series of Typical English Churchmen, but in 
its present form it is based upon a fresh study of 
the chief authorities for the whole of Beaufort's 
life. It has been written in the fragments of time 
left by the primary duties of a parish priest, and 
under all the difficulties of distance from great 


libraries. The setting of the biography has involved 
the writing of a period of history where the work 
of acknowledged masters has made it dangerous 
to be independent and impossible to be original. 
On the other hand, any adequate record of Beaufort's 
services requires the presentation of a number of 
details which it is hard to keep in subordination to 
the great events and tendencies of his day, and 
equally hard to condense without loss of interest. 
The writer is painfully conscious of such defects in 
this book as are due to these difficulties or to the 
fragmentary character of his own historical training. 
Yet he ventures to hope that this monograph, richer 
perhaps than the necessarily bare story of Beaufort's 
life in the Dictionary of National Biography, but 
poorer in many respects than the splendid picture 
which Mr. Vickers has lately given of the cardinal's 
famous rival, Humphrey Duke of Gloucester, may 
prove to be a not unworthy memorial of an eminent 
English churchman and statesman, and incidentally 
a real, if slender, contribution to the accurate 
knowledge of true history. 

L. B. R. 

Holt, Norfolk, 
August, 1908. 


The following list is a classification of the chief authorities 
for the life and times of Cardinal Beaufort. Biographical 
information and literary criticisms are to be found in Ramsay's 
Lancaster and York, in Oman's Political History of England, 
1377-1485 (App. i, pp. 497-512), in Vickers's Humphrey 
Duke of Gloucester (pp. 456-475), and in the introductions to 
Kingsford's Chronicles of London and Henry V. 

A. Original Authorities. 
(i) Chronicles. 
1. Contemporary. 

(a) English — 

Chronicon Angliae (ed. Giles, 1848). 

Gesta Henrici Quinti (ed. Williams, 1850). 

Vita Henrici Quinti, by Thomas de Elmham (ed. Hearne, 

Historia Anglicana, by Thomas Walsingham (ed. Riley, 

Rolls Series). 
Annates Mon. S. Albani, by J. Amundesham (ed. Riley, 

Rolls Series). 
Gesta Abbatum Monasterii S. Albani, vol. iii (Rolls Series), 

ed. Riley. 
Historiae Croylandensis Continuatio (in Gale, Rerum 

Anglicanarum Scriptores Veteres, vol. i, 1604). 
Gregory's Chronicle of London (in Gairdner's Historical 

Collections of a London Citizen, Camden Society, 1876). 
Chronicles of London (ed. Kingsford, 1905). 
English Chronicle (ed. Davies, Camden Society, 1856). 
John Hardyng's Chronicle (ed. Ellis, 1812). 

(b) Foreign — 

Monstrelet (ed. Buchon, Paris, 1826-7 ; Engl. Trans, by 

T. Johnes, 1810). 
Wavrin (ed. Hardy, Rolls Series). 
Journal d'un Bourgeois de Paris (ed. 1881). 
Chronique du Religieux de St. Denys (ed. Bellaguet, 1852). 
Lefevre de S. Remy (ed. Buchon, 1838). 
J. J. des Ursins, Histoire de Charles VI. 
Aeneas Sylvius, Historia Bohemiae. 
Andreas Ratisbonensis, Chronicon and Dialogus (in Hofler's 

Geschichtschreiber der Hussitischer Bewegung, vols, i, ii) . 


2. Later chroniclers. 

Arnold's Chronicle, or The Customs of London. 

Hall's Chronicle. 

Raynald, Annates Ecclesiastici. 

(ii) Documents, letters, records, etc. 
Rolls of Parliament (cited as Rot. Pari.). 
Proceedings and Ordinances of the Privy Council (ed. 

Calendars of Patent Rolls, Henry IV and Henry VI. 
Issues of the Exchequer (ed. Devon). 
Foedera, Conventiones, etc. (ed. Rymer). 
Testamenta Vetusta (ed. Nicolas). 
Royal Wills (ed. Nichols). 
Excerpta Historica (ed. Bentley). 
Concilia M. Britanniae, etc. (ed. Wilkins). 
Papal Letters, vols, v, vi, vii (ed. Bliss and Twemlow). 
Munimenta Academica (ed. Anstey, Rolls Series). 
Epistolae Academicae Oxon. (ed. Anstey, Oxf. Hist. Soc). 
Gascoigne, Loci e libro veritatum (ed. Thorold Rogers). 
Official Correspondence of Thomas Bekynton (ed. Williams, 

Rolls Series). 
Reports of the Historical MSS. Commission. 
Letters and Papers Illustrative of Wars in France, Henry VI 

(ed. Stevenson, Rolls Series). 
Letters of Margaret of Anjou (ed. Munro, Camden Society). 
Quicherat, Proces de Rehabilitation de Jeanne d 'Arc (Paris, 

T. Douglas Murray, Jeanne d'Arc (London, 1902, an English 

translation of depositions made at the " process of 

rehabilitation "). 
Brown, Fasciculi Rerum Expetendarum, vol. ii. 
Finke, Konstanzer Konzil (especially diary of Cardinal 


B. Modern Histories, Biographies, etc. 

Wharton, Anglia Sacra (1691). 
Godwin, De Praesulibus Angliae. 
Duck, Life of Chichele. 

Stubbs, Registrum Sacrum Anglicanum (1858). 
Wylie, History of England under Henry IV (1884-1898). 
J. Endell Tyler, Henry of Monmouth (1838). 
Armitage-Smith, John of Gaunt (1904). 
*Vickers, Humphrey Duke of Gloucester (1907). 
Kingsford, Henry V (1901). 

Dictionary of National Biography (articles on Beaufort, 
Bedford, Gloucester). 


Church Quarterly Review, July, 1881 : Cardinal Beaufort 

(vol. xii). 
Hook, Lives of Archbishops (especially Arundel, Chichele, 

Lord Campbell, Lives of Chancellors, vol. i. 
Maxwell-Lyte, History of the University of Oxford (1886). 
Rashdall, The Universities in European History. 
Voigt, Wiederbelebung des classischen Alterthums, vol. ii. 
Palacky, Geschichte von Bohmen, vol. iii. 
Leng, K. Sigismund u. Heinrich V. 
Caro, Das Bundniss von Canterbury. 
De Beaucourt, Histoire de Charles VII, vols, ii, iii. 
Sismondi, Histoire des Francais, vols, xii, xiii (ed. 1831). 
Capes, English Church in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth 

Milman, Latin Christianity. 
Poole, Wycliffe and Movements for Reform. 
*Creighton, History of the Papacy (ed. 1892). 
Lingard, History of England (ed. 1849). 
Stubbs, Constitutional History of England (ed. 1884), vol. iii. 
♦Ramsay, Lancaster and York (1892). 
Lodge, Close of the Middle Ages. 
♦Oman, Political History of England from 1377 to 1485. 

To the works marked with an asterisk the present writer 
is indebted to an extent which can scarcely be indicated by 
particular references. 


chap - 




CHANCELLORSHIP, 1375-1405 . . . 1 

II. CONFLICT OF PARTIES, 1406-1413 ... 17 

SHIP, 1413-1417 34 


crown, 1418-1422 84 


1422-1424 104 


Gloucester, 1424-1426 . . . .124 


1426-1429 145 


CHURCH AND REALM, 1426-1432 . . 169 

X, THE STRUGGLE FOR FRANCE, 1429-1433 193 





1433-1434 218 


oye, 1435-1439 241 


1439-1444 266 


1444-1447 284 




Cardinal Beaufort 




Henry Beaufort was the second of four children Origin and 
born of the illicit connexion of John of Gaunt, Duke name * 
of Lancaster, with Katharine, daughter of Sir Paon 
Roelt, a knight of Hainault. Both before and after 
her own marriage to Sir Hugh Swynford in 1368, 
Katharine had been governess to Philippa and 
Elizabeth, the children of the duke and his first wife, 
Blanche of Lancaster ; and the death of the duchess 
in 1369 left her in charge of the household. When 
in 1372 Sir Hugh fell fighting in Aquitaine, his wife 
was openly recognised as the duke's mistress. 1 In 
1371 he had married a second wife, Constance of 
Castile ; but Katharine was mistress of the situation, 
tolerated or acknowledged at court, and approached 
as patroness by boroughs in disfavour. There is no 
record of the dates of the birth of her children, but 
the eldest, John, could tilt with success in the lists in 
1390, and was probably therefore born about 1373. 
Henry was a " mere lad " (admodum fiuer) when he 
became a bishop in 1398, though the expression 
should perhaps be taken not literally of boyhood but 
comparatively of a scandalously young bishop. His 

1 Armitage-Smith, John of Gaunt, pp. 390, 391 ; App. vii, 
pp. 462, 463. 


3— (3210) 


tion of the 

birth may be placed in 1374 or 1375. Two other 
children followed : Thomas, afterwards Duke of 
Exeter, and Joan, whose second husband was Ralph 
Neville, first Earl of Westmoreland. The surname 
Beaufort by which they were all known was derived 
from Beaufort in Artois. A late tradition described 
Beaufort as their birthplace, but the lordship of 
Beaufort was lost by John of Gaunt in 1369. The 
surname was probably chosen because " it would not 
prejudice the rights of his legitimate heir." 1 Court 
gossip in the reign of Richard II translated the name 
to " Fairborn " as "a jesting allusion to the open 
secret of their birth." 2 

In 1396, two years after the death of the " queen 
of Castile," John of Gaunt rewarded the faithfulness 
of his mistress by marrying her at Lincoln. The 
turn of the children came next. Probably it was for 
their sake even more than for their mother's that 
John braved the criticism and the resentment of the 
ladies at court. He procured from Pope Boniface IX 
the sanction of his marriage and the recognition of 
his children ; and in February, 1397, the King issued 
letters patent of legitimation to " our most dear 
cousins, the noble John the knight, Henry the clerk, 
Thomas domicello, 3 and to our beloved the noble 
Joan Beauford domicdle, the most dear relatives of 
our uncle the noble John, Duke of Lancaster." These 
letters of legitimation, which were duly confirmed by 
parliament, were the crowning act of a policy of 
reconciliation by which Richard secured the support 

1 Armitage-Smith, John of Gaunt, pp. 196-199. 

2 Ibid., pp. 464, 465. 

8 The diminutive domicellus (almost =" page ") was 
applied to youths of rank not yet old enough for knighthood, 
domicella to girls of similar rank and age. For the patent of 
legitimation, see Excerpta Historica, p. 154. 


of John of Gaunt. Relying upon this support the 
young King, now thirty years of age, proceeded to take 
a despotic revenge upon the magnates who had over- 
ridden him ten years before. The Duke of Gloucester 
died a suspicious death ; the Earl of Warwick was 
banished ; the Earl of Arundel was beheaded, and 
his brother the primate driven from his see. Revenge 
upon enemies was followed by rewards for friends. 
Five new dukes were made in a day. John Beaufort, 
who was made Earl of Somerset on his legitimation, 
now became Marquis of Dorset and Admiral of 
England. In March, 1398, " Henry the clerk " was 
Bishop-elect of Lincoln. The Beauforts were estab- 
lished as favourites of the crown. It remained to be 
seen whether Richard could retain their confidence or 
their allegiance. 

The record of Henry Beaufort's early history is but Education 
fragmentary. The bursar's roll at Peterhouse, and early 
Cambridge, notes the receipt of 20s. from Henry p e 
Beaufort in 1388-9 for the rent of his room. 1 The 
accounts of Queen's College, Oxford, include pay- 
ments in 1390-1 for keys for the provost's chamber 
and for that of " Bewforth," and " to John, servant 
of Bewforth, for necessaries bought and for his labour 
upon the vestments " of the college chapel ; and in 
1392 an entry of " wine for the Lord Duke of 
Lancaster " points to a visit of the father while the 
youthful undergraduate was still in residence. 2 

Preferment in the Church came early, while Henry 
was yet in statu pupillari, in minor orders only. 
Already in 1389 and again in 1391 he was given a 
prebend at Lincoln, and soon afterwards the warden- 
ship of the free chapel of Tickhill, a Lancastrian estate 

1 Hist. MSS. Commission, 1st R«p., p. 78. 
a Ibid., ii, 141. 


from which his mother was granted an annuity in 
1381. The legitimation of 1397 opened the way to 
further promotion. A papal indult of April, 1397, 
granted permission for ten years to Henry Beaufort, 
Dean of Wells, master of arts and student of theology, 
to hold and farm his deanery and other benefices 
while he was studying letters at Oxford or some other 
university. * At this stage probably should be 
placed his reputed residence at " Aken in Almaine " 
(Aachen or Aix in Germany) , where he is said to have 
studied canon and civil law. 2 An undated convey- 
ance signed by the president and chapter of Wells 
speaks of Henry Beaufort, Dean of Wells, as then 
absent abroad. 3 
Bishop of In February, 1398, John Bokyngham, the old 
Lincoln. Bishop of Lincoln, was driven from his diocese by an 
arbitrary exercise of papal authority, and translated 
to the far poorer see of Lichfield and Coventry. 
Lincoln was promptly given to " Bewford " by a 
papal provision granted in answer to the request of 
the King, who desired to show " his reverence and 
affection " for his uncle of Lancaster. 4 Richard's 
motive was probably twofold. He was as desirous 
to win the services of the son as to reward and retain 
the loyalty of the father. Henry was now at least 
twenty- three, and giving promise already perhaps of 
the ability which he displayed in later years. Of his 
character nothing is known beyond the fact that he 

1 Papal Letters, v, 26. 

2 Holinshed, ii, 485. Wylie, Henry IV, hi, 263, regards 
this tradition as a misunderstanding of Froissart's reference 
to Beaufort's residence "a l'ecole a Acquessonfort, " i.e., 
Oxford. The university of Aix was at the southern Aix in 
Provence, and dated from the fifteenth century. 

8 Hist. MSS. Comm., iii, 356. 
* Walsingham, ii, 228. 


had been guilty of a youthful sin which his worst 
slanderers passed over afterwards in silence. A child 
was born to him by Alice, daughter of the Earl of 
Arundel and niece of his subsequent rival, the Arch- 
bishop of Canterbury. This child, named Joan after 
her father's sister, became the wife of Sir Edward 
Stradling, who was given an appointment in Wales 
in 1423, and was remembered along with his wife in 
the Cardinal's will in 1447. It is uncertain whether 
she was born before or after her father's ordination, 
but it is certain that there is no trace of licentiousness 
in his later days, and that no imputation of the kind 
was ever cast upon his life as an ecclesiastic. 

Beaufort was chancellor of the University of Oxford Chancellor 
in 1398, but it is not certain how long he held the of Oxford 
office. The usual tenure was for two years. Thomas 
Hendman, however, was chancellor late in 1397. 
On the other hand, Beaufort was consecrated bishop 
of Lincoln on July 14th, 1398, and it would have been 
an anomaly indeed if the chancellorship had been 
held by the very bishop from whose jurisdiction the 
university had struggled successfully to set the 
chancellorship free. In 1395 with the consent of 
Archbishop Courtenay, a former chancellor of Oxford, 
a bull had been obtained from Boniface IX exempting 
the university from episcopal jurisdiction. The bull 
was repudiated by the faculty of law at Oxford, and 
in February, 1397, Archbishop Arundel, who was 
bent upon suppressing the Lollardism of the univer- 
sity, took the side of the jurists. The masters argued 
in despair that the right of visitation was the privilege 
of the crown, but the King in council insisted that it 
belonged to the primate, and nothing but the banish- 
ment of Arundel in September, 1397, gave the beaten 
graduates a respite. It was apparently at this stage 


in the conflict that the youthful Dean of Wells became 
chancellor. The chancellors of Oxford were elected 
by the university, no longer requiring even confirma- 
tion by the Bishops of Lincoln, whose delegates they 
had been originally. Nothing is known of the 
circumstances of Beaufort's election, but it is possible 
that the electors were desirous to have as their 
representative head a graduate of their own body who 
was at once a favourite of the crown, an adherent of 
the party which had triumphed over Arundel and his 
friends, and a son of the magnate who had great 
territorial influence in the counties which composed 
the diocese of Lincoln. On the other hand, Beaufort 
may have been imposed upon them by the influence 
of the crown. The whole question is obscure, for the 
academic conflict was twofold. The defenders of the 
liberties of the university were largely identical with 
the adherents of the Wycliflite movement, but 
whatever Beaufort may have done to awaken the 
hopes of the champions of academic freedom, he 
showed no sign in later years of sympathy with 
Lollardism. 1 
Guardian Tradition says that Henry of Monmouth, after- 

Monmouth. wards Henry V, was entrusted to the guardianship of 
his uncle the chancellor, and resided for a time at 
Oxford, in a room in a now vanished gateway of 
Queen's College. The unusual expenditure upon 
plate and other signs of hospitality in the college 
accounts for 1398 may be evidence of the residence 
of the chancellor in his old college or of a visit of his 
during the residence of his nephew, though some 
doubt is cast upon this supposition by the fact that 

1 For the visitation controversy see Maxwell Lyte, Hist. 
of the Univ. of Oxford, pp. 291-295 ; for Arundel and Oxford 
Lollardism, pp. 277-284. 


the lad was only eleven, over-young for an under- 
graduate even in those days. The association between 
the two may date from 1398, when the boy's father 
was driven into exile ;Tand in that case it was perhaps 
a precaution of Richard's own guilty anxiety. It 
may, however, date from the end of 1399, in which 
case it would be a proof of Henry IV 's confidence in 
his half-brother. Yet it is significant that in 1409 
and 1411, when uncle and nephew were associated in 
political action, the Prince was mediating or fighting 
on behalf of the liberties of the university, once more 
threatened by the archbishop ; and it is quite credible 
that the two were actuated as much by a common 
attachment to Oxford as by their general opposition 
to the policy of Arundel. 

The consecration of Beaufort to Lincoln in July, !p e * th ° f 
1398, would naturally put an end to his chancellorship. Q^unt 
It is improbable that he would retain the chancellor- 
ship with the idea of closing the conflict between the 
university and the diocese by uniting their represent- 
atives in his own person. The real conflict now was 
between chancellor and primate, and Arundel was by 
this time an exile. A year later came the first great 
crisis of Beaufort's career. The King was sinning 
away fast his ill-gotten hold upon the government 
of the nation. Parliament was practically replaced 
by a packed council. A personal quarrel between 
Henry of Lancaster and Mowbray, Duke of Norfolk, 
two of Richard's recent supporters, was made an 
excuse for the banishment of both. Finally, when 
John of Gaunt died broken-hearted in February, 
1399, his exiled son was robbed of his birthright by 
the confiscation of the Lancastrian estates. Mean- 
while Bishop Henry had first to bury his father. 
The chronicler of St. Albans tells with pride the story 



Return of 
Henry of 

of the resting of the duke's body at that monastery 
on the way to London,— how the Bishop of Lincoln 
and his widowed mother requested the hospitality of 
the convent, and how the abbot, fortified by papal 
decree and royal injunction on behalf of the inde- 
pendence of his house, refused the request until the 
bishop withdrew his refusal to sign letters of immunity 
for the convent from the jurisdiction of the see of 
Lincoln ; how the Bishop of London celebrated mass 
next morning, and the Bishop of Lincoln, who served, 
presented costly vestments which had belonged to 
the duke ; how he thanked the convent for the 
honour done to his father's body, and promised to 
be a friend to the convent in proof of his thanks ; and 
how the whole convent escorted the funeral procession 
to the gates as it journeyed on its way to St. Paul's 
for the burial. 1 The zealous scribe was thinking 
chiefly of the honour of his community ; but the 
young bishop, amid the last duties to the departed 
and the problems of episcopal jurisdiction, must have 
been facing a still greater question of the immediate 
future. Sooner or later he must choose between the 
King and the absent son. The choice came more 
swiftly than men expected. On May 29th Beaufort 
and two other bishops accompanied Richard to 
Ireland on his fruitless campaign against a recalcitrant 
chieftain of Leinster. On July 10th came the news 
that Henry of Lancaster was back in England, and 
the North was in arms on his side. John Beaufort, 
Marquis of Dorset, had been already in correspondence 
with his half-brother. Henry Beaufort's movements 

1 Gesta Abbatum Mon. S. Alban, hi, 438-440. For the 
duke's will, see Armitage-Smith, pp. 420-436. He bequeathed 
to Henry Beaufort amongst other things his missal and 
breviary, once the property of the Black Prince. 


are not known, beyond the fact that he landed with 
Richard at Milford Haven. He may have gone over 
to Lancaster at once when Richard's army was 
disbanded by its leaders after the King's flight into 
Cheshire ; he may have simply waited for the inevit- 
able end. All that is known is that when parliament 
met in September, 1399, to receive the King's abdica- 
tion, Henry Beaufort was on Lancaster's side. His 
motives scarcely need analysis. Twenty-one other 
prelates and thirty-six temporal peers voted with 
" l'evesq' de Nicholl " in Henry IV's first parliament 
in October for the " safe and secret imprisonment " 
of the King whose despotism had forfeited his crown. * 
But long before this solid vote spoke for the nation, 
Beaufort's course must have been plain. Lancaster 
was his brother ; Richard only his cousin, and his 
brother's enemy. 

The part which Henry Beaufort played in the Promotion 
troublous reign of Henry IV was mainly political. ° f *jj® 
In the parliament of 1401 he appears for the first 
of many times on one of the committees of peers 
appointed to consider petitions, and in 1402 he was 
a member of a small advisory council of bishops and 
barons formed to act in conjunction with the commons 
at their request. The Beauforts were coming quickly 
to the front. Henry's eldest sons were mere boys. 
Practically destitute of friends or ministers of weight, 
accepted rather than welcomed by the baronage, he 
turned naturally to his own kinsmen for support. 
The Beauforts, whose origin left them dependent 
upon the crown, gladly gave their royal brother what 
he asked. John Beaufort, reduced to his earldom of 
Somerset in 1399 for his former support of Richard, 
was restored to favour and rewarded in 1400 with the 

1 Rot. Pari, Hi, 426. 


confiscated estates of Owen Glendower, and in 1401 
was appointed captain of Calais and chief negotiator 
with France. In 1402 he was sent to escort the 
King's daughter Blanche to Cologne for her marriage 
to the Emperor's son. Late in 1402 John and Henry 
Beaufort were commissioned to fetch the King's 
second wife, Joan of Navarre, widow of the Duke of 
Brittany ; and when at last, after a first failure to 
land in Brittany at all, they succeeded in conveying 
the queen-elect across to Falmouth, storm-tossed but 
safe, it was the Bishop of Lincoln who married the 
royal pair in Winchester Cathedral on February 7th, 
1403, old Bishop Wykeham being too infirm to take 
part in the ceremony. If this marriage was " part 
of a scheme for strengthening the English interest in 
France," 1 it was a failure. Beaufort little dreamed 
that forty years later he would come to find in the 
cathedral of Winchester his only solace for the utter 
failure of a still greater project of English supremacy 
in France. 
The state In 1401 Henry had entrusted the chancellorship to 
of England. Edmund Stafford, Bishop of Exeter, Richard's last 
chancellor. On February 28th, 1403, Stafford was 
replaced by the Bishop of Lincoln. On March 2nd 
the visitation of St. Mary's Hospital in the city was 
committed to two royal clerks because " the King's 
brother the chancellor of England, to whom the 
visitation of the King's hospitals pertained according 
to his office," was occupied on urgent business. 
It was indeed an arduous task that lay before the 
young chancellor. Difficulties were thickening round 
the King. His position was the precarious position 
of a practically elective sovereign, and he had to strain 
every nerve to keep a " sufficient majority of the 

1 Oman, Polit. Hist, of Engl., 1377-1485, p. 174. 


nation at his back. " 1 He dealt leniently on the whole 
with the partisans of the late King, and though the 
keeper of Pontefract Castle, where the hapless 
Richard died so mysteriously, was Sir Thomas 
Swynford, the son of the King's stepmother Katharine, 
Henry cannot be charged with personal responsibility 
for that timely death. He humoured the parliament 
which was his real master, and he gave a qualified 
assent or at least a tactful refusal to the demands 
which the commons made in the direction of parlia- 
mentary independence. Arundel and the clergy 
were conciliated by the anti-Lollard legislation of 
1401. Yet in 1402 the first flush of national enthu- 
siasm had died away, and Henry was in sore straits. 
His invasion of Scotland in 1400 had led to an inces- 
sant border warfare. His premature severity turned 
a feud between Glendower and an English lord- 
marcher into a war for the national freedom of Wales. 
His negotiations with France proved barren or 
humiliating. Meanwhile the financial needs of the 
crown fell heavily upon every class of the community. 
Reaction broke at last into disorder. In May, 1402, 
the bishops and lords in each county, Beaufort 
amongst them, were commissioned to deal stringently 
with offenders " who told many lies in divers parts of 
the realm in taverns and other congregations of the 
people, preaching among other things that the King 
had not kept the promises he made at his advent 
into the realm and at his coronation and in parlia- 
ments and councils that the laws and laudable 
customs of the realm should be conserved." 2 
Beaufort's commission as Bishop of Lincoln extended 
over the counties of Lincoln, Leicester, Buckingham, 

1 Oman, Polit. Hist, of England, 1377-1485, p. 154. 
3 Patent Rolls, 1402, May 11th. 




in Council 
and in 

Bedford, Oxford, Huntingdon, Northampton, and 
Rutland. In July, 1402, he was commissioned along 
with the chancellor of Oxford to deal with the Welsh 
students who " assembled nightly in divers unlawful 
congregations for the purpose of rebellion," * probably 
encouraged by the defeat of the royal troops in Wales 
a month before. When parliament met in October, 
1402, Bishop Stafford was full of the distress in the 
country. He tried to make much of the honour 
implied in the Emperor's invitation to the King to 
take part in the healing of the papal schism, and of 
the victory won by the Percies over the Scots at 
Homildon ; but he confessed, " God has inflicted 
punishments in divers manners upon this realm." 

Such was the situation that Beaufort had to face 
early in 1403. While Henry was fighting hard 
against Glendower and the Percies, Beaufort was hard 
at work as chancellor in London, where his conve- 
nience was met by the assignment of Walthamstow 
and Old Stratford as places of residence for him. 
In October the King wrote to thank chancellor and 
council for sending prompt supplies to the Duke of 
York, who had succeeded John and Thomas Beaufort 
in command of the newly recovered fortress of 
Carmarthen, where a French squadron had come to 
aid the Welsh. In November Thomas was promoted 
to the admiralship of the northern fleet. The war 
was, however, still a serious struggle when the 
chancellor faced his first parliament on January 14th, 
1404. He made his opening speech, contrary to 
custom, on the first day. " He had no cheering tidings 
to impart, and so perhaps he sought to get through 
an awkward duty in a thin house." 2 His report was 

1 Patent Rolls, 1402, July 18th. 

■ Ramsay, Lancaster and York, i, 69. 


certainly discouraging. The recent revolt of the 
Percies had a plausible pretext in the grievances of 
the nation. Wales was still stubbornly resisting ; 
hostilities had broken out in France ; and money 
was wanted everywhere. The speaker of the commons 
roundly asserted that it was not the military activity 
but the economic mismanagement of the King that 
was responsible for the national distress ; and the 
commons unfolded an array of complaints to which 
the King's needs compelled him to assent. Foreign- 
ers were to be removed from the King's household, 
and its expenditure to be reduced, and the King was 
to publish the names of those ministers who were to 
form " his great and continual council." The 
commons pointedly warned the chancellor and the 
treasurer that if the grievances were not promptly 
redressed, parliament might be dispersed by news of 
invasion " or in some other way " and not meet again. 
Henry's financial integrity has been vindicated ; the 
commons were actuated by " ignorant impatience of 
all taxation in a time of great national need." 1 A 
word may be added here in defence of the chancellor. 
It has been the fashion to deride the political sermons 
which he like other chancellors preached at the 
opening of each session of parliament. His texts 
were often far-fetched and his exegesis forced, but 
his thesis was mostly sound statesmanship, and, after 
all, rhetoric is no proof of insincerity. In this parlia- 
ment he took for his text, " In the multitude of 
counsellors there is safety," and drew an elaborate 
picture of the realm as a body in which the right side 
represented the spiritual estate, the left the temporal, 
and the limbs the commonalty. The head, he left it 

1 Oman, p. 187. 


to be inferred , was the crown. * After all allowance 
made for opportunism in the minister and for ambition 
in the man, the fact remains that Beaufort stood forth 
here and again and again as the exponent, if not the 
author, of a policy of constitutional government which 
recognised the importance of the co-operation of all 
estates of the realm as clearly as it vindicated the 
supremacy of the crown. 
"The A new parliament met in October, 1404. The 

ParHa- 116 chancellor explained that the summoning of a second 
ment ' ' parliament within the year was due to the inadequacy 
of the grants made in April. 2 The old dangers were 
still urgent, and France was now afoot against 
Guienne. This parliament was memorable in two 
ways. (1) The King directed the sheriffs to return no 
lawyers. Perhaps it was the lawyers who had been 
foremost in pressing points of parliamentary privilege 
as against the crown ; perhaps it was their habit of 
promoting litigation that was partly to blame for 
their exclusion, which gave rise to the name of " the 
unlearned parliament." But the name given by 
another chronicler, " the lay parliament," recalls the 
fact that lawyers and clerks were largely identical as 
a class, 3 though it is hard to see why the King who 
assented to anti-Lollard legislation should set himself 
against clerks. In any case, it is uncertain how far 
the chancellor-bishop was responsible for the insertion 
of this prohibition in the writs of summons. (2) The 
second notable feature of this parliament was that the 
chancellor's request for further supplies was met by 
the proposal of the knights of the shires to appropriate 
clerical revenues for one year to military purposes. 

1 Rot. Pari, iii, 522. 

2 Rot. Pari, iii, 545. 

» Stubbe, Const. Hist., iii, 46 ; Ramsay, i, 79 n. 


The primate retorted that the knights should have 
left the alien priories in the hands of the King ; the 
Bishop of Rochester reminded them that their pro- 
posal was a violation of Magna Charta and meant ex- 
communication for its authors ; but the rejection of 
the proposal was due largely to the opposition of the 
lay magnates, who were similarly attacked by the 
commons' petition for the resumption of all crown 
grants made since 1367. This recurrence of the cry 
for disendowment was " simply an anti-clerical, not 
a Wycliffite movement " * ; and the chancellor-bishop 
doubtless resisted the cry, though no record has been 
preserved of his reply. But his attitude towards the 
taxation of the clergy is less easy to discover. Con- 
vocation was unwilling to extend its own taxation 
to the stipendiary clergy (chaplains and other 
assistant priests), and the archbishop advised the 
King to bring episcopal pressure to bear upon the case. 
The bishops had an interview with the chancellor and 
other officers of the crown, who finally recommended 
that the letters to the bishops should bear the King's 
own signet instead of the privy seal. 2 But it is not 
clear whether the chancellor's idea was to make the 
bishops' pressure upon the clergy effective or to 
lighten the royal pressure upon the bishops. It is 
interesting to note here a loan of 2,000 marks from 
Beaufort to the King in May, 1404, for the equipment 
of the southern fleet against French raids. A second 
loan of 2,000 marks followed in October. They were 
the first of a long series which made the bishop's name 
a frequent topic in national finance. 
• Just before the October session William of Bishop of 
Wykeham, royal architect, bishop, founder of Wmchester 

1 Oman, p. 191. 

2 Proceedings of Privy Council, i, 100, 101. 


colleges, passed away in his eighty-third year. On 
March 14th, 1405, Beaufort was translated to the 
rich see of Winchester thus vacated. He had left 
but little mark upon the diocese of Lincoln during 
his seven years' episcopate beyond one important 
laudum or award in 1400 which was regarded as a 
famous precedent. The dean, John Schepye, had 
been trespassing upon the rights of the chapter, and 
the canons appealed to the crown ; the bishop was 
commissioned by the King to hear and settle the case, 
and gave his decision in favour of the chapter. * 
For the Church of England at large he had done 
nothing but summon one convocation in 1402 and 
open another in 1404 as the commissary of the 
primate. His energies were now to find scope in 
unofficial but influential activity at home and in 
Resignation diplomacy abroad. A fortnight before his formal 
Chancellor- trans l at i° n he resigned the chancellorship, which was 
ship. given into the safe hands of Thomas Langley, an 

executor of John of Gaunt's will. The idea that his 
resignation was due to any loss of his royal brother's 
favour is inconsistent with his promotion to Win- 
chester and with his employment in 1406 and after- 
wards as an ambassador to treat with France for 
a truce or a peace and for a marriage between the 
Prince of Wales and a daughter of the French king. 
It is more likely that the King relieved him of the 
chancellorship to set him free for foreign employment. 
The King's jealousy was of later date ; at this stage 
he seems to have sought in Henry Beaufort a strong 
man for negotiations which had failed in the weaker 
hands of his brother John. 

1 Patent Rolls, 1400, Dec. 2nd ; Bradshaw, Lincoln Cath. 
Statutes, Pt. II, pp. 249-255. 




Beaufort's embassy to the French court early in Rivalry of 

1406 proved unsuccessful, and he returned to political A ™ndel 

life at home as a member of the permanent council Beaufort. 

nominated by the King at the request of the commons. 

The appointment of this council was in part a relief 

to an overworked and ailing sovereign, but it was also 

a victory for a persistent parliament, and the victory 

was carried a long step further by the promulgation 

of thirty-one articles to regulate the procedure of 

King and council. These articles " amounted to a 

supersession of the royal authority," 1 and were only 

robbed of a revolutionary significance by the fact 

that the councillors were staunch supporters of the 

King, and by the provision that the arrangement was 

only to last until the next parliament. 

Meanwhile the influence of Beaufort on the council 
was limited by the prominence of a rival, Archbishop 
Arundel. In fact the rivalry between the two was 
one of the chief factors in the history of the rest of 
the reign. They took part together in the consecra- 
tion of Chancellor Langley as Bishop of Durham in 
August, 1406, and of a new Bishop of London in 
September, and they both lent large sums of money 
to the King in August. But when on January 30th, 
1407, Bishop Langley resigned the chancellorship, 
disheartened perhaps by the stubborn temper of 
parliament, it was not Beaufort but Arundel who took 

1 Stubbs, iii, 57. 


3— (2810) 


his place. On February 9th the King confirmed the 
act by which Richard had legitimised the Beauforts, 
but with the addition of a clause barring their suc- 
cession to the crown. 1 The addition was invalid, 
as the original unfettered grant of legitimation in 
1397 had received parliamentary sanction. But it 
was significant either of hostility on the part of 
Arundel or of jealousy on the part of the King or of 
both perhaps in that order. The hostility was 
doubtless mutual, but apart from the natural envy of 
rivals its grounds are hard to define. They may have 
been personal. The archbishop may have resented 
the scandal of Beaufort's connexion with his niece, 
or he may have remembered the share of the Beauforts 
in the execution of his brother the earl in 1397. There 
may have been political grounds also. Staunchly 
loyal as the archbishop was to Henry IV, he had yet 
as leader of the council of 1406 been a party to 
concessions to the commons which threatened the 
dignity of the crown. Beaufort and his friends were 
perhaps more inclined to resent such diminution of 
royal prerogative. Arundel again " embodied the 
traditions of the elder baronage " ; 2 Beaufort was 
typical of the new aristocracy of the court party. 
But the whole situation was intricate. The rivalry 
between Arundel and Beaufort and the opposition 
between council and parliament were complicated by 
the jealousy which divided the royal house itself and 
set brother against brother and father against son. 
Practically the last five years of the reign were a 
strife between two factions— the one headed by the 
Prince of Wales and the Beauforts, the other by the 
archbishop and afterwards the King's second son 

1 Excerpta Hist., p. 153. 

2 Stubbs, iii, 60. 


Thomas, though it is hard to say whether it was the 
Prince who sided first with the Beauforts against 
Arundel or the Beauforts who took the Prince's side. 
The King, stricken by disease just as the wars and 
troubles of his earlier years died down, could only 
struggle to assert his personality now and again. 

(1) The story falls into three sections marked by the Chancellor- 
tenure of the chancellorship by either party in turn. ^ ip ° f . 
Arundel was chancellor from January, 1407, to 
December, 1409. Parliament was again refractory. 
The speaker criticised the expenditure of the council, 
and Arundel had to protest that they had worked 
hard and lent generously, and must resign if their 
services were not more thankfully recognised. The 
speaker was Thomas Chaucer, son of the poet and 
kinsman of the Beauforts, and his criticism of Arundel 
and the council was probably inspired in part by his 
connexion with the Bishop of Winchester, who had 
made him constable of his castle at Taunton in 1406. 
The commons were friendly enough to the Prince, 
and gave him a vote of thanks for his services in the 
Welsh wars. But they were insistent on their rights ; 
they claimed, and carried their claim, to take the 
initiative in all grants of money to the crown. 

The last revolt of the old Earl of Northumberland The Papal 
was crushed in the spring of 1408, and Henry and the Schism an . d 
archbishop were now free to take a more active f Pto??^ 
interest in " the great European question of the 
time," the schism between the rival popes, Benedict 
XIII of Avignon and Gregory XII of Rome. Already 
in 1401 parliament had urged the King to take steps 
toward the closing of the breach. In 1402 Chancellor 
Stafford had referred with pride to the news that 
Rupert, King of the Romans, had appealed to Henry 
as " the most powerful king in the world " to work 


for the unity of the Church. The commons showed 
their zeal for the Church by renewing their petition 
to the King, their care for the national purse by 
deprecating again any serious expenditure in the 
cause. At last in July, 1408, a committee of convoca- 
tion, including both Arundel and Beaufort, was 
appointed to consider ways and means of ending the 
schism. Gregory, the pope recognised by the 
English, had just alienated his cardinals, who 
promptly appealed to a general council to meet at 
Pisa in 1409. The convocation of July, 1408, resolved 
with the King's approval that the payment of papal 
dues should be suspended until either the schism was 
ended or Gregory had satisfied England that he was 
doing his best to end the schism, and an ultimatum 
to that effect was conveyed to Gregory by Beaufort, 
the Abbot of Shrewsbury, Lord Scrope, and the 
Chancellors of Oxford and Cambridge. * In Novem- 
ber the Cardinal-Archbishop of Bordeaux came to 
London on behalf of the sacred college, and Henry, 
while still refusing to renounce Gregory, promised 
to send representatives to the council of Pisa and to 
urge Gregory to attend himself. The council met, 
declared both popes schismatics, and in June, 1409, 
elected a new pope, Peter of Candia (Alexander V), 
a Franciscan of Greek birth who had graduated in 
theology at Oxford. This election is said to have 
been due to the advocacy of Hallam, Bishop of 
Salisbury, a former chancellor of Oxford. Beaufort's 
Beaufort share in the whole matter is ambiguous. A recently 
and Pope published volume of papal letters contains a bull 
Gregory. j ssue( i by Gregory in August, 1409, in which he 
conferred upon Beaufort the powers of a special 
legate (legatus a latere) to be exercised in England 
1 Wilkins, Concilia, iii, 308-310. 



and Ireland on behalf of the unity of the Church, with 
particular reference to " the fresh schism " recently 
added at Pisa in the person of Peter of Candia, some- 
time Cardinal and Archbishop of Milan, " called 
Alexander V." 1 Beaufort was busy in France from 
May to September, 1409, as the leading member of 
an embassy sent to negotiate for a truce or peace 
and for the marriage of a French princess to the 
Prince of Wales. He may have extended his diplo- 
matic efforts to Rome, or he may have come to an 
understanding with Gregory when he conveyed the 
ultimatum of Henry in 1408. It is evident that 
Gregory, whether independently or in consequence 
of previous conference or correspondence with 
Beaufort, made a bold bid for his services with the idea 
of undoing the work of the Council of Pisa. There is 
no indication either of acceptance or of refusal on 
Beaufort's part. Henry IV had given his adhesion 
to the decrees of the council, but it was not until 
October 22nd that he ordered the sheriffs to proclaim 
the election of Alexander, with whom, however, he 
had exchanged complimentary letters. He may 
have been merely waiting for the personal reports of 
his representatives returning from Pisa. On October 
28th he forbade the seneschal of Aquitaine to execute 
the sentences of excommunication passed by Benedict 
and Gregory alike upon the Archbishop of Bordeaux, 
the envoy of the cardinals in 1408. 2 It would be 
easy to recognise in Henry's proclamations a reply 
to Beaufort's papal commission. But it is very 
doubtful whether Beaufort ever accepted the com- 
mission. In later years when his legatine commissions 
of 1417 and 1427 were made the grounds of an attack 

1 Papal Letters, vi, 99. 

8 Rymer, Foedera, viii, 604, 



nance of 
the Prince 
of Wales 
and the 

upon his loyalty, not a word was said of any earlier 
commission. The most that can be safely stated is 
that Gregory, remembering that Henry had remained 
loyal to him even while bringing pressure upon him in 
1408, and knowing perhaps that Beaufort was at 
variance with Arundel, endeavoured to secure the 
support of Beaufort, and through the support of 
Beaufort to regain the support of England, where he 
still had not a few sympathisers. 

Meanwhile Arundel was in difficulties. In January 
he re-enacted in synod at St. Paul's the constitutions 
which he had enacted in synod at Oxford in 1407. 
He had endeavoured to repress the Lollardism of the 
university by restricting alike preaching, the transla- 
tion of the Bible, and the printing or teaching of 
Wycliffite doctrine. The graduates of Oxford rebelled 
in defence of their academic liberties, and their 
rebellion had the support of the Prince of Wales. 
They submitted, but reluctantly, and only for a time ; 
and the strength of their opposition was probably in 
part the cause of Arundel's resignation of the 
chancellorship in December, 1409. 

(2) For the next two years the government was 
practically in the hands of the Prince and his friends. 
The King was reluctant to part with Arundel, and 
the chancellorship remained vacant for more than 
a month, but on January, 31st, 1410, the seal was 
entrusted to Thomas Beaufort. Meanwhile parlia- 
ment had met, with Chaucer again for speaker. In 
the absence of a chancellor the session was opened by 
the Bishop of Winchester. The Prince was at the 
head of the council, and the King's intermittent 
malady left the Prince regent in fact if not in name. 
The bishop took as his text at the opening of the 
session the words, " it becometh us to fulfil all 


righteousness." 1 He stated the two needs of the day. 
the maintenance of law and order at home, and the 
defence of the realm against the danger on the 
Scottish border and against the designs of the Duke 
of Burgundy upon Calais. He " rehearsed very 
discreetly " the two elements of good government, 
namely, rule and subjection, and proceeded first to 
illustrate the duty of the sovereign, as became a 
former chancellor of Oxford, by quoting Aristotle's 
remark to Alexander that the security of a realm lay 
in the affection of a people protected in the enjoyment 
of their rights, and then to enforce the threefold duty 
of the people to their sovereign, " honour and 
obedience, reverence and benevolence, and cordial 
assistance." The anti-clerical party was proof 
against the political philosophy of the bishop, charmed 
he never so wisely. A petition was presented by the 
Lollard knights deprecating the arrest of heretics by 
the civil magistrates. The voice of the commons as 
a whole spoke in a later petition asking that no action 
should be taken on the former petition ; yet they 
seriously proposed that the King should eke out their 
subsidies by confiscating half the income of all 
non-resident incumbents. The King replied that 
14 this matter appertained to Holy Church," and that 
the question of non-residence had been considered 
in the last convocation. The chroniclers record a 
yet more drastic proposal for the disendowment of 
bishops, abbots and priors, whose wealth would, it 
was said, maintain an army of earls, knights, and 
squires, and still leave a wide margin for the poor 
and for the crown. 2 It was the Prince even more 
than the King who silenced this proposal. The 

1 Hot. Pari., iii, 622. 

2 Kingsford, Chronicles of London, pp. 65, 295. 


Prince's support of the Oxford masters was no proof 
of sympathy with Lollardism. He repressed its 
social side in parliament, and during that very session 
he sent the poor tailor Badby back to the stake. 
Prince and chancellor, Winchester and Canterbury, 
all had been associated in Badby's trial before con- 
vocation. There was practically no difference 
between the two parties in matters of orthodoxy and 

When the commons in May, 1410, pressed for the 
formal nomination of the King's council, he replied 
that certain lords whom he had chosen had asked to 
be excused, probably Arundel and his late colleagues. 
The council then named — a smaller council than 
usual— was practically a close ministry of Beauforts 
with the Prince at their head. It consisted of the 
Prince, the Bishop of Winchester, the Bishops of 
Durham and Bath and Wells (old colleagues of Henry 
Beaufort, and the only bishops in whose consecration 
he took part for twenty years together), the Earl of 
Westmoreland (Beaufort's brother-in-law), the Earl 
of Arundel (nephew of the primate), and Lord Burnell. 
The Earl of Arundel, though not opposed to his uncle, 
was in closer sympathy with the younger party. 
Into the work of this council the Prince and the bishop 
threw themselves without stint. The records of the 
council bear vivid witness to the variety and minute- 
ness of the business transacted in the summer of 1410 
after the dissolution of parliament. 1 Calais was 
their chief anxiety. On the death of its captain, 
John Beaufort, Earl of Somerset, in March, 1410, it 
was retained by the Prince in his own hands, and in 
June three-quarters of the year's customs were 
assigned for its defence. Loans were raised from 
1 Proceedings, i, 331 foil. 


London citizens and Italian merchant-companies to 
provide for garrisons in Wales. Bishops and barons 
and knights were set to borrow hard in their respective 
counties, Henry Beaufort making himself solely 
responsible for £1,000 from Hampshire, Wiltshire, 
Berkshire, and Oxford. Estimates of the needs of 
the frontiers, reports in person from officers at Calais 
as to the conditions of military service there, notes of 
instructions to sheriffs, commissions of enquiry into 
fraudulent returns of revenue, despatches to John of 
Lancaster (the Prince's brother) and the Earl of 
Westmoreland on the Scottish border, memoranda 
from English ambassadors in Flanders stating the 
grievances of Flemish merchants against English 
highwaymen and sea-rovers, grievances which were 
endangering the prospect of peace with Burgundy,— 
such were the matters which occupied the Prince and 
Beaufort while their rival the archbishop was using 
his enforced freedom from cares of state to discipline 
the Lollards of Oxford. 

The university had already been brought to the Arundel 
notice of parliament in 1410 by a petition from the university 
civil authorities of the city and county asking for the of Oxford, 
revocation of the judicial privileges of the university 
in consequence of the disorderly behaviour of its 
members. The King ordered the chancellor of the 
university to produce its charters, and instructed the 
council to revoke such privileges as were prejudicial 
to the crown. Such other privileges as were prejudi- 
cial to the rights of the Prince or the Bishop of 
Winchester or other persons possessing " liberties " at 
Oxford were to be revised by the council with the 
law-officers of the crown. But in 141 1 the Prince had 
to intervene in a more serious dispute. The arch- 
bishop announced his intention to hold a visitation of 






the university. The chancellor, Courtenay, the 
Prince's friend, headed a revolt and garrisoned 
St. Mary's Church against the primate with armed 
scholars. The primate replied with an interdict 
which was ignored, and at last the dispute was 
referred to the King. Henry forced the chancellor and 
proctors to resign, and reaffirmed the archbishop's 
right of visitation. Parliament ratified the King's 
decision, but the university re-elected the chancellor 
and proctors. It was at this point that the Prince 
intervened. He induced the masters to drop their 
claim of exemption, and the King to accept the 
re-election of the officials. The archbishop then 
proceeded with his visitation. The Prince had gained 
but little here ; elsewhere he had lost heavily. At 
the beginning of 1412 the Prince and the Beauforts 
were displaced to make way for Arundel and the 
Prince's brother Thomas. 

It was a bold venture into the troubled region of 
French politics that had brought the Prince into 
disgrace. France was torn by the strife of two 
factions, the one led by the Duke of Burgundy, the 
other by the Duke of Orleans, nephew of the French 
king, and his father-in-law the Count of Armagnac. 
In the summer of 1411 both parties sought help in 
England. Commercial interests in Flanders induced 
Henry to send an embassy to Burgundy, but with 
careful precautions against a breach with the French 
court. The Prince, impatient of delay or diplomacy, 
sent troops at once. The English contingent enabled 
Burgundy to clear Paris of the Armagnacs and to 
win a decisive victory at St. Cloud; but the im- 
portance of this expedition lay in the discovery 
that " twelve hundred Englishmen could utterly 
turn the balance between the two great French 



factions." 1 This was a discovery which did much 
to replace a cautious policy of peace with France 
by a belief in the possibility of a successful war. 
St. Cloud was largely responsible for Agincourt. 

Meanwhile the King, who had been delayed by 
sickness even more than by hesitation, was gravely 
resentful of his son's presumption. Two other 
factors had recently entered into the situation at 
home. Thomas of Lancaster, the King's second son, 
had quarrelled with the Beauforts. He had obtained 
a dispensation to marry the widow of his uncle, the 
late Earl of Somerset, and the Bishop of Winchester 
as chief executor of his brother the earl made his 
protest against the marriage by refusing to pay the 
widow's dower out of the earl's estate. Already 
Thomas had been on strained terms with the Prince's 
council. When he asked for an advance of salary as 
lieutenant of Ireland in June, 1410, the council told 
him that they were prepared to make their promised 
payments if he was prepared to carry out his pro- 
mised work. Now the Prince protected the bishop 
so effectively that Thomas only got his bare claim and 
no personal satisfaction ; and the disappointed 
litigant withdrew from his brother's party and entered 
into closer relations with his father the King. The 
other disturbing factor in the situation was far less 
to Beaufort's credit. The chroniclers relate that the 
Prince at the suggestion of Beaufort requested the 
King to resign the crown on account of the recurrence 
of his disease, and that the King met the request with 
an indignant refusal. The story is not improbable. 
One French chronicler states that in 1406 the embassy 
headed by Beaufort endeavoured to win the French 
to the idea of a marriage alliance by representing 

1 Ramsay, i, 131. 


Thomas of 

and the 
Prince 's 
upon the 


that Henry was about to abdicate, and that the 
Prince would soon be virtual ruler of England. It 
is a significant fact that in 1426 when the bishop 
repudiated so vigorously other charges then made 
against his loyalty to three successive sovereigns, he 
was practically silent upon this charge. If it was true 
it would be intelligible enough. The King's malady 
was a serious weakness to the government, and the 
desire to remedy this weakness may have been as 
prominent in Beaufort's mind as the ambition of 
guiding a young king instead of a prince in occasional 
authority. Still it was a heartless proposal, and the 
Beauforts paid as dearly as the Prince for the false 
step. When parliament met in November, 1411, the 
vagueness of Thomas Beaufort's opening address as 
chancellor betrayed the uncertainty of their position. 
They still had influence enough to secure the election 
of Chaucer again as speaker, but the King met the 
speaker's customary request for liberty of speech with 
the brusque assertion that " he would have no novel- 
ties in that parliament." On November 30th the 
commons prayed the King to thank the Prince and 
the council for their services. The Prince declared 
on behalf of himself and his colleagues that they had 
done their best for the realm in all sincerity, and the 
King remarked that he knew they would have done 
better still if they had been better supplied with 
funds, and that he was " quite satisfied of their good 
and loyal diligence, counsel and duty for the time that 
they were of his council." His language was com- 
plimentary, but it sounded like the close of a chapter, 
and such it proved to be. On the last day of the session 
he asserted his royal prerogative so emphatically that 
the commons prayed him to silence the rumours 
of his displeasure by a distinct acknowledgment 


of the loyalty of all the estates, and he granted 
their petition. 1 The Beauforts had evidently not 
forfeited the confidence of the commons by their 
support of the royal prerogative earlier in the reign. 
The victory of St. Cloud and the popularity of the 
Prince counted for much, but Henry Beaufort was 
fast becoming a power in the land. Whether from 
his growing financial importance or from his frank 
recognition of the place of the commons in national 
life, he had already gained an influence in parliament 
which stood him in good stead more than once in 
later days. 

(3) The King, however, held his own. Parliament The Prince 
dispersed in December. On January 5th, 1412, Beauforts 
Arundel took Thomas Beaufort's place as chancellor, - in disgrace. 
Thomas of Lancaster succeeded his brother on the 
council, and the Archbishop of York succeeded the 
Bishop of Winchester. It was in modern parlance 
a complete change of ministry. The Armagnacs took 
prompt advantage of the change, and sent envoys to 
London to offer Aquitaine as the price of Henry's 
support. The offer was accepted. The Burgundian 
alliance, the deliberate policy of the Prince and 
Beaufort, favoured by the King at heart, commended 
by the commercial importance of Flanders to England, 
sealed already by the victory of St. Cloud, and 
pledged to continuance by the still pending negotia- 
tions for the marriage of the Prince to Anne of 
Burgundy, was flung aside for a costly expedition to 
Guienne in conjunction with the Armagnacs, the 
traditional enemies of the house of Lancaster. Money 
was raised by loans under the privy seal, but the 
Bishop of Winchester was not among the eleven 
bishops who contributed. He was ready enough to 

1 Rot. Pari., iii, 647-649. 


lend for national needs, but this was a reckless 
reversal of his own policy. It was, moreover, a 
financial blunder. The minutes of the council contain 
a budget showing a serious deficit, and ending with 
the significant confession : " this memorandum was 
never shown to the King." 1 

Meanwhile the Prince made a bold bid for reinstate- 
ment in influence, if not in office. He came to 
London in June attended " by much people of lords 
and gentles " to demand the vindication of his 
character, perhaps also to force the resignation of 
Arundel. Henry gave him an interview, and accepted 
his protestation of loyalty, but postponed his griev- 
ances against the " slanderers " who had " sown 
discord " between father and son to the hearing of 
parliament. Within a week Thomas was made Duke 
of Clarence and sailed for France as lieutenant of 
Aquitaine. With him went Thomas Beaufort, now 
Earl of Dorset, an interesting counterpart to the Earl 
of Arundel on the Prince's side. " The lords," 
however, " were accorded ere they came " ; Orleans 
had already made his peace with the King of France, 
and Clarence had to tell his father in October that 
the English must submit to be paid off. The Prince 
meanwhile had not allowed matters to rest. He 
extracted from the council a formal acknowledgment 
of his financial integrity in the matter of Calais, and 
in September he came to the council " with an huge 
people," probably to press home the scandal of the 
French fiasco to his own advantage, though ostensibly 
only to demand satisfaction for his own malignment 
by his opponents. It is probable that Bishop 
Beaufort was not far away in the background, but 
the only reference to his name is a mysterious tale of 

1 Proceedings, ii, 33. 



intrigue which is incredible in the precise shape in 
which it is recorded. x The bark of a faithful spaniel 
led to the discovery of a stranger hiding in the 
Prince's chamber at Westminster. The man confessed 
that he had been sent by the Bishop of Winchester 
to murder the Prince in bed. Years afterwards the 
bishop denied the charge that he had sent the man 
to murder the Prince. The denial was superfluous. 
Probably no actual murder was planned by anybody ; 
the author of the plot was merely bent on fastening 
the imputation of murderous intent upon somebody. 
The plot can scarcely have been an attempt of the 
archbishop's party to poison the Prince's mind against 
Beaufort ; such an idea must have been hopeless in 
view of the close intimacy between the two. It is 
more likely that the man was actually sent by the 
Bishop of Winchester, to set people thinking that 
Arundel had used the man as a tool to implicate 
Beaufort. Arundel would have been discredited by 
the supposition that he had been guilty of such a trick. 
The unsavoury mystery, however, remained a mys- 
tery. The Earl of Arundel, who was entrusted with 
the trial of the case, had the poor wretch dropped into 
the Thames in a sack. If the earl was an outright 
partisan of the Prince, his summary closure of the 
only available evidence would tell against the Beaufort 
party. But he seems to have been on fairly good 
terms with his uncle the archbishop, and it is 
uncertain therefore which party he thought he was 

The tale of intrigue and counter-intrigue was soon 
to end. On March 20th, 1413, Henry IV passed away. 
His will bore traces of recent history ; York and 
Durham were among his executors, but not Winchester. 

1 Kingsford, Chron. Lond., p. 78. 

accused of 
the Prince. 

of Henry V. 


Bishop Henry's support or instigation of an unrilial 
Prince had wiped out the memory of his earlier 
services to the King. The supervisors of the will were 
the Prince and the primate ; the father had died at 
peace with his son, and hoped perhaps that the Prince 
would live at peace, if not work in union, with his old 
opponent. But the Prince's choice had long been 
made, and on the day after his accession he trans- 
ferred the seal from Arundel to Beaufort. It was not 
a choice of mere affection or impulse. Early intimacy 
had done much perhaps to bind uncle and nephew 
together. There is no evidence for or against any 
connexion of the bishop with those faults or sins in 
the Prince which tradition has touched into such 
bold contrast to the high aims of the young King of 
twenty-six. No definite inference can be drawn from 
the bare fact that in the first year of his reign Henry V 
repaid over £800 which Beaufort had lent him when he 
was Prince of Wales. It is .probable on the other 
hand that the two had observed and discussed not 
a few of the lessons that Henry IV was learning in 
those anxious days when parliament was keeping him 
in his place in a double sense — hedging his throne 
with faithful but parsimonious support, and at the 
same time with persistent, if loyal, limitations. 
Beaufort had seen early in the reign that for a realm 
just emerged from an alternation of anarchy and 
despotism, and for the first sovereign of a new 
dynasty just feeling his way to security, the path of 
recovery and strength lay in mutual forbearance and 
support. The conditions of this mutual support 
must inevitably in the absence of precedent be a 
matter of experiment, in which Beaufort was prepared 
to insist on the King's having the benefit of the doubt 
as far as parliament would consent to give him that 


benefit. But as Henry's position became surer, and 
still more as the younger Henry's popularity grew 
heartier, Beaufort may have come to dream of an 
England which should be strong at home in a personal 
as well as constitutional bond between King and 
people, and in that strength should venture great 
things abroad for the recovery of old prestige. Prob- 
ably there entered into this dream an ambition of 
his own, however vague as yet. But there is no 
ground for the assumption, so often made in estimates 
of Beaufort's character, that such an ambition is so 
exclusively selfish or so inherently immoral as to 
vitiate the honesty and the patriotism of any policy 
of which it is a factor. 

4— (2210) 




The new " The unquiet time of King Henry the Fourth," in 
Ki *& the quaint language of Hall, a sixteenth-century 

Chancellor historian, was followed by " the victorious acts of 
King Henry the Fifth." The reign which ended m 
1413 had indeed been an unquiet time. Its earlier 
years had been marked by wars and rumours of wars 
on the borders, by conspiracy or revolt within the 
baronage, by friction between King and parliament ; 
its last five years were disturbed by a rivalry of 
chancellors and princes which prevented either a firm 
government at home or a consistent policy abroad. 
With the advent of Henry V to the throne a change 
came over the spirit of the nation as well as over the 
new King himself. The fresh sense of responsibility 
which sent him straight from his father's death-bed 
to a spiritual adviser, the blending of caution and 
charity which honoured or reinstated opponents or 
victims of his father, and changed the composition of 
the ministry right through without making an enemy, 
—these were notes of a personality which brought 
healing and strength to the body politic. Parliament 
felt the spell. When Chancellor Beaufort discoursed 
in May, 1413, from the text, "Before all action sound 
advice," and exhorted the estates to maintain the 
royal dignity, to labour for good government and law, 
and to safeguard possessions abroad by resisting 
enemies and by making friends, the commons hinted 
indeed broadly that the King knew how far his father's 



promises of good government had been fulfilled, and 
they dwelt on various symptoms of weakness and 
disorder at home and abroad, but they took kindly 
even his refusals of sundry petitions for redress of 
ecclesiastical abuses, and they gave him respectable 
financial support as he faced the first tasks of his 
reign. 1 

Two problems were awaiting the young King's 
attention- — the Lollards at home, the French abroad. 
It is difficult to decide how far the authorship or the 
responsibility of the line of policy followed in either 
case is to be attributed to the King or to the chancellor 
who for four years was second only to his master. 
The chancellor's opening address in parliament occu- 
pied in those days the place of the modern speech from 
the throne, but there the resemblance ends. The 
King's speech of our day contains a definite outline 
of legislative proposals which represent the policy 
of the cabinet ; the chancellor's address of that day 
made more or less pointed reference to current needs, 
but such general hints of action as were conveyed 
thereby were given and taken as indications of the 
policy of the King. The council which stood between 
King and parliament stood nearer to the King than 
to the parliament, and the chancellor who was prac- 
tically the prime minister of those days was the 
agent of the royal will and not the exponent of parlia- 
mentary feeling. Beaufort therefore as chancellor 
was to all intents and purposes the mouthpiece of 
the King. How far the policy to which he gave 
voice was first shaped by his own private influence is 
a secret which history has not revealed. The one 
thing which seems to stand out clearly is the difference 
between the two men in the very things upon which 

1 Rot. Pari, iv, 3, 4. 



and the 

they were agreed. The King was the better church- 
man of the two. If Beaufort persecuted Lollards for 
the sake of law and order, Henry persecuted for the 
sake of orthodoxy also. If Beaufort worked hard for 
the conquest of France or for the unity of western 
Christendom, it was chiefly to make England great, not 
without a touch of ecclesiastical ambition of his own. 
Henry, on the other hand, found room in his busy 
mind, alongside the soldierly patriotism of an impe- 
rialist English sovereign, for dreams in which he 
himself figured alternately as a crusading patron of 
Holy Church and as a divinely appointed instrument 
for the chastisement of a sinful France. Yet it is 
dangerous to argue from silence. If chronicler and 
parliamentary scribe record little or nothing of 
Beaufort which speaks of these or other ideals, it 
may be because he was a man of action rather than of 
words, or because he sank the expression of his own 
sentiments in the execution of the plans of his friend 
and master the King. 

The Lollard question came up first for settlement. 
Lollardism was still a living force. The archbishop's 
stringent visitation of the university may have 
provoked more Lollard activity elsewhere than it 
suppressed at Oxford. The immunity of Lollard 
knights in the service of the crown may have more 
than neutralised the warning of the occasional 
martyrdom of a humbler disciple. The great schism 
may have given a new force to every argument against 
the abuses of mediaeval church life. Whatever the 
causes were, Lollardism was gaining rather than 
losing ground in high places in England, while it was 
exercising a growing influence upon the reforming 
movement in Bohemia. Convocation urged the King 
to strike at the leaders through Sir John Oldcastle, 


a soldier and ambassador of distinction, and Henry, 
rinding that a personal appeal to his old comrade 
in arms failed to shake his convictions, authorised 
the primate to proceed with the trial. Beaufort and 
the Bishop of London sat as the assessors of the 
archbishop in September, and at least assented to the 
condemnation of the stalwart heretic. In October 
Oldcastle escaped from the Tower, and early in 
January, 1414, the government was face to face with 
the certainty of a Lollard rising. The insurgents 
were forestalled and crushed by the vigilance of the 
King, and the ringleaders were executed, but the 
insurrection was regarded as formidable enough to 
take the first place among the subjects of the chan- 
cellor's opening address in the parliament which met 
at Leicester on April 30th. " He hath applied his 
heart to observe the laws," so ran the text on which 
he based his appeal for support for the King. x 
Arundel, who died in February, 1414, had dealt with 
Lollardism in convocation from the standpoint of a 
churchman. Beaufort's attitude was rather that of 
a statesman. He laid stress indeed upon the necessity 
of keeping " the laws of God and the Christian faith," 
and dwelt upon the troubling of " the holy church of 
England " by the malice of " certain people of 
England infected with heresies called Lollards " ; 
but he spoke forcibly of the danger involved for " all 
the temporal estates of the realm " as well as for 
" the estates and ministers of the said church." The 
proclamation issued by the government after the late 
rising suggested that the Lollards contemplated the 
establishment of " a commonwealth or something 
of the sort, with Oldcastle as protector." 2 The 

1 Rot. Pari., iv, 15, 16. 

2 Ramsay, i, 179. 


suggestion recalls the language of a petition presented 
by the commons in the parliament of 1406 in the name 
of Prince Henry and the lords. This petition, after 
a reference to the Lollard outcry for the disendowment 
of the Church, proceeded : " It is probable that in 
course of time they (the Lollards) will excite and 
move the people of your realm to oust and rob the 
lords temporal of their possessions and inheritances 
also, and thus make them all common, in overt 
commotion of your people, and final destruction and 
subversion of your realm for all time." 1 It has been 
said that " apart from their hostility to the possessions 
of the clergy " there is no evidence that the Lollards 
were guilty of " designs subversive of all government." 2 
But it is probable that the suspicions and suggestions 
of the government were justified by the words and 
actions of the wilder spirits among the Lollards of the 
generation which succeeded Wy cliff e. There is no 
doubt that even the saner spirits, if innocent of 
socialistic designs, were not infrequently agents or 
authors of political revolt. Oldcastle was on the 
move again in 1415 in suggestive coincidence with the 
conspiracy which burst on the eve of Henry's depar- 
ture for France. It was this social or political aspect 
of the Lollard agitation which led parliament to 
respond to the chancellor's appeal in 1414 by assenting 
to a statute requiring all civil officers of the realm, 
from the chancellor down to a country mayor or 
bailiff, to take the initiative in proceeding against 
" all manner of heresies and errors commonly called 
Lollar dries." Lollards were now considered guilty 
of treason as well as heresy. The statute of 1414 did 
not originate in any petition of the commons ; it was 

1 Rot. Pari, iii, 583. 
■ Ramsay, i, 181 n. 4. 


mainly the work of the King and the chancellor. 
The leniency of the new Archbishop Chichele was more 
than balanced by the severity of the King ; and in 
May, 1415, amid the last stages of futile negotiation 
with France and of busy preparation for the " voyage," 
the chancellor did not forget to communicate to the 
bishops the King's instructions " to resist the malice 
of the Lollards." The genius of Shakespeare has 
given weight to the assertion of a late chronicler that 
the French war itself was prompted by the bishops 
in their alarm over the Lollard cry of disendowment. 
Contemporary evidence is as silent upon this respon- 
sibility of the bishops as it is explicit upon the King's 
own eagerness for the war. It is just possible that 
the obviously unauthentic speeches attributed by 
Hall the historian to Archbishop Chichele and the 
Earl of Westmoreland in his account of the Leicester 
parliament x may have been based upon some utter- 
ances of theirs at the privy council in 1415 ; perhaps 
the bishops looked forward gladly to the approaching 
war as likely to close the ranks of the nation at home 
and efface internal differences on social and religious 
questions. But the sequence of events indicates that 
the war was regarded as inevitable before 1415, and 
that as far as Beaufort was concerned the proceedings 
against Lollardism were intended to set the govern- 
ment free to deal energetically with the problem of 
foreign policy rather than that the war itself was in 
any sense promoted as a remedy for evils at home. 
The two other matters of urgency which the chancellor 
pressed upon the attention of parliament were the 
piratical habits of English seamen, and the outbreaks 
of border brigands. It would be unfair to describe 
the chancellor as equating Lollardry with piracy and 
1 Hall, pp. 49-57 ; Stubbs, iii, 85. 




of war 

brigandage, but the juxtaposition of the three 
suggests that it was the anarchical rather than the 
unorthodox tendencies of Lollardism which brought 
the movement under the watchful eye of the guardian 
of the King's peace. 

The work of Beaufort during the next three years 
centred mainly round the war with France. That 
war had been imminent from the beginning of the 
reign. Henry and Beaufort had been associated 
already in 1411 in a policy of armed intervention in 
the troubled affairs of France, and the chancellor's 
reference in the parliament of May, 1413, to the need 
of resisting enemies and making friends abroad was 
but a thinly veiled suggestion of alliance with Bur- 
gundy against the Armagnac faction which was 
disputing with Burgundy the control of the mad King 
of France and his dissipated son the Dauphin. In 
the summer of 1413, while the Burgundians were still 
in the ascendant, Henry's envoys pressed the old 
claim to the French crown and to the dominions ceded 
under the treaty of Bretigny. When the Armagnacs 
regained the upper hand, another English embassy 
revived the more recent proposal for a marriage 
between Henry and the young princess Katharine. 
Nothing resulted in either case but a renewal of the 
current truce and a promise of further negotiation. 
Henry was biding his time. In the parliament of 
April-May, 1414, the chancellor announced that the 
King was not asking for subsidies but for " advice and 
aid in good governance." It was important to secure 
the assent of the commons to the anti-Lollard legisla- 
tion then in hand. The question of peace or war was, 
however, in the background. While parliament was 
still sitting at Leicester, envoys from Armagnacs and 
Burgundians alik§. were waiting upon the King, the 


former in London, the latter at Leicester. Henry 
was still playing two games. Within a single fort- 
night he had signed a secret treaty with Burgundy 
pledging himself to take the field against the Ar- 
magnacs, " saving the rights of the King of France," 
and sent envoys to negotiate for the hand of two 
Katharines, a French princess and a Burgundian. 
This double diplomacy was evidently intended merely 
to gain time for preparation for war. This conclusion 
is borne out by the extent of the claims advanced by 
the envoys to the French court. Those claims 
amounted to a practical demand for the whole of the 
lost empire of the Angevin kings. Needless to say, 
they were not entertained ; all that the French were 
prepared to offer was a suggestion of territorial 
concessions in Aquitaine. Meanwhile Henry was 
pushing on his preparations. Ships and guns were 
collected, and a great council was summoned at 
Michaelmas to hear the King's case. The answer of 
the lords and knights was loyal but cautious. They 
were sure that " so Christian a prince " would contem- 
plate " the shedding of Christian blood " for nothing 
less than the " denying of right and reason " ; but 
they suggested that the King might of his " own 
proper motion " propose " some mean way or moder- 
ing of his whole title." In the event of the failure 
of any such offer they were willing to serve him in 
person, and hoped that action would be ready and 
prompt. * A week later convocation, led by its new 
Primate Chichele, who, as Bishop of St. David's, had 
taken part in the embassy of 1413, gave a double tenth 
in evident expectation of war. 

Council and convocation had practically voted for Final 
war, and Beaufort had taken his part in both votes. J^* 1 ^" 

1 Proceedings, ii, 140. war. 



His third share in the making up of the mind of the 
nation came in the parliament which met in Novem- 
ber. 1 In his opening address he quoted two texts. 
The first, a free translation of Ecclesiasticus iv, 33, 
" Thou shalt fight to the death for justice and pursue 
what is just," was quoted incidentally by way of 
giving sanction to the King's " desire for good and 
discreet governance towards his enemies abroad," and 
to his determination to exert himself for " the recovery 
of the inheritance and right of his crown now long 
withheld." The other, a still freer handling of the 
Vulgate of Galatians vi, 10, "While we have time, let 
us do good," was taken as his main theme. The 
concluding words " unto all men " were omitted as 
inconvenient for the immediate purpose of an appeal 
to England to support its King in a war against France. 
" Many authorities and notabilities " were cited in 
illustration of the chancellor's theme, but its chief 
feature was an elaborate parable which the parlia- 
mentary scribe has preserved in the roll of the session. 
From the successive stages of plant-life, bud, flower, 
fruit, and repose, the chancellor drew the moral that 
" so to man also is given a time for peace and a time 
for war and work." " The King our sovereign lord, 
considering the blessing of peace and tranquillity 
reigning at present over all his realm by the high gift 
of God, as is well perceived, and also on the other 
hand the truth of his quarrel, which are the two things 
most needful to each prince that has to war against 
enemies abroad, understands that a convenient time 
has now come to him to accomplish his said purpose 
by the help of God, and thus while we have time let us 
do good." For this high and honourable purpose the 
King needed three things, " the wise and loyal 
1 Rot. Pari., iv, 34. 


counsel of his lieges, the strong and true assistance of 
his people, and copious subsidy from his subjects." 
The speech ended with the customary invitation to 
all who desired to petition for redress of private 
grievances, but a lower note was struck by the 
chancellor's final suggestion that the more the King's 
patrimony was increased the more his lieges' burdens 
would decrease. Petitions came in greater number 
than usual, in the hope perhaps of finding Henry in 
a generous mood at such a crisis, and the chancery 
was kept busy issuing the letters patent which con- 
veyed the King's favours. To the chancellor's 
shrewd appeal for supply the commons responded 
with two-fifteenths and two-tenths, but also with a 
saving clause deprecating any actual " voyage " 
until diplomacy had been tried once more. " The 
recommendations of the council and commons and 
the King's pious aspirations were perhaps equally 
formal." 1 In their final shape the demands of the 
new English embassy amounted to a claim of all the 
Bretigny domains, half Provence, and the Lordships 
of Beaufort and Nogent in Artois. The last claim 
was at once a pardonable touch of family pride and 
a personal link between the King and his uncle the 
chancellor. Beaufort and Nogent were the lost 
inheritance of John of Gaunt 's wife, Blanche of 
Lancaster, great granddaughter of Edmund Earl of 
Lancaster and Blanche of Artois. The envoys asked 
also for a million crowns as Katharine's dowry. The 
French council, daunted perhaps by their knowledge 
of a recent agreement between Henry and Burgundy, 
offered liberal concessions in Aquitaine, and a dowry 
of 600,000 crowns, afterward raised to 800,000 
crowns, or over £130,000. The envoys had no 
1 Kingsford, Henry V, p. 116. 


instructions to accept such terms, and they returned 
in March with a bare understanding that the French 
were to send an embassy to London. 

On April 12th the council met to deal with details 
of business referred to them by the King. x It was 
practically a small committee of council, consisting of 
the King's brothers Bedford and Gloucester, the 
Archbishop of Canterbury, Chancellor Beaufort, the 
Bishop of Durham, Thomas Beaufort, Earl of Dorset, 
and the keeper of the privy seal. The council had 
already provided for the safeguarding of the coasts 
and the garrisoning of the marches and borders. 
The Mayor of London was now instructed to provide 
for the cheap sale of armour and equipment. One 
important piece of business of which the chancellor 
had charge at the council opens out a view of a wider 
policy. It was the drafting of the King's instructions 
to an embassy lately appointed to treat with Sigis- 
mund, King of the Romans. A general council had 
been summoned to meet at Constance in November, 
1414, and the English representatives appointed in 
October to attend the council were authorised to act 
also as ambassadors to Sigismund, who had already 
offered the prospect of an alliance which Henry was 
glad to accept. The alliance was doubtless welcome 
as an asset for the war against France, but it was part 
of a wider ambition. Henry was in fact contemplat- 
ing an active part in the deliberations of the great 
Council of Christendom, and in the last two letters 
which he wrote to the French king, and now submitted 
to the privy council, he laid an emphasis which seems 
a strange blending of sincerity and unreality, not only 
upon the righteousness of his claim to dominion in 
France but also upon his desire for peace as a step 

1 Proceedings, ii, 153. 


towards the healing of the schism in the Church. 
It was a bold attempt to throw the final blame of the 
war upon France, but it was also an honest avowal 
of a great purpose which was dear to the heart of the 
soldier-churchman. Victory or supremacy over 
France was for him a means to an end, and that end 
was the peace and progress of Christendom. 

On April 16th a great council met at Westminster. 
The King thanked his lords and bishops for their 
prompt attendance. " Then by his royal command 
the honourable father in God the Bishop of Winchester 
his chancellor of England very wisely and concisely 
rehearsed the matters mentioned and discussed in the 
great council held at Westminster (i.e., at Michaelmas, 
1414), together with the decision then made, and 
how for causes declared in the said great council our 
said lord the King had taken firm resolve to make 
a voyage by the grace of God in his own person for 
the recovery of his heritage and the restoration of 
the rights of his crown which have been long time 
withheld from him and wrongfully usurped. . . ," 1 
Next day, again in the presence of the King, the 
chancellor announced that the Duke of Bedford was 
to be Lieutenant of England, with an advisory council 
consisting of the primate, the Bishops of Winchester 
and Durham, the Earl of Westmoreland, and five 
other barons and prelates. The truce with France 
was twice extended to give Henry time for his last 
preparations, and Beaufort was as hard at work as 
the King. On May 25th he summoned before the 
council representatives of merchant companies of 
Florence, Venice, and Lucca trading in London, told 
them that they must pay for their commercial privi- 
leges in England by loans to the crown, and on their 

1 Proceedings, ii, 155-157. 


refusal committed them to the Fleet prison, where 
they repented and decided to lend £2,000. The city 
had already lent over £6,000 in response to an urgent 
personal appeal from Beaufort and the King's brothers 
and the archbishop. On the 27th he was busy 
arranging for the security of the King's jewels, soon 
to be pledged for a loan, and issuing instructions to 
the commissions of array for the defence of the shires, 
to the bishops for active precautions in their dioceses 
against Lollard agitation, to the officers in each county 
for the erection of beacons, and to the Mayor of London 
for the restriction of the demolition of the city walls. x 
French At last Henry's time came to move. On June 18th 

Winchester he made his " offering " at St. Paul's, and took solemn 
leave of the Queen-dowager and the city magnates. 
The belated French embassy had landed at Dover 
the day before, and on June 30th the Archbishop of 
Bourges and his colleagues presented their credentials 
to the King, who with his brothers and ministers 
received the embassy in the hall of the chancellor- 
bishop's palace of Wolvesey at Winchester. Next 
day after mass the Archbishop of Bourges opened the 
proceedings before the King with a discourse on the 
text, " Peace be unto thee and thy house." Beaufort 
replied in complimentary terms, and the two parties 
dined together in state. The third and fourth days 
were spent in serious discussion between the King's 
ministers and the ambassadors. The chancellor asked 
bluntly what they had to offer beyond their last terms. 
The archbishop could only intimate that the dowry 
might be increased. On the fifth day Henry himself 
took part in the conference, and gave a partial assent 
to the archbishop's offer of an increased dowry and of 
slight additions of territory in Guienne. On July 6th 

1 Proceedings, ii, 165-167. 


the negotiations broke down, as Henry intended. He 
demanded a time-limit and a pledge for the fulfilment 
of the conditions offered, suggested that the embassy 
should stay in England during the interval, and finally 
raised the old question whether he was to hold the 
ceded territory as an absolute sovereign or as a feudal 
subject of the French king. The ambassadors had 
no assurances to give, and finally the chancellor told 
them plainly in his master's name that as " his cousin 
of France " was not in earnest in his proposals, the 
only remedy lay in an appeal to the divine sanction, 
which of course meant war. The archbishop retorted 
with a perfectly truthful assertion of the honesty 
and liberality of his sovereign's offers, and with an 
impassioned appeal to heaven on that sovereign's 
behalf. He foretold disaster for the invader, and, 
" most unkindest cut of all," denied the claim to the 
French crown point-blank on the ground that Henry 
was not even entitled to the crown of England. 
No wonder an English chronicler described the 
archbishop's peroration as rude in the extreme. 1 

The chancellor had no part in the trial of the 
conspirators whose plot was revealed on the very day 
of the mustering of the forces at Southampton on 
July 20th. Their inevitable condemnation was the 
work of the lay peers based upon the finding of a local 
jury. The chancellor cannot but have welcomed his 
relief from such a task, for one of the conspirators, 
Lord Scrope, was an old colleague in embassies abroad 
and in the Prince's ministry at home. This revelation 
of a conspiracy of various elements of antagonism or 

1 Walsingham, ii, 305, " nimis petulanter se gerens in 
peroratione suae orationis." For the negotiations at 
Winchester, see Monstrelet, 361, 362 ; S. Denys, 5, 501-530 ; 
Sismondi, xii, 464 foil. 


discontent at home no doubt added to the anxieties 

of the chancellor and his colleagues on the regent's 

council, but there is no record of any serious difficulty 

in the maintenance of peace and order during the 

King's absence. Henry sailed on August 11th, and 

with him went practically the whole of the English 

baronage. Harfleur surrendered after a month's 

siege, and in October Henry left his uncle, Thomas 

Beaufort, in command of the captured town, and 

The news began his hazardous march to Calais. The battle of 

of . Agincourt was fought on October 25th, and early in 

Agincourt. the morning on the 2 9th the chancellor rode into 

London to convey the tidings of the victory to the 
new mayor, who was that day to " ride and take 
his charge at Westminster." " And then through 
London," runs the story in Gregory's Chronicle, " they 
let ring the bells in every church and sang Te Deum ; 
and at Paul's at nine of the clock the tidings were 
openly proclaimed to all the commoners of the city 
and to all other strangers. And then the Queen and 
all the bishops and the lords that were in London that 
time went to Westminster on their feet a procession 
to Saint Edward his shrine, with all the priests 
and clerks and friars and all other religious men, 
devoutly singing and saying the litany. And when 
they had offered, the mayor came home riding merely 
with all his aldermen and commoners as they were 
wont for to do." 1 It was a glad day for London 
after the alarming rumours of the past week. It was 
a proud day for the chancellor who had been the 
King's right hand all through the work which had 
now borne fruit in victory. Bedford as " guardian 
of England " lost no time in summoning parliament, 

1 Gregory's Chronicle, in Collections of a London Citizen, 
p. 113. 


and Beaufort in his opening address on November 4th 
explained that parliament had been summoned for 
two purposes, for good government at home and for 
the prosecution of the king's " voyage " in France. 
" As he has done to us, so let us do to him," so ran 
the chancellor's theme. With regard to home 
affairs, he contented himself with the remark that the 
King had from the day of his coronation striven in 
the interests of all his lieges to maintain justice and 
peace, knowing full well the force of the old maxim 
that " without justice there is no true government." 
There was in fact little need to dwell upon this topic, 
for the country had been quiet since the King's 
departure. The council had found nothing more 
exciting to do than the suppression of a feeble move- 
ment of the restless Oldcastle in the west, and the 
execution of a Lollard or two in London. But the 
second topic gave the chancellor an opportunity of 
which he made the most. After a brief reference to 
the failure of the King's frequent efforts to come 
peacefully to terms with " his adversary of France," 
and to regain his rights " without shedding of Christ- 
ian blood," he recalled the text of his own oration in 
the last parliament, " Strive for justice and the Lord 
shall fight for thee," and recited the story of the recent 
campaign. The surrender of Harfleur, the " visita- 
tion of God " which had scourged the English camp 
with disease, the thinning of the ranks by death and 
sickness, the brave march " through the heart of 
France " towards Calais, the " glorious and marvellous 
victory " of Agincourt — upon all this he dwelt with 
an emphasis which was meant to appeal to the 
generosity as well as to the pride of his hearers. 1 
The commons tempered their liberality with economy 

1 Rot. Park, iv, 62. 

5— (2210) 


of a sort. They accelerated the collection of their 
last subsidy, granted a new subsidy, and gave the 
King the customs for the rest of his life. The sen- 
tences passed upon the conspirators executed in 
August were given parliamentary sanction, and the 
session ended within the week. 
Parliament Henry entered London in triumph on November 
of March, 23rd. The wondrous pageant which met his gaze at 
every turn from London Bridge to St. Paul's, where he 
was received and censed by the bishops in procession, 
was a dramatic representation of the Te Deum ; 
but Henry's own bearing was marked by a silent 
self-restraint which bore witness to anxiety as well 
as to modesty. The conquest of France was scarcely 
begun. The position just won had to be made secure. 
His first step was to remove all danger of disloyalty 
by the reinstatement of the sons and grandsons of 
old enemies of the Lancastrian dynasty. The next 
was to ask the nation for further support. Already 
the chancellor and the council on November 25th 
had been compelled to borrow money to meet the 
needs of Harfleur, where Thomas Beaufort was anxious 
to be rid of his responsibility. Parliament met at 
Westminster in March, 1416. The writer of the 
Gesta Henrici V, a chaplain in Henry's army, gives 
an elaborate analysis of the chancellor's speech. 
According to this account Beaufort dwelt eloquently 
upon the victories of Sluys, Crecy and Agincourt as 
three indisputable proofs of the divine judgment in 
favour of the English claim to the French throne, 
and then turned to lay stress upon the three points of 
advantage gained in the recent campaign, viz., the 
command of the harbours, the courage of success, 
and the possession of an army in being. x Such was 

1 Williams, Gesta Hem. V., p. 73. 


the glowing view taken of the chancellor's speech by 
a soldier-priest. The account given of that speech 
in the rolls of parliament is far less ornate, and gives 
expression rather to the anxiety of the statesman for 
the future. He started with the text, " He has opened 
you the way," and quoted also the maxim, " a good 
beginning is half the accomplishment." He claimed 
recent events indeed as proving that the justice of the 
King's claim " had been openly determined and 
approved by the Almighty," but his reference to the 
difficulties through which Henry had won his way 
to victory must be taken not merely as enhancing 
the glory of that victory but also as indicating the 
grave need of that further assistance for which he 
now pleaded in the interest of king and realm. 1 The 
commons accelerated the collection of the last subsidy, 
but made no further grant. The only other impor- 
tant transaction was an ordinance that " in view of the 
long voidance of the apostolic see " through the 
lingering schism royal letters were to be sent to the 
metropolitans authorising them to confirm the 
bishops elected to vacant sees " still destitute of 
pastoral governance," without waiting for the 
conclusion of the schism. It was not merely eccle- 
siastical affairs at home that were involved in the 
schism. The Council of Constance was at that 
moment exerting an indirect but important influence 
on English diplomacy also. The session was 
adjourned on April 8th. After the recess the chan- 
cellor explained the reasons of the adjournment. 
The first was that the King's lieges might " keep the 
feast of Easter in their own homes and parish churches 
and there make their peace with their Lord and 
Saviour according to ancient usage and custom " ; 
1 Rot. Pari, iv, 70. 


the second was that the King had received messages 
which offered a prospect of peace with France ; the 
third was that the King of the Romans, " desiring 
chiefly peace and unity in the church universal and 
also between Christian realms," had endeavoured to 
treat with the French court. Sigismund, the chan- 
cellor added, had lately come to England from France, 
and the King, though unable yet to publish the 
negotiations, hoped shortly to lay the case before the 
estates and ask their advice. x 
Alliance Sigismund had now taken the place of Burgundy 

w. 11 ! 1 as the pivot of English diplomacy. Burgundy was 

igismun . stin struggling a g a i nst tne ascendancy of the Ar- 

magnacs ; Sigismund was becoming the strongest 
ruler in Europe. Burgundy was important only in 
French affairs ; Sigismund as emperor-elect was 
" the civil head and guardian of Christendom," and 
now as practical patron and master of the Council of 
Constance had set himself to solve problems in the 
life of the Church in which Henry took a keen interest. 
It was in fact from the ecclesiastical side of European 
politics that Sigismund made his intervention 
between England and France. He had left the 
council in the autumn of 1415 on a visit to Arragon 
to detach the Spaniards from the side of the anti-Pope 
Benedict, and his mission of peace to Paris and London 
in 1416 was undertaken with the twofold purpose of 
immediately reconciling the English and French 
delegates at Constance, and of ultimately securing 
the support of Henry in the policy of reunion and 
reformation which he was hoping to carry through 
at the council. 

Sigismund spent March at Paris in a not altogether 
successful exploration of the mind of the French 

1 Rot. Pari., iv, 72. 


court, and brought a French embassy away with him 
to Calais. His attitude on the French question was 
yet undetermined. He had negotiated with both 
English and Armagnacs in 1414, and though Agin- 
court had weighted the scales on the side of his 
preference for England, it was not certain whether 
he was coming to plead the cause of the French 
embassy which accompanied him or was merely 
utilising their presence as an apparent proof of his 
neutrality. The English council, however, gave him 
a splendid and politic welcome, which went far to 
win him in advance. He was lodged at Westminster 
in the King's own apartments, and may have been 
present at the opening of parliament on May 11th, 
though there is no record of his presence in the roll 
of the session. Beaufort was to the front all through 
the Emperor's visit. As Bishop of Winchester and 
prelate of the Order of the Garter he installed 
Sigismund among the knights of the Order at Windsor 
on the feast of St. George, which had been postponed 
for the purpose. 1 As chancellor he had a hand, if 
not a voice, in the alliance with Sigismund against 
France which was substituted three months later for 
the Emperor's dream of a general peace of all Christ- 
endom. Sigismund apparently did his best to win 
such a peace, but events were against his efforts. 
Dorset, left to forage for himself round Harfleur, had 
to cut his way back into the town, and he wrote in 

1 Gregory, p. 113. The garrulous London chronicler who 
has preserved the description of all the " subtleties " at " the 
meat " which followed the mass of the day — Our Lady arming 
St. George and an angel doing on his spurs ; St. George riding 
and fighting with a dragon, spear in hand ; St. George and the 
King's daughter leading the lamb in at the castle gate — 
records how the Chancellor of England sat next to the King's 
brother on the Emperor's left, while two German dukes sat on 
the right of the King. 


April to say that the starving garrison must retire 
if the council sent no supplies. In May French and 
Genoese ships were blockading Harrleur and raiding 
the south of England. Henry was growing impatient. 
He consented to Sigismund's sending envoys to Paris, 
and appointed envoys of his own ; and he instructed 
the bishops to hold special services of prayer for the 
success of the Emperor's labours in the cause of the 
reunion of the Church. But he was as restless under 
the suspense as he was unwilling to abate his own 
demands. He could not leave Sigismund in England ; 
so Bedford was sent off in August with a force which 
cleared the Seine and saved Harrleur. On the very 
day of this victory Henry and Sigismund were 
signing at Canterbury an offensive and defensive 
alliance against France. In the preamble of this 
treaty Sigismund avowed plainly the sincerity of his 
own efforts in the cause of peace and the bitterness 
of his disappointment at the duplicity of the French. x 
Still the hope of a peaceful settlement was ostensibly 
maintained, and Sigismund and Henry went over to 
attend a conference with the French envoys and the 
Duke of Burgundy at Calais. Beaufort went with the 
King, and the seal was entrusted to the Master of the 
Rolls from September 5th to October 12th. Henry 
was practically " his own foreign minister," but no 
doubt the chancellor was commissioned to state and 
argue his master's case at Calais, as he certainly 
did in the conference at Winchester in 1415. The 
conference at Calais proved, however, as barren as its 
predecessors. Burgundy refused to come at all until 
the King's brother, Gloucester, had been surrendered 
as a hostage for his safety. The French suggested 
that Sigismund might satisfy Henry's ambitions out 
1 Rymer, ix, 377-381. 


of the ancient territories of the empire, which meant 
Burgundy. Nothing could result from such mutual 
suspicion but a bare renewal of truces, and Henry 
and Sigismund parted without any achievement 
beyond their own alliance. 

Sigismund went on his way to Germany, only to Parliament 
find that his anti-French policy had increased his j*0 Ctober ' 
difficulties at the council of Constance. Henry 
returned to England for the meeting of parliament on 
October 19th. Beaufort had returned a week earlier 
to prepare for the coming session. He took for his 
theme, " Do your best to be at peace " {operant detis 
ut quieti sitis). This has been interpreted as an 
attempt to " tranquillise " a house of commons bent 
on checking the encroachments of the equitable 
jurisdiction of the chancellor's court in matters 
properly determinable by common law. 1 It is true 
that an elaborate petition against such procedure on 
the part of the chancery and the exchequer was 
presented by the commons in the last parliament, 
only to be dismissed by the royal veto. But the 
chancellor's speech as preserved in the rolls of parlia- 
ment contains no allusion to judicial grievances of 
the commons. The chancellor may have meant his 
text to be taken as a plea for unity at home as a 
necessary condition of effective action abroad. But 
the words are best explained in the light of the maxim 
quoted at the end of the speech, " let us make wars 
to secure peace, for the end of war is peace." Beaufort 
was simply pleading for vigorous war as the only way 
to a satisfactory peace. The bulk of his oration 
consisted of an audacious parallel between the seven 
days of creation and the successive stages of the 
King's reign. " The Holy Trinity in six days created 

1 Lord Campbell, Lives of Chancellors, i, 327. 


and furnished all the world and on the seventh day 
turned to rest." So, too, with the King's work. 
In his first parliament at Westminster he had " la- 
boured for the establishment of peace and good 
governance throughout the realm " ; in his second at 
Leicester he had passed " good and necessary laws " 
to repress disorder ; in his third he had obtained the 
assent of the estates to the drawing of the sword, after 
peaceful efforts had failed, in defence of his crown 
rights ; during the last two sessions he had striven 
in vain for a peaceful sequel to his recent victory ; now 
he needed in this his sixth parliament the assistance 
of his lords and commons to enable him to fight again 
for a final peace, and so to win " perpetual rest." 1 
The commons granted two subsidies, and authorised 
the chancellor to raise loans on the security of the 
second. The Marquis of Dorset's services at Harfleur 
were rewarded by the title of Duke of Exeter and a 
pension of £1,000 a year ; and the chancellor's 
promise in May that the King's negotiations with 
Sigismund should be submitted to the advice of the 
estates was fulfilled in bare formality by the produc- 
tion of the treaty of Canterbury, concluded two 
months before by letters patent, to receive the 
sanction of parliament. 
Work of i n November the chancellor appeared in convoca- 

CoundL 7 t ^ on as t ^ le a £ ent °f tne King, and voiced the needs 
of the crown with such effect that the convocation 
voted the King two-tenths. In February, 1417, the 
minutes of the council reveal him deep in the work 
of preparation for the new expedition and of the 
ordinary administration of the realm. Lists of 
ships, " barges " and " balingers " in the King's 
navy, memoranda of sergeants-at-arms and clerks 
1 Rot. Pari, iv, 94. 


responsible for pressing craft into the King's service 
along various divisions of the coast, catalogues of 
French prisoners and their wine allowances, warrants 
for the payment of envoys sent to the King of Castile, 
accounts of the temporalities of the vacant see of 
Chichester, writs for allowances to the Earl of War- 
wick at Calais in answer to an urgent letter received 
from him by the chancellor, orders to the warden and 
scholars of St. Michael's at Cambridge to produce the 
charter of their foundation before the archbishop, 
assignments on the wool duties for the payment of 
Calais debts, a commission to the young Earl of 
Northumberland to act as warden of the Border, 
references to the King on the question of the date of 
" the mustering of his retinue " for the coming 
campaign, on the strangely belated question of allow- 
ances for the sick and slain of 1415, and on the contents 
of a petition from Ireland against the misgovernment 
of the King's lieutenant — such was the bare outline 
of less than a fortnight's work done by the chancellor 
and three or four colleagues at the council in February. 1 
In June Beaufort and the rest of the council, mindful 
of the commercial interests at stake in Flanders, were 
busy making provision for the payment of debts and 
the restitution of captured goods in the event of a 
breach of the truce with Burgundy. On July 25th 
Bedford was appointed regent, and Henry sailed for 
Normandy with the second and greatest armament 
of the war. Two days before the Bishop of 
Winchester had resigned the chancellorship. 

This resignation has been taken as indicating a Resigna- 
breach between the chancellor and the King. The chancellor- 
idea is plausible but unjustified. The facts are as ship, 
follows. On July 18th the King by letters patent 

1 Proceedings, ii, 202-220. 


gave the chancellor a charge on the customs of the 
port of Southampton by way of security for the 
repayment of a loan of 21,000 marks (£14,000), for 
which the chancellor already apparently held in 
pledge a gold crown belonging to the King. On the 
same day the King requested the council to give 
letters of safe-conduct to Henry, Bishop of Winches- 
ter, bound for the Holy Land in fulfilment of an old 
vow of pilgrimage. The Close Roll of Henry V 
relates that on July 23rd Beaufort delivered up the 
great seal of gold to the King, and it was given at once 
to Thomas Langley, Bishop of Durham, the same old 
colleague who succeeded Beaufort as chancellor when 
he resigned the ofBce after he became Bishop of 
Winchester in 1405. On the same day, July 23rd, 
the Bishop of Winchester received a full pardon for all 
offences of any kind. It has been suggested that it 
was the bishop's hardness in bargaining for security 
that cost him the chancellorship. The bishop, it has 
been said, refused to lend on the security which 
satisfied other creditors of the crown. There is no 
evidence for this assertion. The city of London had 
its loan of 10,000 marks secured on the crown jewels, 
but nothing is said about rapacity in their case. 
It should be noted also that the commissions for the 
raising of loans were not issued till July 23rd ; the 
bishop had made his loan betimes, even if he had not 
forgotten the caution of the financier in the enthusiasm 
of the patriot. Much has been made again of the 
fact that the security given by letters patent in July 
was confirmed by parliament in the session which 
began in November. It has been said that the bishop 
himself had the charge on the customs ratified in 
parliament to make it safe, and even that he " man- 
aged to get a private bill of his smuggled through 


both houses " for this purpose. * As a matter of fact, 
the bishop was abroad at the time in the service of 
the new Pope Martin V. The " private bill " was 
a petition presented by the commons and granted 
by the regent with the assent of the lords. 

The most recent theory, however, is that the pardon 
granted to the bishop on July 23rd " suggests offences 
which it was unwise to make public in the interests of 
the dynasty," and that the circumstances of this 
pardon, coinciding as it did with the sudden resigna- 
tion of the chancellorship, " point to royal compul- 
sion." 2 It is doubtful whether this pardon should 
be taken so seriously. Pardons were not infrequently 
granted to cover breaches of technical responsibility 
or infringements of constitutional procedure not 
involving any moral condemnation. In 1402 a 
pardon was given to Beaufort, then Bishop of Lincoln, 
for the escape of thirteen felonious clerks from the 
prison of his castle at Newark. In 1410 Henry 
Chichele, Bishop of St. David's, afterwards Arch- 
bishop of Canterbury, received a pardon for obtaining 
papal bulls authorising Beaufort as Bishop of Win- 
chester to accept the resignation of his benefices and 
to confer them on persons named by him. The 
pardon issued to the resigning chancellor in 1417 
may even have been intended as a safeguard against 
any attack upon his good name in his absence. It is 
admitted that " no writer gives us the particulars of 
the intrigue that brought about this change " in the 
chancellorship. 3 In fact no chronicler says anything 
at all of the circumstances of the breach, if it was 
a breach, between the sovereign and his minister. 

1 Campbell, i, 330. 

2 Vickers, Gloucester, p. 107. 

3 Campbell, i, 330. 


It is very doubtful whether it was a breach at all. 
The pilgrimage may have been a pretence, but it is 
at least as likely that it was intended to disguise the 
mission of an agent in the King's service as to cover 
the retreat of a discredited official. The sequel will 
show that Beaufort's proceedings at the Council of 
Constance in October, 1417, were at least in accordance 
with Henry's policy at that moment. It is possible 
that those proceedings were in consequence of actual 
instructions from Henry. Beaufort may have been 
sent or his pilgrimage utilised by Henry to secure the 
presence of a trusted agent at the council, who could 
be spared at home now that the country was quiet 
and the expedition to France organised. Even if 
Beaufort's presence in the neighbourhood was due 
to some purpose of his own, his employment by Henry 
at Constance is proof enough that any misunder- 
standing which might have occurred in July was only 
slight and temporary. There is no warrant for the 
conclusion that Henry dismissed his uncle the 
chancellor because he did not trust him. 




While Henry was winning fortresses in Normandy, Beaufort 
Beaufort was engaged in his first great intervention ^urchman. 
in the affairs of the Church at large. There is reason 
to believe that he was acting as the trusted servant of 
the King of England, but it is quite possible that he 
had something of a policy or an ambition of his own. 
Beaufort was a striking contrast to his former col- 
league Chichele, now Archbishop of Canterbury. 
Chichele was a churchman in whom the lawyer and 
diplomatist gave place more and more to the bishop, 
and an English churchman who as primate was most 
at home in convocation and in his diocese. Beaufort 
was a churchman in whom the bishop was lost in the 
statesman, best content to serve the crown and guide 
the national counsels in war and in peace, and an 
English churchman whose ambition ranged far and 
high in Christendom. In September, 1416, while 
Chichele, pained to learn the slackness in prayer of 
clergy and people, was appealing to his suffragans 
for the intercessions of the faithful on behalf of the 
King of the Romans, then labouring for the unity of 
the Church, Beaufort was abroad with Henry and 
Sigismund endeavouring to secure the support of 
Burgundy against the King of France. In fact, apart 
from the few occasions on which Beaufort acted as the 
deputy of the primate in summoning convocation, or 
as the agent of the King in appealing to convocation 
for subsidies, there is but little record of his activity 



in the affairs of the Church at home. His part in the 
persecution of the Lollards was political rather than 
ecclesiastical. His diocese of Winchester was practi- 
cally dependent for pastoral offices from 1407 to 1419 
upon one or other of the occasional suffragan bishops 
whose strange titles excite the curiosity of the 
historian. From 1407 to 1417 the diocese was served 
by William " Solubriensis " (Selymbria), who was also 
acting as suffragan of Salisbury from 1409 to 1417, 
and of Exeter in 1415 and 1416 ; during 1417 and 
1418 it was served by John Sewell " Surronensis " or 
" Cironensis " (perhaps Cyrene), who also acted from 
1417 to 1423 as suffragan of London. 1 When 
Beaufort was not busy in the service of the crown, 
his churchmanship found a more congenial sphere 
in the relations of the Church of England with the 
divided Papacy. He had played a not unimportant 
part in the events which preceded and followed the 
Council of Pisa in 1409, but the share that he took 
in the great Council of Constance was fraught with 
still more important issues for his country and for his 
own career. 
Pope and Th e Council of Pisa had hoped by the election of 
Alexander V to substitute one pope for two, but it 
merely succeeded in adding a third claimant to the 
existing rivals, Benedict and Gregory. Its other 
hope, the hope of reform in the Church as a body, 
was disappointed by the postponement of the whole 

1 Stubbs, Registrum Sacrum Anglicanum (1858), Append, v. 
Some of these suffragans were foreign refugees ; most of them 
were bishops (often Englishmen) in partibus infidelium, i.e., 
consecrated with titles of imaginary sees in non-Christian 
lands, and employed to help English diocesans who were 
occupied in affairs of state, or to discharge episcopal functions 
for monasteries which insisted jealously upon their exemption 
from diocesan jurisdiction. 



question to a future council. The death of Alexander 
within a year brought to the papal throne the noto- 
rious Baldassare Cossa. He was bound by the pledge 
of his predecessor to summon a general council in 
three years, but the council that met at Rome in 
1413 was a failure. It condemned and burnt 
Wycliffe's writings, but it dwindled to an end without 
any formal dissolution. John XXIII shrank from 
real conciliar action ; but he was pressed hard on the 
one side by the imperial power of Sigismund, to whom 
he had been compelled to turn for support against 
the encroachments of the King of Naples, and on the 
other side by the ecclesiastical influence of the 
University of Paris, which was bent upon reform no 
less keenly than Sigismund, though on somewhat 
different lines. In the end, he had to consent to the 
holding of the postponed council at Constance, in an 
atmosphere of German predominance which boded ill 
for papal hopes. 

The task which lay before the council was three- Problems 
fold 1 . It had to restore the unity of the Church by council^ 
giving Rome once more a single pope. It had to deal Constance, 
with the growing demand for reform of the Church 
in its head and members ; for if popes and cardinals 
were sceptical or afraid of the possibilities of reform, 
bishops, canonists, and statesmen were agreed upon 
the question of its urgency, and differed only upon 
the question of its method and its extent. The 
council had also to face the ecclesiastical aspect of a 
grave crisis in Bohemia. The torch that fell from the 
hands of Wycliffe had been seized and rekindled by the 
hands of Huss and Jerome ; and the religious conflict 
at Prague between reformers and conservatives 

1 For the history of the Council of Constance see Creighton, 
History of Papacy, vol. i. 


in doctrine and discipline was complicated by the 
academic rivalry between Bohemian realists and 
German nominalists, and by the fiercer racial antag- 
onism between Czech and Teuton which divided both 
the university and the people at large. * The German 
" nation " had seceded from the University of Prague 
in 1409 by way of protest against the predominance 
given to the Czech " nation " by King Wenzel, 
Sigismund's predecessor, but the flame of Bohemian 
nationalism only burned the fiercer, and fastened the 
more tenaciously upon questions of religious belief 
and practice. Prague had become a second Oxford 
in its enthusiasm for Wycliffite ' ' heresy. ' ' The unity, 
the discipline, the orthodoxy of the Church were the 
three recognised aims and objects of the council, but 
it was the government of the Church which was in 
reality the question of questions underlying all the 
others. Was the pope or the council the governor 
of the Church ? The papacy had been discussed with 
remarkable freedom by different writers in the 
fourteenth century, and there were now two distinct 
schools within the ranks of the reformers, the Parisian, 
desiring only to " regulate " and " reinstate " the 
papal supremacy, and the German, anxious to reduce 
its power and to destroy its independence. The 
question was now before the Church in a concrete 
form. Constance was twice the scene of a conflict 
between a council and a pope. The council defeated 
John XXIII ; Martin V defeated the council. It 
was in this second trial of forces that the intervention 
of Beaufort, whether on his own initiative or in 

1 For the University of Prague see Rashdall, Universities 
in Europ. Hist., II, pt. i, pp. 212-232 ; for Bohemian crisis 
generally, Poole's Wycliffe and Movements for Reform, 
Milman's Latin Christianity, and Creighton's History of the 


pursuance- of the policy of his sovereign, practically 
turned the scale in favour of the Papacy. 

The composition of the council was as significant The 
as its magnitude was imposing. It has been described ^ t N t he° nS 
as " the meeting-place of all the national interests of Council. 
Christendom.' ' x It was not only " a great assembly 
of the Church " but also " a great diet of the mediaeval 
Empire. " 2 Princes, barons, and knights accompanied 
thither or met there cardinals, bishops, abbots, and 
doctors. Courts and universities, as well as provincial 
synods, were represented. The original delegates of 
the English Church and nation in 1414 were the 
Bishops of Bath and Wells, Salisbury, and St. David's, 
the Abbot of Westminster, the Earl of Warwick, and 
five others, and they were commissioned by Henry 
to improve the occasion by discussing terms of 
alliance with Sigismund. 3 During the visit of Sigis- 
mund to England in 1416 a further commission was 
issued to the Bishops of London, Chester (i.e., Coventry 
and Lichfield), and Norwich, the Dean of York, the 
Abbot of Bury, and the Prior of Worcester. 4 These 
additional delegates were intended doubtless to 
strengthen the English " nation " at Constance in 
supporting the German " nation," which stood for 
Sigismund's own particular policy of reform. The 
division of the council into nations was itself due to 
an Englishman. The council was formally opened 
in November, 1414, and when the English delegates 
arrived in January, 1415, Hallam, Bishop of Salisbury, 
proposed that the council should be organised, like 
the universities, by " nations," and that every 

1 Creighton, i, 267. 

2 Lodge, Close of the Middle Ages, p. 212. 

3 Rymer, ix, 167. 

4 Rymer, ix, 370. 

6 (2210) 


question should be decided finally by an equal 
number of delegates from each nation. Hallam was 
an old chancellor of Oxford, but his proposal was 
not the mere suggestion of a scholar, though its 
acceptance was largely due to the fact that the 
delegates of the University of Paris added their assent 
to that of the Germans, and its adoption was signifi- 
cant of the work which universities like Paris and 
Oxford had done in preparing the way for the council. 
Hallam 's proposal was in part due to his desire to 
avoid another failure such as he had witnessed at 
Pisa. But his primary purpose was doubtless to 
neutralise the numerical strength of the Italian 
party ; John XXIII had created fifty new Italian 
bishops for the occasion. The organisation of the 
council by nations was an appropriate reply to the 
bid which John had made for wider support in 1411 
by nominating on paper fourteen cardinals from 
different nations, amongst them Thomas Langley, 
Bishop of Durham, and Hallam himself. The asser- 
tion of the nations within the Church foiled the plans 
of the pope. It destroyed the predominance of the 
packed Italian hierarchy, and it made his own 
deposition an immediate certainty. The voting 
power of the council was equally divided between 
Germans, French, English and Italians ; it was only 
after the flight of John that the cardinals claimed, and 
were permitted, to rank as a fifth body beside the 
nations. But this same element of nationalism which 
secured the downfall of the pope wrecked the project 
of reform. Specific grievances were shelved because 
the weight of their incidence varied in different 
nations, and different nations accordingly felt varying 
degrees of interest in the removal of those grievances ; 
and when the council had elected its own new pope, 


he was able to postpone the main questions of real 
reform by making separate concordats with the 
different nations on points of detail. Divisit et 

Already in the second year of the council the Sigismund's 
political interests of the three northern nations began f^SiSte 
to tell upon their mutual relations at Constance. The 
first year had seen the ignominious deposition of John 
XXIII, the enforced abdication of Gregory XII, the 
condemnation of Wy cliff e's writings, the suppression 
of Hus at the stake, and the passing of decrees, 
in spite of the cardinals, which established the 
authority of a general council as independent of the 
pope. All these acts were the work of a council in 
which the nations were so far in unison. The cohesion 
of the council and its claim of authority are both 
vividly illustrated by the fact that on the deposition 
of the pope in May, 1415, letters were issued under 
the seals of all the nations, instructing the Bishops of 
Winchester and Lichfield to collect in the name of the 
council all moneys due in England to the Roman 
court. 1 In July, 1415, Sigismund left Constance on 
his mission of pacification. So far he had been 
successful in controlling the council in the direction 
which he desired. The Italians had wanted to deal 
first with the suppression of heresy, and so postpone 
the problem of the divided papacy; but Sigismund 
had adopted and carried the proposal of the French 
to deal first with the rival popes. He had welcomed 
Hallam's suggestion for the equal recognition of the 
nations, just as he welcomed the earlier suggestion of 
the French that the delegates of courts and universi- 
ties should be admitted as representing the Christian 
community at large. Everything promised well for 

1 Wilkins, iii, 371. 


a broad view of church reform, and he went hopefully 
on his way to detach the adherents of the anti-Pope 
Benedict and to close the breach between England 
and France, upon whose joint support he relied at 
Constance. His mission was a failure. He won 
Spain to join the council, but the rivalry of Burgun- 
dian and Orleanist baffled his hope of reconciling 
France and England after Agincourt, and his visit to 
England ended in an alliance with Henry on the 
ground that the French refusal of peace was prolong- 
ing the papal schism. When he returned to Constance 
early in 1417, the whole atmosphere was changed. 
Already during the earlier part of his absence the 
spirit of disunion was at work. Now the conflict of 
interests involved in the French war had driven a 
wedge through the council. National pride set the 
French against the English; and Sigismund, the 
practical president of the council, had become the 
partisan of England, helpless as such to draw the 
council together again. The three nations most 
bent on reform, England, France, and Germany, were 
robbed of their joint predominance by mutual 
suspicion, and what they lost the cardinals gained. 
At first, indeed, all seemed to go well. When 
Sigismund rode into Constance on January 27th, 1417, 
the Englishmen in the general procession noted with 
delight the collar of the Garter round his neck. The 
Bishop of Salisbury anticipated the design of the 
French doctor, Cardinal D'Ailly, and managed to 
occupy the council pulpit and give the address of 
welcome. Sigismund granted special audiences to 
the English nation, shook hands with them, and 
thanked them for supporting his own nation in his 
absence. The English on their part honestly seemed 
as faithful to his and their common policy of reform 


as he described them. John Forrester wrote to tell 
Henry that the Bishops of Salisbury and Chester were 
" fully disposed by the consent of your all other 
ambassadors to sue the reformation in the Church, 
in the head and in the members, having no regard 
to no benefice that they have rather than it should be 
undone." He was quite sure that they would 
" abide hard and nigh all ways by the advice and 
deliberation of your brother the King of Rome." 1 

Difficulties, however, revealed themselves at once. 
The one success of Sigismund's mission, the addition 
of Spain to the council, brought more trouble than 
help. First the Spaniards demanded with the 
French that England should count along with 
Germany as a single nation, to make room for Spain 
in the recognised number of four. This was a drama- 
tic double revenge for the treaty of Canterbury, which 
had bound Germany to England. England was to be 
punished at the council by effacement, Germany by 
isolation. The demand was eventually dropped, but 
it was followed by a more serious development of 
antagonism. The Spaniards demanded that the Contest 
preliminaries of a new papal election should be the between 
first question to be discussed. The long latent issue anTthe 
was now revealed. Was the contemplated reform Cardinals, 
to be real reform by the council or nominal reform 
by a pope ? For various reasons the French drew 
closer to the party which stood for the rights of the 
Roman Curia ; and the council resolved itself into a 
trial of strength between Sigismund and the cardinals 
— the champion and the opponents of the cause of 
reformation. In July, 1417, the cardinals consented 
to let reform precede the election ; Sigismund had to 
waive the idea of a general reform, and accept a reform 

1 Rymer, ix, 434. 


of the papal office and court only. The cardinals at 
once re-opened the question and pressed for an 
immediate election. They suspected or pretended 
that Sigismund with Henry at his side designed to 
make himself master of Europe, and they were anxious 
to get their pope elected by the council before Sigis- 
mund got his way with the council. Sigismund's 
position grew rapidly weaker. The death of Hallam 
on September 4th removed a strong man whose 
support of Sigismund had held the German and the 
English English " nations " together, and Sigismund found 
policy to his surprise that the English had begun to negotiate 

Council. with the cardinals as to tne procedure of election. 
It was from the cardinals that Sigismund heard of 
these negotiations. At first he was incredulous ; 
when the Bishop of Lichfield admitted the fact, and 
still professed a desire to follow his lead, he was 
indignant, and used strong language. It was indeed 
to all appearance an inexplicable change of front. 
Hallam's death was a great loss to the English, but 
such a change of front can scarcely be explained as 
the mere mistake of a helpless party bereft of a leader 
who had been the very embodiment of its policy. 
We have, moreover, the definite statement in the 
journal of Cardinal Filastre that " the four nations of 
Italy, Gaul, Spain and England (which at the bidding 
of the King of England abandoned the King of the 
Romans in this matter) and the college of the cardinals 
insisted upon the hastening of the election ; the King 
and nation of Germany upon the pursuance of reform- 
ation." 1 This direct statement stands alone, but it 
agrees with the indirect evidence of other facts and 
documents. On July 18th, 1417, Henry wrote a 
stringent letter to Constance, forbidding his lieges at 

1 Finke, Konstanzer Konzil, p. 227. 


the council to enter into conjunction with any other 
" nation " without the knowledge of the English 
bishops, on pain of dismissal and confiscation, and 
instructing the English bishops to decide differences 
of opinion within the English " nation " by the voice 
of the majority. l It has been conjectured from the 
sequel that this letter was suggested by Archbishop 
Chichele, and was intended to check the intrigues of 
agents of Beaufort, who was himself anxious " to 
strengthen the papal against the imperial party." 2 
It is safer to read the letter itself in the light of the 
events which preceded its writing. Henry was face 
to face with the fact that the treaty of Canterbury was 
a failure as far as the French war was concerned. 
Sigismund was beset with difficulties, financial and 
military. He did not declare war on France until 
March, five months after his parting with Henry at 
Calais, or ratify the treaty of Canterbury itself until 
May 24th, and the only vassal of his who came to the 
muster of the imperial forces in the summer was 
Henry's son-in-law, Louis of Bavaria. It was proba- 
bly the disappointment of Henry's expectations that 
led him to revise his policy, and take a step which to 
an observer from another point of view seemed to 
amount to the abandonment of Sigismund. It would 
be unfair to regard Henry as in any sense repudiating 
his alliance with Sigismund. His idea was probably 
rather to bring the lingering difficulties at the council 
to an end with a view to hurrying Sigismund into 
action on the French border. The conclusion in 
question involved the sacrifice of Sigismund's dream 
of reform in the Church, but the war came first with 
Henry as the council came first with Sigismund, and 

1 Rymer, ix, 466. 

2 Hook, Archbishops, v, 68. 


the war at that moment was entering upon its second 
and more urgent stage. In the light of these con- 
siderations it is probable that Henry's letter in July 
was intended to secure the loyalty of the English 
nation at Constance to the new policy which was to be 
revealed shortly by the action of their recognised 
leaders. When the time came for the next move, it 
would need the solid support of all his lieges. 

Meanwhile Sigismund was conscious that his rela- 
tions with Henry were strained. Twice in August 
he wrote to Henry, explaining that nothing but the 
vexatious delays at the council had kept him from 
taking the field, and promising to join Henry without 
fail in May, 1418. Meanwhile, he pleaded for Henry's 
sympathy and support in the cause of reformation, 
which was proceeding slowly but surely. The death 
of Hallam on September 4th was a double misfortune. 
It robbed Sigismund of a strong and loyal friend. 
It robbed the English nation of a strong and wise 
leader. It is quite possible that Hallam had received 
from Henry in July or August instructions to use his 
discretion as to the time and terms of the inevitable 
compromise. 1 On his death his colleagues did 
clumsily what he would have done with tact and care. 
They may have regarded their conference with the 
cardinals as the first step in a mediation between 
the cardinals and Sigismund, but the secrecy of the 
conference was a confession of desertion. Sigismund 
was driven to consent on October 2nd to the election 
of a pope without anything beyond a vague promise 
that the pope should deal with the problem of reform- 
ation immediately after his election. The advocates 
of reform as a body had to be satisfied with a decree 
of the council on October 9th providing for the 

1 Creighton, i, 392, 393. 


frequent recurrence of general councils. Then the 
cardinals repudiated altogether the idea of binding 
the future pope in any way, and Sigismund's last hope 
of any security for reform disappeared. The final 
difficulty arose over the question of the precise part 
to be taken by the cardinals in the now all-important 
election. It was at this juncture that Beaufort 
appeared upon the scene. 

Beaufort had resigned the great seal on July 23rd, Beaufort's 
and gone off with his pilgrim's letters of safe-conduct pttgrimage. 
about the time apparently of Henry's departure for 
his campaign in Normandy. Nothing is known of 
the earlier stages of the bishop's pilgrimage, and the 
absence of any record of his doings in August has led 
some writers to place his visit to the Holy Land 
immediately after his resignation of the chancellor- 
ship. The original chroniclers, however, are precise 
enough in stating that it was on the outward journey 
to Jerusalem that the bishop intervened in the affairs 
of the council at Constance ; and it so happens that 
the Acts of the Privy Council contain two letters 
written by him to his friend the chancellor, the 
Bishop of Durham, and dated from Bruges on 
September 4th and 5th, dates which leave no room 
for a journey to the East and back again between the 
end of July and the beginning of October. The 
letters themselves are interesting as proofs of the 
pilgrim's incidental attention to matters of business 
which appealed to him as an English statesman. 1 
In the second letter the ex-chancellor transmits to 
his successor the anxious enquiry of Mistress Salvayn 
at Calais, who had asked him as he passed through 
that port to find out whether it was the King's 
pleasure that her husband, Roger Salvayn, should hold 

1 Proceedings, ii, 234, 235, 




interests : 

and the 

the office of treasurer or not. The good lady wanted 
either a commission or a discharge from the council, 
for her husband was on the King's service elsewhere, 
and meanwhile she was paying the officials of the 
treasury out of her own pocket. Beaufort's first letter 
was an appeal to the chancellor, made at the request 
of the burgomaster and citizens of Bruges, to see to 
the restitution of Flemish goods which had been seized 
on board of a Genoese carrack at Plymouth. The 
ex-chancellor enforced the appeal by the shrewd 
argument that he could see clearly that in default 
of such restitution the aggrieved Flemings would 
retaliate by laying their hands upon the property of 
English merchants at Bruges to more than ten times 
the value of the missing cargoes. This question of 
maritime law was a standing grievance. It was one 
of the matters entrusted to the bishops and lords 
accredited in October, 1414, as delegates to the 
Council of Constance and as ambassadors to Sigis- 
mund ; and in November, 1414, the question was 
discussed in parliament, and reference was made 
then to the Bishop of Winchester as acting along with 
these ambassadors on a commission appointed to 
adjudicate upon the disputes arising out of letters of 
marque granted to English merchants against the 
Genoese. * Beaufort's name occurs again in a later 
stage of the negotiations. In a fragmentary letter 
from the Bishops of Bath and of Lichfield to the King 
in Normandy, congratulating him on his successes 
there, we read : "... After time of . . . Lord of 
Winchester coming hither, Count Berthold of Ursins 
and Lord Brimorinis of Laschalla deputed by the 
emperor have been with my forsaid ... of Winchester 
and with us your priests of Bath and of Chester, and 
1 Rot. Pari, iv, 50. 


communed of accord betwixt you and them of Genoa, 
and now at the last ..." The two bishops requested 
the King's commands on this matter, which they 
had postponed " again standing that our commission 
is not available by cause that my Lord of Salisbury 
that was, the which God assoil . . ."* This reference 
to the Bishop of Salisbury's death as invalidating 
their commission in this matter (granted in December, 
1416) fixes the date of the letter far on in September or 
later still. Evidently the Bishop of Winchester had 
not forgotten the problem of contraband of war even 
amid the greater problems of the Church at Constance. 
This time, however, the problem was to detach the 
Genoese warships from the side of France. At Bruges 
it had been to satisfy the Flemings, at peace with 
England, who had suffered from the English retalia- 
tions upon innocent Genoese trading-craft. Both 
before and after this date Beaufort appears as the 
upholder of peace or alliance with Flanders. His 
object was no doubt to guard the interests of English 
commerce, and incidentally his own, if it is true that 
he was the greatest wool-merchant in England. 
Burgundy, the lord of Flanders, was as important 
in this way as in the matter of support or neutrality 
in the French war. 

Early in October the pilgrim-bishop was at Ulm, Beaufort 
in suggestive proximity to the council at Constance. 2 Constance 
It is not clear whether the English nation had been in 
communication with Beaufort before their desertion 
of Sigismund, or whether his arrival at Ulm took them 
by surprise. Cardinal Filastre merely states in his 
journal that while the question of the election was still 

1 Proceedings, ii, 236, 237. 

2 For discussion of the date of his arrival, see Creighton, 
i, 395" n. 


in suspense, the English told the cardinals the news 
of his arrival at Ulm, spoke of his great interest in the 
unity of the Church, and urged them to invite him 
to come to Constance and give him a free hand to 
negotiate with the King of the Romans. The cardi- 
nals accepted the suggestion, and wrote at once. 
Sigismund also wrote to him. The Bishop of Lichfield 
went to fetch him, and he entered Constance in the 
garb of a pilgrim carrying his cross. He was met 
by the King of the Romans and three cardinals ; 
and after a few days' conference, under his mediation, 
between cardinals and delegates of the nations on the 
one side and Sigismund on the other, the disputed 
points were settled. x It was once supposed that the 
question referred to Beaufort was whether the work 
of reformation should precede or follow the election 
of a new pope, and that what Beaufort did was to 
decide for the priority of the election. 2 Filastre's 
diary has cleared up the whole matter. It is plain 
from that diary that Sigismund had already consented, 
however reluctantly, to the precedence of the election, 
and that the grounds of dispute still left were (a) the 
precise form of the guarantee to be given by the 
cardinals that the new pope should undertake the 
task of reformation before the dismissal of the 
council, (b) the particular articles of reformation to 
be taken in hand by the new pope and the council. 
The guarantee was finally refused by the cardinals 
altogether. Of the articles of reformation, " but few 
could be agreed upon, and those with difficulty," 
probably those which were adopted by the decree of 
the council on October 9th, viz., the summoning of 

1 Finke, p. 227. 

1 Hook, Archbishops, v, 70 ; Church Qu. Review, xii, 383 


a general council in seven years and then even 7 five 
years, the right of a council to summon itself in case of 
schism, the redress of such grievances as compulsory 
translations, etc. The " nations " could not combine 
to any further extent than this. What Beaufort 
did was not to decide for the election of a pope before 
the facing of the problems of reform, but to mediate 
between Sigismund and the cardinals in the settle- 
ment of the details of procedure. The compromise 
finally accepted was as follows. A guarantee of 
reform was to be embodied in a decree of the council ; 
those points in the report of the commission of reform 
on which all the nations were agreed were to be laid 
formally before the council for its collective approval : 
and commissioners were to be appointed to determine 
the method of election. The final results of this 
compromise were embodied in decrees passed on 
October 30th. 

It has been conjectured that Beaufort was actually P Qlic y ° f 
sent by Henry to convey to Sigismund a personal at** 1 * 7 
explanation of Henry's conversion to the necessity or Constance, 
wisdom of a compromise, and to co-operate with him 
in earning out the altered Anglo-German policy. l 
Some such explanation was certainly due to Sigis- 
mund in the first instance, and was doubly necessary 
after the tactless haste with which the Bishop of 
Lichfield and his colleagues had begun to act in the 
new direction. It is difficult, however, to determine 
when Beaufort received such a commission. It may 
have been sent to him in Flanders after Hallam's 
death had removed the one man at the council who 
could discharge such a duty to his master's ally and 
give effect to his master's policy. But it is difficult to 
account in this case for Beaufort's delay of his 

1 Creighton, i, 392. 


journey to the East, except on the supposition that he 
was waiting for the possibility of a chance of distinc- 
tion in some way. It is more probable that the 
commission was given to him in July. Henry's letter 
requiring his lieges at the council to stand by their 
leaders was written on July 18th. On that same day 
Henry gave Beaufort security for the repayment of 
his loan of £14,000 ; on July 21st he gave him per- 
mission to go on his pilgrimage ; and on July 23rd 
the bishop resigned the chancellorship. The coin- 
cidence is remarkable indeed if it is nothing more 
than a coincidence. 

Henry's motives were probably complex. x He was 
too earnest a churchman after his fashion to jeopardise 
the work of the council merely for the sake of claiming 
the active co-operation of Sigismund in the French 
campaign of 1417. Perhaps he despaired of any 
further activity of real value on the part of the 
council. Perhaps he was doubtful whether Sigis- 
mund's idea of reform might not prove too extreme. 
Perhaps he regarded the legislation of the fourteenth 
century as a sufficient safeguard against the worst 
abuses of papal intervention in England. Perhaps 
he was anxious to avoid the establishment of French 
influence at Rome. Perhaps he was eager to win 
the credit of a successful compromise. Probably 
in any case he had come to the conclusion that 
Sigismund and himself would gain more for their own 
interests and for the common interests of the Church 
by simply endeavouring to secure a satisfactory 
method of electing a new pope than by stubbornly 
resisting the growing strength of what was now a 
majority of the council. Both in the immediate 
problem of reform in the Church and for the ultimate 

1 Creighton, i, 392, 393. 


prospect of a crusade of united Christendom against 
the Moslems of the East, the personal attitude of the 
new pope was a factor not to be ignored, and that 
attitude would be shaped largely by the line that 
Henry might take in the question of the coming 

If it is difficult to do more than enumerate possible 
factors in Henry's change of policy, it is easy to 
moralise upon its undoubted results. On the one 
hand Henry missed an opportunity of doing what 
was done under less reputable circumstances by a later 
Henry. The independence of the English Church 
might have been asserted and maintained. In April, 
1416, King and parliament instructed the metropoli- 
tans to confirm the election of bishops without waiting 
for the conclusion of the papal schism. " But Henry 
had no wish to break with established traditions. 
His aim was to restore old ideals, not to create a new 
order." 1 His theory of the reform of Christendom, 
if he had a reasoned theory as well as a devout 
instinct, ran on the lines rather of the French school 
than of the German. He was content with the 
constitutional precautions which enabled him to 
check the papal claim of jurisdiction when it conflicted 
with national interests. But Henry not only failed 
to see or refused to take the opportunity which might 
have antedated the constitutional side of the English 
reformation of the sixteenth century. He must be 
held responsible in part for the postponement of a 
general reformation of the Western Church as a whole. 
By the conclusion of the council under such circum- 
stances—circumstances partly due to the intervention 
of Henry— " the old system was perpetuated, and the 
Reformation in the technical sense of the word became 

1 Kingsford, Henry V, p. 270. 



Beaufort a 
for the 

inevitable. For good or evil Henry of England had 
his share in bringing it about." 1 

There is no evidence to show whether Beaufort was 
at all responsible for the change in Henry's attitude 
towards the problems of the council. It is possible 
that the chancellor's enthusiasm over the Sigismund- 
ian alliance was giving place already in July, 1417, 
to visions of European influence for England, and of 
diplomatic laurels or ecclesiastical honours for himself, 
but the possibility is a matter of pure surmise. What 
is certain is that in October the Bishop of Winchester 
came within measurable distance of being the new 
Bishop of Rome, and that he was regarded by some 
members of the council as having laid his plans or 
having had them laid for him by Henry and Sigismund 
with that very prospect in view. According to the 
scheme adopted in the decree of October 30th, the 
election was to be made by the twenty-three cardinals 
and six deputies from each of the five nations. The 
majority to be required was two-thirds of the cardinals 
and two-thirds of each set of national deputies. 
The conclave began on November 8th. The six 
deputies of the English nation who entered the 
conclave were the Bishops of London, Bath, Norwich, 
and Lichfield, the Abbot of Bury and the Dean of 
York. On the ninth the method of voting was 
arranged. On the tenth came the first scrutiny of 
votes, which proved indecisive. On the eleventh 
four cardinals were found to be well ahead of the 
rest of the candidates, one of them, Oddo Colonna, 
having the necessary majority in the Italian and 
English nations. The English, in fact, voted solidly 
in his favour. The second scrutiny gave Colonna 
the required majority in all five nations and the votes 

1 Oman, p. 263. 


of fifteen cardinals, and the accession of two more 
cardinals made him pope-elect. Such was the course 
of the voting proper, to judge from the pages of 
Filastre 's diary, apparently the most trustworthy of 
the conflicting accounts of the election. But much 
lay behind the actual voting. Beaufort's name was 
evidently considered, if not adopted, among the 
candidates supported by the delegates of the English 
nation when they entered the conclave. Walsingham 
says that the Bishops of Winchester and London and 
" the cardinal of France " (the famous Parisian doctor 
D'Ailly, Cardinal of Cambrai) were all nominated, 
but that Bishop Clifford of London announced his 
intention of voting for Colonna, and the rest of the 
electors followed his lead. 1 Gascoigne attributes 
D'Ailly 's failure directly to Beaufort : " another good 
doctor of France would have been elected, had not 
the intrigue and industry of the Bishop of Winchester, 
Henry Beaufort, hindered that result." 2 Here again 
it is the graphic account of Cardinal Filastre which 
reveals the forces at work behind the scenes. He 
speaks of the growing suspicion and the yet more 
general rumour to the effect that Beaufort's voyage 
to Jerusalem was a mere pretence, since few or none 
would begin so long a journey in the winter. The 
pretended voyage and the actual visit to Constance, 
men said, were parts of a plan designed by Sigismund 
and the English to bring Beaufort within reach of the 
election, and the mediation of the bishop was intended 
to win him the gratitude and admiration of the 
council, and so to secure his election. Certain great 
prelates were asked to give their consent and support 
to his candidature, Filastre says ; and even among 

1 Wals., ii, 320. 

2 Loci e libro veritatum (ed. Thorold Rogers), p. 155. 

7 — (2210) 


the cardinals there were some who urged the holy 
college to approach Beaufort on the subject, though 
others again deprecated such a step. x An incidental 
remark of Filastre's elsewhere pushes the bishop's 
candidature back into October. The precise scheme 
adopted on October 30th in the formation of the elect- 
ing body was drafted originally by the French nation. 
The other nations accepted it readily. It gave them, 
all told, thirty votes against the twenty-three assigned 
to the cardinals, and the requirement of a majority 
in each of the sections of the conclave secured full 
weight for each of the six votes of any dissatisfied 
nation. The cardinals were the last to accept the 
scheme. But they were not the only party whom it 
was intended to neutralise. Filastre says that the 
French had two reasons for framing the scheme as 
they did. One was their fear of the Italian majority 
in the college of cardinals ; the other was their 
suspicion of the secret canvassing on behalf of the 
Bishop of Winchester. 2 They might not be able to 
secure the election of their own candidate D'Ailly. 
But they had no intention of being compelled to 
accept an Italian nominee of the cardinals unless he 
were acceptable to the handful of French electors ; 
and they had every intention of using those six votes 
to close the door against an English pope, who had 
laboured in embassy and privy council to enforce his 
master's claim to the throne of France. 

Such appears to be the most credible view of the 
crisis. The five contradictory accounts of the election 
given by the original authorities are probably to be 
explained as representing not the actual progress of 
the election but the proposals made within each 

i Finke, 227. 
2 Finke, 231. 


nation. 1 They reflect the conversation of the 
deputies afterwards on the subject of their favourites. 
It seems clear that Beaufort was a candidate for the 
papal chair, practically if not formally, at an early 
stage in the proceedings. Apparently he withdrew 
from his candidature, or the English withdrew their 
support from him, when the time came for the actual 
nomination of candidates, or when the first stage in 
the election began. Either withdrawal or both would 
be inevitable as soon as it became evident that the 
English candidate would not have the support of the 
cardinals, and the English vote would naturally be 
transferred in that case to the candidate who was 
apparently acceptable to Sigismund and who had the 
advantage of not being in the first instance the 
favourite either of the cardinals or of the French. 

1 Creighton, i, 453. 


and Legate. 



The Council of Constance had chosen a head, and 
found a master. Beaufort had made a friend, and 
opened out for himself a new prospect. On December 
22nd the college of cardinals wrote to Henry V, 
describing the election of Colonna, who had taken the 
title of Martin V from his election on St. Martin's day, 
and gratefully commending the services of the 
English ambassadors at the council to the recognition 
of their sovereign. The cardinals had no doubt 
as to the side which had gained most from the inter- 
vention of the English nation and the mediation of 
the Bishop of Winchester. They knew full well that 
they had by that intervention been enabled to save 
their own privileges, and the prestige of the Papacy. 
Martin realised the situation as clearly as the cardinals. 
On December 23rd he wrote to Henry to announce his 
own election. Beaufort's turn came next. His 
candidature was forgotten or forgiven, and his 
services were rewarded and his disappointment 
consoled by the highest dignity that the Papacy had 
to confer. On December 28th Martin issued at the 
council in Beaufort's presence a bull appointing him 
cardinal, without any special title as yet, and legate 
of the apostolic see in England, Wales, and Ireland, 
and promised to publish the appointment on the first 
convenient occasion, and to send him the insignia of 
his new office. 1 On January 9th, 1418, Martin 
1 Wharton, Anglia Sacra, i, addend. 800. 


entrusted the bishop with the task of receiving Baldas- 
sare Cossa, the deposed John XXIII, from the hands 
of Louis, count palatine of the Rhine, who was sending 
him to the Pope at the desire of Sigismund. Beaufort 
was requested by the Pope to place Cossa formally in 
the custody of the count as the prisoner of the Papacy. 1 
It was but a slight commission, but it was an indication 
that Beaufort was entering the service of a second 
master. It remained to be seen what his first master 
would say. However certain it seems that Henry of 
England was the author of the policy which practically 
played into the hands of the future pope, it is uncer- 
tain whether or not he was responsible for the second- 
ary idea that the future pope might be an Englishman. 
That idea may have been Beaufort's own, and it is 
an open question whether or not it was acceptable to 
Henry. On the whole, it is probable that Henry 
would have welcomed this solution of his diplomatic 
difficulties abroad, and of such ecclesiastical difficulties 
as he felt at home. But Beaufort as pope and 
Beaufort as the minister of an Italian pope were two 
very different things. Martin had scarcely shown his 
hand at the council as yet. The various instalments 
of reform were still under discussion. But his motives 
in making Beaufort both cardinal and legate were 
fairly obvious. The cardinalate alone might have 
been a mark of pure gratitude for the mediation which 
had paved the way for his election. But the addition 
of the legatine office revealed an ulterior purpose. 
The gratitude of the Pope was evidently quickened 
by a lively anticipation of favours to come. It is 
plain enough from Martin's subsequent procedure 
that he counted upon Beaufort's help in bringing the 
English Church back into subservience to papal 
1 Rymer, ix, 540. 


Protest of 



claims and in obtaining from the English realm the 
modification, if not the repeal, of its anti-papal legis- 
lation. The statute of Provisors might lie unused, 
but its existence was a barrier against the free exercise 
of the papal claim to the right of presenting to all 
benefices, diocesan or parochial. The statute of 
Praemunire might slumber for a generation, but it 
might awake at any crisis to forbid the appeal of an 
English churchman to Rome, or the acceptance of 
a bull, or the admission of a legate from Rome within 
the borders of the realm of England. Beaufort could 
scarcely have been ignorant of Martin's intention or 
unwilling to contemplate what it might involve. 
When the inevitable choice had to be made between 
the two courses, loyalty to the Papacy and loyalty 
to his country, the Englishman in Beaufort won. 
But he was apparently prepared to play the double 
part as honestly as he could, and to postpone the 
question of the priority of allegiance until a crisis 
occurred. It is possible that he relied upon the known 
orthodoxy and fidelity of Henry as a churchman to 
postpone the crisis for a long time. He had counted 
however, without the archbishop and the King. 
Chichele wrote to Henry on March 6th, 1418, a long 
letter of protest against the appointment of a per- 
manent legatus a latere. 1 The whole letter repays 
careful reading as the plea of an English primate who 
strove to reconcile deference to the Papacy with the 
defence of the autonomy of a national church. He 
reminded the King that on September 25th, 1417, 
i.e., during the dispute over the coming election which 
was ended by the mediation of Beaufort, he had given 
written instructions to the primate, Bedford, and the 
chancellor, that no subject of his was to communicate 
1 Duck, Life of Chichele, pp. 77-80. 


with the future pope-elect until the election had been 
announced to the King and acknowledged by him 
according to the custom of the English realm. He 
said that he had heard, privately at first and now 
more openly, that " my brother of Winchester should 
be maked a cardinal, if ye would give your assent 
thereto, and that he should have his bishopric in 
commendam for the term of his life, and thereto have 
a state, and (be) sent to your realm of England as a 
legate a latere, to the which manner of legacy none 
hath been accustomed to be named but cardinals, 
and that legacy also to occupy through all your 
obeisance (i.e., through all lands under Henry's rule), 
and all the time of his life." The archbishop pro- 
tested that in the first place such an appointment was 
an intrusion into the constitutional working of the 
Church of England. "Blessed be Almighty God, 
under your worthy protection, your Church of 
England is at this day the most honourable church 
Christian as well as divine service as honest living 
thereof, governed after strait laws and holy constitu- 
tions that be made of them without any great exor- 
bitances or anything that might turn to high slander 
of your foresaid Church or of your land ; and if any 
trespasses of man's frailty falleth we may be corrected 
and punished by the ordinaries there as the case 
falleth." Secondly, it was an office charged by 
canon law with great actual powers, as the King 
would see from the enclosed " scroll," in which the 
archbishop had set down all that was " expressed in 
the pope's law and concluded by doctors " as to the 
functions of a legate. Moreover, it was unlimited in 
its possible extension by the pope, " for it stand in 
his will to dispose as him good liketh." Thirdly, it 
was a transgression of all precedent. Laws and 



Henry V. 

chronicles alike bore witness that such legates had 
only come into England for great and notable causes, 
and only for such time as was necessary to complete 
the special business for which they came, such time 
varying from two months to a year or less. The only 
permanent legate was the Archbishop of Canterbury, 
who was legatus natus by virtue of his office. Such 
was the case against the proposed permanent legatus 
a latere. The primate ended his letter with a petition 
that the King would consider the matter and see first 
that " the state of the Church be maintained and 
sustained, so that every of the ministers thereof 
hold them content with their own part " — a hint 
perhaps at Beaufort's personal ambition — " for truly 
he that hath least hath enow to reckon for " ; 
secondly, " that your poor people be not piled nor 
oppressed with divers exactions and unaccustomed, 
through which they should be the more feeble to 
refresh you our liege lord in time of need and when 
it liketh you to clepe (i.e., call) upon them " ; and, 
thirdly, that " all pleas and slander cease in your 
Church," a hint at the danger of a spirit of litigation 
being awakened by the judicial claims of a legate 
over against the regular working of the " courts 
Christian " of archdeacon and bishop. 

The archbishop's protest on behalf of the interests 
of the nation and of the dignity of the crown met with 
immediate success. Henry's response was to forbid 
Beaufort's acceptance of the papal offer. Hall says 
that Henry was minded " that cardinals' hats should 
not presume to be equal with princes " ; and in 1440 
Gloucester attributed to Henry the remark that 
" he had as lief set his crown beside him as to see him 
wear a cardinal's hat." Gloucester added then a 
comment of his own : " for he knew full well the pride 


and ambition that was in his person, then being but 
a bishop, should so greatly have extolled him more 
into the intolerable pride that he was cardinal." 
Henry may have noted and remembered indications 
of danger in the temperament of his uncle the bishop, 
but it is more likely that the grounds on which " the 
state of cardinal was nayed and denied him by the 
King " were at once deeper and higher. Gloucester 
was taking up a stronger position when he proceeded 
to lay stress on Henry's loyalty to the claims of 
Canterbury. " And also him thought it should be 
against the freedom of the chief Church of this realm, 
which he worshipped duly as ever did prince. . . . 
Howbeit that my said lord your father would have 
agreed him to have had certain clerks of this land 
cardinals, they having no bishoprics in England ; yet 
his intent was never to do so great derogation to the 
Church of Canterbury to make them that were his 
suffragans to sit above their ordinary and metropol- 
itan ; but the cause was that in general councils and 
in all matters that might concern the weal of him 
and of his realm he should have promoters of his 
nation, as all other Christian kings had, in the court 
of Rome, and not to abide in this land as any part of 
your council, as be all other lords spiritual and 
temporal at the parliaments and great councils, when 
your list is to call them." 1 Gloucester's recollection of 
his late brother's attitude on this question was 
probably correct and truthful. It was the attitude 
of the typical English churchman of that day. Some 
such attitude Henry V certainly took and maintained 
in 1418, and Beaufort was compelled to acquiesce 
in the King's prohibition, and to find consolation for 

1 Stevenson, Wars in France, ii, 441. 


his own disappointment in the resumption of his 
long-interrupted pilgrimage to Jerusalem. 
The Pope Beaufort was not the only person who was disap- 

and the pointed by the sequel of the election at Constance. 
King. The remainder of the sessions brought but little gain 

to the cause of reformation. Martin alternately con- 
ceded and evaded, and conciliated and refused. 
On March 21st a few statutes were passed limiting or 
withdrawing certain minor claims of the Papacy. 
But twelve of the eighteen articles of reform were 
settled by separate concordats with the different 
nations concerned. The English concordat, signed 
on July 12th, 1418, " stood alone for its brevity and 
trivial character ; the will of parliament and a strong 
ruler were a sufficient protection for the English 
Church." 1 Martin and Henry remained on friendly 
terms, but neither was satisfied with the other. 
In 1418 Martin tried to influence the negotiations 
between England and France in favour of the latter, 
and to fill English benefices with favourites of his own ; 
and Henry had to instruct the Bishop of Lichfield, 
who had gone from Constance to Rome, and was now 
the English agent there, to tender respectful but firm 
remonstrances against both of these intrusions. In 
1419 an English agent of Martin's brought to Henry 
at Mantes an urgent request for peace in France and 
for the repeal of such laws in England as hindered the 
action of the apostolic see. Henry's only answer was 
that he would let the Pope know when he saw his way 
to the peace which he desired, and that he was bound 
to maintain the laws of his realm. 2 Martin had to 
hold his hand and wait his time. Meanwhile his 
policy was now plain enough to read ; there could be 

1 Kingsford, Henry V, p. 274. 
a Rymer, ix, 806. 


little doubt in Beaufort's mind in 1426 what the 
renewal of the offer of the cardinalate in that year 
was expected to produce in the way of service on his 

The personal relations between Beaufort and the Negotia- 
King remained undisturbed by the prohibition of the pJJJJJ? 1 
cardinalate in 1418. The fact redounds to the credit 1419. 
of both men. It also discounts largely the subsequent 
language of Gloucester on the subject of Beaufort's 
arrogance and Henry's suspicion. Henry could still 
trust the bishop, and the bishop was as ready as ever 
to serve his king. On the very next occasion on which 
the bishop appears in history, he appears in close 
conjunction with Archbishop Chichele, and the 
King's two brothers, Clarence and Gloucester, in 
attendance upon the King himself, and in partial 
charge of important, if fruitless, negotiations with 
Burgundy and France. Henry's successes in Nor- 
mandy in 1417 and 1418 had not blinded him to the 
difficulties of his position, and he actually wrote to 
the council to give reasons for considering the question 
of an alliance with the discontented Dauphin. * At 
last a conference was held in May, 1419, near Meulan- 
on-Seine between the chief personages concerned in 
the war. Burgundy brought the Queen of France 
and her daughter Katharine ; the poor King was too 
mad to come. Henry was attended by two brothers, 
Bedford and Clarence, Archbishop Chichele, and his 
two uncles, Henry the bishop and Thomas the 
soldier. A preliminary discussion ended in an 
agreement not to withdraw from the conference 
except after a week's notice, and the five lords were 
authorised by Henry to conclude the expected treaty. 
Henry, however, though delighted with the princess, 

1 Proceedings, ii, 350-358. 


was not minded to lessen his demands or temper his 
refusals. He asked for the absolute sovereignty of 
the Bretigny dominions and Normandy besides, all 
of which Burgundy was at first prepared to grant. 
On the other hand, though he consented to renounce 
his claim to the French crown, with a saving clause 
to cover all lands ceded by this conference, he refused 
to surrender his claim to supremacy or possession 
in Brittany, Anjou, Maine and Flanders ; and he 
declined to promise that the treaty should be ratified 
by his brothers and by parliament. This last refusal 
did much to alienate Burgundy, who was then being 
offered peace and power by the Dauphin if he would 
break off his advances to the English. The suspicion 
of this understanding led to high words between the 
King and the duke at their interview on June 30th, 
and on July 3rd the duke never appeared at all. The 
conference was at an end. 1 Queen Isabel wrote to 
Henry in September to lay the blame upon the 
Dauphin, but the blame lay largely with the unrea- 
sonable temper of the King. As it happened, how- 
ever, the treachery of the Dauphin gave back to Henry 
the opportunity which he had thrown away. On Sep- 
tember 10th, Duke John the Fearless was murdered as 
he knelt before the Dauphin at Montereau, and his son, 
Philip the Good, sacrificing every other considera- 
tion to the desire of revenge, put himself unhesitat- 
ingly on the side of the English. " The crime of the 
Treaty of Dauphin placed France at Henry's feet." 2 In 
royes. December the young duke accepted Henry's terms. 
Early in 1420 Bedford returned from England to 

1 For the conference see T. Elm ham, pp. 216-225 ; J. J. 
Ursins, 549-552 ; Monstrelet, pp. 453, 454 ; Rymer, ix, 
759-764, 789, 790 ; Ramsay, i, 270-272. 

2 Stubbs, iii, 91. 


help Henry in organising the government of Nor- 
mandy. On May 21st " the great peace " which had 
been concluded in detail by Henry's envoys was sworn 
and sealed in the cathedral of Troyes by the Queen 
of France, the Princess Katharine, and the Duke of 
Burgundy, the King of France being too helpless to 
be seen abroad ; and on June 2nd the princess was 
married to Henry, " King of England and heir of 

Beaufort was back again in England in October, Beaufort 

1419, acting as a trier of petitions from subjects at ™ lth the 
home and as a member of a commission of peers Crusaders, 
appointed to raise loans for the King on the security 

of the new subsidy. In the parliament of December, 

1420, he was nominated again as a trier of petitions 
from the realm at home. Between these two par- 
liaments must be placed one of the episodes of knight 
errantry in which the soldierly side of the bishop's 
character found exercise. The Treaty of Troyes had 
not been recognised by Pope Martin or Castile or 
Scotland, and some even of the vassals and allies of 
Burgundy repudiated its terms. Sigismund, how- 
ever, and Henry's brother-in-law, Ludwig of Bavaria, 
accepted the situation, and in July, 1420, Ludwig, 
" the red duke," was righting in Henry's army at the 
siege of Melun, near Paris. There is no record of 
Beaufort's presence at this time ; but if the French 
chronicler Wavrin is to be trusted, the bishop had 
been associated with Ludwig, apparently earlier in 
the same year, in a crusade against the rebellious 
Bohemian subjects of Sigismund. The Bohemian 
insurrection, in part a nationalist movement against 
German supremacy, was fanned into religious fury 
by the indignation which Sigismund had awakened 
by his share in the martyrdom of Hus and Jerome at 


Constance. The death of Wenzel, King of Bohemia, 

in August, 1419, left Sigismund in the position of 

lawful claimant to that kingdom, and he proceeded to 

enforce his authority with a merciless severity which 

spared neither patriot nor heretic. In March, 1420, 

the papal legate issued a bull proclaiming a crusade 

against the Bohemians. It was apparently at this 

stage that the campaign began of which Wavrin 

has given a graphic account from his own experience 

as an eye-witness in the Savoyard contingent. The 

crusade was headed by various German princes, the 

Bishops of Cologne, Treves, Liege, and Mayence, 

and Ludwig of Bavaria, some forty-two magnates in 

all. They entered Bohemia, ravaging as they went, 

and besieged Souch (? Saatz), only to break up in 

a month from sheer jealousy and suspicion of each 

other's designs. The dispersion was hastened by a 

message from the Emperor recalling his vassals and 

forbidding any further advance. The zeal of the 

crusaders had outrun their loyalty as feudatories. 

" In this army," writes Wavrin, " was the Cardinal 

of England, who seeing the confusion said in great 

displeasure that if he had had six thousand English 

archers that day he would quite easily have beaten 

all the troops that were there, and he said truly, for 

no one waited for another, and it was a wonder that 

no disaster happened to them, as it would have done 

if their enemies had been people of any enterprise." 1 

It is uncertain what Beaufort, who is here described 

by the title which he held when Wavrin wrote, was 

doing on the German border. He may have been 

executing a commission from his king. Ambassadors 

of the Archbishop of Cologne were in communication 

with the privy council in 1416 ; and in 1419 Henry 

1 Wavrin, Eng. Trans. (Rolls Series), ii, 309. 


had envoys bidding for the support of the prelates 
of Treves and Mayence, and looking for a wife for his 
brother Bedford among the princesses of Germany. 
Beaufort's presence in the crusading army may have 
been an unauthorised extension of a mission to 
Ludwig from his brother-in-law of England. Perhaps 
Beaufort had gone to claim the support which Ludwig 
actually gave to Henry later in the year, or to report 
to Sigismund the relations between Henry and 
Burgundy and the prospect of the coming treaty with 
France. On the other hand, Beaufort may have been 
tempted by want of occupation in France to venture 
further afield in search of fresh interest on the scene 
of his achievements of 1417. Whatever was the 
reason of his presence, his experience on this occasion 
was perhaps in two ways the precursor of his more 
famous adventure in Bohemia in 1426. The crusade 
of 1420 taught him the need of a strong hand to weld 
and wield the forces of the Empire in the cause of the 
Church ; it also brought him once more to the notice 
of the Pope whose first anti-Hussite movement had 
here met with such ignominious failure. 

The parliament which met in December, 1420, Return to 
under the presidency of Gloucester, was concerned England 
chiefly with the question of hastening the King's ^ e 
return. Affection for his person, difficulties in 
dealing with matters requiring royal consent, fears 
of the subordination of England to France, all com- 
bined to add earnestness to their appeal to the King ; 
and Henry left France in January, 1421. Clarence 
remained behind as his lieutenant in France and 
Normandy ; Thomas Beaufort, now Duke of Exeter, 
as governor of Paris. Henry of Winchester returned 
with Bedford and other peers in the King's retinue. 
Henry's own welcome in London was quieter than his 


reception in 1415, but the loyalty of the city broke 
out in pageant and pomp again on the arrival of his 
Queen a week later. Katharine was crowned in 
Westminster Abbey on the last Sunday in February, 
and the coronation was followed at once by a mag- 
nificent banquet in the hall at Westminster which 
fills pages of the chronicle of Gregory, himself mayor 
of London thirty years afterwards. 1 "First the 
Queen sat in her estate, and the Archbishop of 
Canterbury and the Bishop of Winchester sat on the 
right side of the Queen, and they were served next 
unto the Queen every course, covered as the Queen " 
with all manner of cunning " subtleties " or designs 
in confectionery. Bedford was present as Constable 
of England, Gloucester as " overseer " of the whole 
array. The King was absent in accordance with 
etiquette ; it was the Queen's day. After the festiv- 
ities Henry took his Queen on a royal progress. 
As a devout churchman he had shrines to visit ; as 
a wise sovereign he was anxious to confirm the loyalty 
of his subjects and to kindle their patriotism to fresh 
sacrifices for the conquest of his new heritage. On 
leaving Beverley he was met by the news of disaster. 
Clarence had paid for a rash venture with his life at 
Beaufort's Bauge on Easter eve. Henry finished his round of 
Loans. visits and returned to open parliament on May 2nd. 

The Treaty of Troyes was duly confirmed, but money 
was not forthcoming. " In the which parliament," 
writes the chronicler, " was axed no tallage, wherefore 
the Bishop of Winchester lent the King xx M L - 
pound." 2 This loan has been justly described as 
" a proof of private confidence even more signal 

1 Gregory, pp. 139-141. 

2 Gregory, p. 142. 


than any which the parliament could give." 1 The 
bishop had been repaid only a third of the £14,000 
which he lent the King in 1417 ; yet he consented to 
lend a further sum of £14,000, 2 making in all £22,306 
18s. 8d. now due to him, which the chronicler mistook 
as one fresh loan. Beaufort was in fact the friend 
indeed in time of need. The urgency of the King's 
need was proved by the extreme step which he had 
just taken. In April he issued commissions for raising 
loans from individuals, and instructed his officers to 
report to him all refusers. With all its loyalty 
parliament in May offered no subsidy. The King's 
financial difficulties were well known. An estimate 
laid before the council on May 6th showed that of 
the gross revenue of less than £56,000 over £52,000 
was required for regular expenditure, leaving £3,500 
for a variety of occasional charges and nothing for 
the heavy debts of Harfleur, Calais, and the admiralty, 
and for the debts of the late King's will, or Henry's 
own debts as Prince of Wales. Perhaps parliament 
thought that the cost of the war should now fall on 
the King's new dominions, in spite of his recent 
warning of the danger and injustice of burdening 
Normandy ; perhaps the King's own action in raising 
loans seemed to relieve parliament of the duty or the 
necessity of coming to his assistance. 3 All that par- 
liament did, at any rate, was to empower the council 
to give security for the payments thus contracted by 
the King for his coming campaign. The vote was 
a proof of the confidence of the nation, but it was also 
a shirking of its burden. The consciousness of this 
relief found apt expression in the petition of the 

1 Stubbs, iii, 93. 

2 Rot. Pari., iv, 132 ; Proceedings, ii, 298. 

3 Ramsay, i, 294. 

8— (22IO) 


commons for letters patent to secure the bishop's loan 
on the customs of Southampton. The loan was 
described in that petition as being " for the ease of 
your poor commonalty of England." The bishop's 
services did not end with his loan. It was probably 
his influence which induced convocation to vote the 
King a tenth in May. On June 10th Henry sailed 
with barely a thousand men to face the campaign 
which was to be his last. On July 1st the bishop's 
name appears again on the minutes of the council 
after four years' absence. On the 2nd the treasurer 
delivered into the hands of the bishop a golden crown 
richly adorned with precious jewels. The crown 
was duly exhibited and handled in the presence of the 
lords of the council, and placed in a casket covered 
with leather, which was then sealed by the treasurer 
and given into the custody of the bishop. No doubt 
the crown was part of the bishop's security for his loans. 
Much has been made of his " rapacity " on this and 
other occasions. The sources of his loans will come 
to be considered in connexion with Gloucester's attack 
upon his reputation in 1440 ; it is sufficient to note 
here that in all probability he " acted as a contractor 
on a large scale." 1 He was not so much a private 
lender as a banker of the crown, and his credit was 
as important as his wealth. If at times his require- 
ment of security seemed grasping and ungenerous, 
it must be remembered that he provided more than 
one loan before its predecessors had been paid off, 2 
and that the requirement of security was made in the 
interest of the kingdom as well as in his own. The 
possibility of future loans depended upon the security 

1 Stubbs, ill, 94. 

2 He lent the King ^3,000 more at Dover in June before he 
sailed, in addition to the ^22,000 already lent. 



of previous loans. In the year 1421 Beaufort was 
providing the country with ready money to an amount 
equal to two-fifths of the gross revenue of the crown, 
and equal to at least a third of a million in modern 

Many of the matters which occupied the attention Affairs of 
of the bishop and his fellow-councillors during their s j; at £ 
busy meetings in July, October, and November, 1421, p r i vy 
were cases of purely local or personal interest, but Council, 
three of the minutes of the council had a wider 
reference. (1) On July 1st ambassadors were ap- 
pointed to visit Sigismund, and on the 17th they 
were given instructions to discuss with him the 
position of the Duchy of Luxemburg, which was a bone 
of contention between Burgundy and the Emperor, 
Henry's two allies. Their main task, however, was 
to press for that active support which Henry had been 
seeking from Sigismund in vain since 1418, and which 
he needed now more than ever. 1 (2) On July 15th 
the council had to consider a petition from the papal 
collector, who asked for letters patent enforcing the 
payment of papal dues by persons who held benefices 
in England which were formerly subject to French 
ecclesiastical corporations, and who had refused pay- 
ment during the war with France. Bedford, Beau- 
fort, and the primate agreed to grant the petition. 2 
(3) On July 8th and 9th the council made provision Jacqueline 
for the maintenance of Jacqueline, the young Countess of Hainault 
of Holland, Zealand and Hainault, widow of the 
late Dauphin of France and wife of John, Duke of 
Brabant. 3 Unhappy in her second marriage, 
Jacqueline had sought a home in England, and was 

1 Proceedings, ii, 288. 

2 Proceedings, ii, 299. 

3 Proceedings, ii, 291, 293. 


welcomed by the King. Her hand had been sought 
for Bedford in 1418 ; this time Gloucester himself 
was attracted by her charms. If, however, Henry 
welcomed Jacqueline to England in the hope of a 
marriage which might secure a footing for England 
in the Netherlands, he was grievously mistaken. 
In the end Jacqueline proved one of the most serious 
hindrances to the policy which Bedford and Beaufort 
inherited from Henry. Gloucester's subsequent in- 
fatuation for Jacqueline made it hard for them to 
retain the loyal support of Burgundy, her neighbour 
and kinsman, who resented bitterly Gloucester's 
intrusion into his sphere of influence. 
Last days The position of affairs in the meantime was growing 
of Henry V. more an( j mor e serious. Money was scarcer than ever 
at home ; abroad the King was worn out with sieges 
and marches and the conscientious supervision of 
business which followed him oversea. A ray of 
comfort came with the birth of a prince at Windsor 
on December 6th. The little Henry, heir to the 
thrones of England and France, was christened by 
the primate ; and the Bishop of Winchester stood for 
him at the font along with Bedford and Jacqueline 
of Hainault. The chroniclers add that the primate 
acted as godfather at the confirmation which followed 
the baptism ; x perhaps it may be inferred that it was 
the Bishop of Winchester who laid hands upon the 
child. But the pride and hope rekindled by the 
Prince's birth soon gave place to anxiety and grief. 
Henry's work was ended, all unfinished as it was. 
The surrender of Meaux relieved the strain upon his 
weakened troops ; but Burgundy gave little help, 
and Sigismund and Portugal sent none at all. In 
May Bedford brought the Queen over with a slender 

1 Gregory, p. 143. 


reinforcement, but only to find the King dying of his 
hardships. The end came at Vincennes after mid- 
night on August 31st. Henry had summoned his 
kinsmen and councillors to his bedside some days 
before. Beaufort was at home in England with 
Gloucester the regent, but his brother, the Duke of 
Exeter, was with Bedford and Warwick and the 
trusty few in France who gathered now to receive 
the King's last commands. The crusade was his last 
thought, that crusade which he had planned with 
Burgundy in 1421, which he had doubtless discussed 
many a time with Beaufort, which he had put before 
the German princes as the long-contemplated sequel 
of all his conflicts nearer home, and which he kept 
so close to his heart that on his sick bed he was still 
reading the story of the first crusade. 1 But he had 
not forgotten matters of more immediate urgency. 
His earlier wills of 1415 and 1417 had dealt with his His 
personal and real property respectively. Among provision 
their provisions, which he now confirmed, was the ~ r ^r 
bequest of a " portos " to the Bishop of Winchester, 
a breviary in two volumes which had been written 
and illuminated by special order of Henry IV for his 
own use during his illness in 1408. But a far more 
important legacy was now bequeathed to the bishop 
in the share given to him in the guardianship of the 
infant Prince. 2 The will of 1421, in which Henry 
made all the political arrangements which he thought 
best for his son and his two realms, was produced in 
parliament in 1425, but afterwards lost. The 
chroniclers, however, though differing in detail, are 
in the main fairly unanimous. Bedford was to be 

1 The book belonged to Joan Beaufort, Countess of 
Westmoreland ; Proceedings, hi, 168, n. ; Rymer, x, 317. 
3 Gesta Hem. V., p. 159. 


regent of Normandy and France, Gloucester regent 

of England. Exeter's name stands first in the 

chroniclers among the guardians of the Prince, but 

two of them add the bishop, and a third mentions 

Warwick also. Hardyng, the contemporary writer, 

is most precise. He explains that Warwick became 

guardian after Exeter's death in 1426. The dying 

Henry wished 

Thomas Beauforde his uncle dere and trewe 

Duke of Excester, full of all worthyhode, 

To tyme his soone to perfect age grewe, 

He to kepe hym, chaungyng for no newe, 

With help of his other erne (i.e., uncle) then full wise 

The Bishop of Winchester of good advise. 1 

The chroniclers have preserved recollections of 
Henry's last prophetic words of counsel which throw 
light upon the meaning of these appointments. 2 He 
protested to the end that his claim was righteous and 
his work in France a divine mission ; yet he foresaw 
that the uncompleted conquest might some day be 
lost. He charged his friends to keep the Duke of 
Orleans a prisoner until the child Henry was of age, 
to make no peace which would not secure at least 
Normandy as an absolute dominion, and to give no 
offence to their ally of Burgundy, whose support was 
a necessity. This last charge was to be conveyed 
also as a solemn warning to Gloucester. The hint is 
significant. It is true that Henry is not said to have 
suggested any limitation of Gloucester's authority as 

1 Hardyng, p. 387. 

2 Monstrelet, p. 530 ; T. Elmham, pp. 332, 333 ; cp. 
Stubbs, iii, 95, 98, and Ramsay, i, 303. Walsingham (ii, 345) 
and the Burgundian chroniclers say that Henry wished the 
regency in France to be offered first to Burgundy. It is 
interesting to note this in view of the fact that Bedford 
surrendered it to Burgundy in 1429. 


regent of England. But it seems clear that Bedford 
was intended to hold the first place in the whole plan. 
France was the post of danger and the post of honour. 
If discord arose at home or difficulty abroad through 
the self-assertion of Gloucester, the Beauforts as 
guardians of the young King were to hold the balance 
in favour of Bedford. It was, perhaps, for this 
purpose that the guardianship was in a sense put in 
commission and not confined strictly to Exeter alone. 


of Glouces- 

(i) at the 



Whatever were the precise provisions made by 
Henry V for the government of the double realm 
after his death, the lords of the council evidently held 
themselves free to revise or suspend those provisions. 
How far they were merely utilising the accession of an 
infant King to assert their constitutional position, or 
how far they were prompted by distrust of Glouces- 
ter's personality or apprehension of his policy, must 
remain an unanswered question. It is possible that 
Gloucester was himself the danger against which they 
desired to guard ; it is possible on the other hand that 
it was the office of regent in itself which they feared, 
and that some part of their action would have 
followed the same lines if the regency had presented 
itself to them in the stronger but soberer character 
of Bedford. In any case, the resistance of Gloucester 
at every step soon gave the whole dispute a more 
personal aspect. 

Nearly a month elapsed before any official action 
was taken to inaugurate the new reign. When on 
September 28th the Bishop of Durham resigned the 
chancellorship, Gloucester was permitted to receive 
the seal from the bishop, but in the presence of the 
infant King. The writs summoning parliament were 
sealed in the name of the King and the council, and 
Gloucester himself was summoned by writ as though 
he were merely the first peer of the realm. What was 
implied in these contrasts to the procedure followed 



under the regencies of Bedford and Gloucester during 
the late reign was soon made a matter of express 
stipulation. The council met on November 5th, and 
produced a document in which Gloucester was to be 
authorised by the King to open, conduct, and dissolve 
parliament as the commissary of the King " by the 
assent of the council." The construction of these 
last words was ambiguous. x They seem most natu- 
rally to refer to the circumstances of the granting of 
the commission. Gloucester, however, read the 
clause as meaning not that his commission was 
granted by the King in council but that his control 
of parliament was to be limited by the consent of the 
council. If he was wrong in his interpretation of the 
clause, itself an innovation upon previous commissions 
of the kind, he was not corrected by the council. 
He was certainly right in his general impression that 
the whole commission ignored his supposed position 
as regent. In the end he had to drop his protest, 
for the lords were asked their opinions in turn, and 
each of them insisted on the retention of the words. 
Gloucester could scarcely be satisfied with the 
explanation that the words were " as necessary for 
the security of the duke as they were for the security 
of the council." 2 

When parliament met on November 9th, the King's (2) in 
commission to Gloucester was read, and its terms Parliament, 
were strictly observed, petitions being addressed to 
him not as regent or Lieutenant of England but as 
" commissary of the King." Archbishop Chichele, 
who opened the session, paid a tribute of praise to 
the late King, and turned to dwell on the task of 
^completion which lay before the infant sovereign, 

\ x Stubbs, iii, 96 n. 3 ; Vickers, Gloucester, pp. 110, 111. 
a Proceedings, iii, 7. 


" already King of England and of France," for the 
afflicted King of France, Charles VI, had died in 
October. The primate pleaded for the support of 
parliament. The King, he said, would need the help 
of wise counsellors such as Jethro urged Moses to 
seek in his task of ruling Israel, and these counsellors 
should be drawn from each estate of the realm. 1 
Such was the forecast which the good primate was 
permitted or instructed to give of coming events. 
Parliament confirmed the previous acts of the council, 
and assented to the reappointment of the chief officers 
of the crown ; and then the question of the regency 
came up for final settlement. Gloucester had been 
pressing his claim on the double ground of his birth 
and of the late King's will. The rolls of parliament 
of 1422 give merely the formal documents which 
record the results of the discussion. But a vivid light 
is thrown on the proceedings of 1422 by the answer 
made by the lords in the session of 1427-8 to a demand 
which Gloucester then made for a definition of his 
powers as protector. They reminded him pertinently 
of the settlement of 1422. " Whereupon the lords 
spiritual and temporal assembled in parliament (i.e., 
in 1422), among the which were my lords your uncles, 
the Bishop of Winchester that now liveth, and the 
Duke of Exeter, and your cousin Earl of March that 
be gone to God, and of Warwick, and other in great 
number that now live, had great and long delibera- 
tion and advice, searched precedents of the governail 
of the land in time and case semblable, when kings 
of this land have been tender of age, took also informa- 
tion of the laws of the land, of such persons as be 
notably learned therein, and finally found your said 
desire nought caused nor grounded in precedent, nor 
1 Rot. Pari., iv, 169. 


in the law of the land ; the which the King that dead 
is, in his life ne might by his last will nor otherwise 
alter, change nor abroge, without the assent of the 
three estates, nor commit or grant to any person 
governance or rule of this land longer than he lived ; 
but on that other behalf the said lords found your said 
desire not according with the laws of this land, and 
against the right and freedom of the estates of the 
same land. How were it, that it be not thought that 
any such thing wittingly proceeded of your intent. 
And nevertheless to keep peace and tranquillity, and 
to the intent to ease and appease you, it was advised 
and appointed by authority of the King, assenting 
the three estates of this land, that ye in absence of 
my lord your brother of Bedford should be chief of 
the King's council, and devised therefore unto you a 
name different from other councillors, not the name 
of tutor, lieutenant, governor nor of regent, nor no 
name that should import authority of governance of 
the land, but the name of protector and defensor, 
the which importeth a personal duty of intendance 
to the actual defence of the land, as well against the 
enemies outward, if case required, as against rebels 
inward, if any were, that God forbid ; granting you 
certain power, the which is specified and contained 
in an act of the said parliament, it to endure as long 
as it liked the King." 1 To this appointment, 
remarked the lords of 1428, Gloucester agreed at the 
time on his own behalf, with a saving clause on behalf 
of any rights that Bedford might claim in the 
government of England. 

Gloucester's powers thus defined, and his subordina- The 
tion to Bedford fixed, the next step was the nomina- Council of 
tion of the council which was to be the supreme Regency * 

1 Rot. Pari., iv, 326. 


governor of the realm. Gloucester's name headed 
the list as " chief of the council " ; then came five 
prelates, Canterbury, London, Winchester, Norwich, 
and Worcester ; the Duke of Exeter and the Earls 
of March, Warwick, Northumberland, Westmoreland, 
and the Earl Marshal ; two barons and three com- 
moners. It was a strong council, but it was none 
the less cautious. Its members only accepted office 
on conditions which left the protector less power than 
ever. Parliament had already reserved the greater 
ecclesiastical benefices for the joint disposal of pro- 
tector and council. The council were now to have the 
appointment of all officers of justice and revenue, 
" saved always and reserved to my lords of Bedford 
and Gloucester all that longeth unto them by a special 
act made in parliament, and to the Bishop of 
Winchester that that he hath granted him by our 
sovereign lord that last was . . . and by authority 
of parliament confirmed." They were also to have 
the disposal of wardships, ferms, marriages, and other 
privileges of the crown. A quorum of six or four was 
to be required in any matter, a majority of the whole 
council in any great matter ; the advice of Bedford 
or Gloucester in any matter usually requiring the 
consent of the King. Officials of the Treasury were 
to swear that " for no friendship they should make 
no man privy but the lords of the council, what the 
King hath within his treasure " ; and the clerk of 
the council was to record daily the names of all 
councillors present, " to see what, how and by whom 
anything passe th." 1 
Relations The details of the situation thus created are of 

between importance in judging of the conflict between 

Gloucester Gloucester and Beaufort in the autumn of 1425, which 


Beaufort. ■ Rot. Pari., iv, 176. 


turned in part upon the powers of the protectorship. 
Meanwhile the situation of 1422 itself is of importance 
in the history of Beaufort. It has been said that 
" the influence of Bishop Beaufort may be confidently 
traced" 1 in the act of parliament which conferred 
and limited the protectorship. The lords of 1428 
certainly placed the two Beauforts first among those 
who were prominent in 1422, though of course there 
was only one other lord who could have been men- 
tioned first, and that was the peaceful Primate 
Chichele. But the evidence of the chronicler Hardy ng 
is positive, if it may be accepted. When Gloucester, 
he says, claimed the guardianship of the little King, 

The Bishop of Winchester it withstood, 
With all the lords there whole of his assent ; 

and when Gloucester pressed his claim of blood to 
the regency, 

The bishop aye withstood all his intent, 

That chancellor was by fifth King Henry made, 

And so forth stood and in the office bade . . . 

For cause he (Gloucester) was so noyous with to deal 

And office would he have and governance ; 

Wherefore they made him for the common weal 

Protector of the realm by ordinance. 2 

The bishop's attitude has been severely criticised. 
It has been suggested that the " conciliar govern- 
ment " for which he took his stand " meant his own 
preponderance in the kingdom " ; that it was the 
" ingenuity " of the Beaufort party which persuaded 
the lords to see in Henry's last instructions " an 
infringement of their rights " ; that " the whole thing 
was a party move and cannot be construed as a vote 
of no confidence in the Duke of Gloucester." 3 There 

1 Stubbs, iii, 100. 

2 Hardyng, p. 391. 

8 Vickers, pp. 113, 114. 


is much truth in the suggestion that the conflict 
between Beaufort and Gloucester was as yet a 
political question and not the personal rivalry that 
it became largely in 1425 and later. But it is probable 
that the political objections of 1422 owed the urgency 
with which they were pressed by the Beaufort party 
to the known or suspected character of Gloucester 
as a man. It is hard to imagine that his reckless 
blunders or worse in the next few years were a 
revelation of a new side in a hitherto satisfactory 
personality. It is hard to believe that the same 
objections would have been pressed at all or at any 
rate as persistently if the claimant had been Bedford, 
whom Beaufort seems to have trusted and supported 
as the executor of the late King's policy at home and 
abroad. In any case, Beaufort ought to have full 
credit for the fact that the council, a body " in which 
every interest was represented and every honoured 
name appears," x and also the lords and the parliament 
as a whole went with him at this crisis. Such a fact 
is inconsistent with the theory of a mainly personal 
motive such as the desire of predominance in council 
and parliament . Chichele ' s forecast of the representa- 
tive character of the council in his speech in parlia- 
ment may perhaps have been prompted by the danger 
of an unchecked protectorate as much as by the 
danger of a discontented parliament. The real 
difficulty of the historian lies in the absence of any 
certain indication of Bedford's view of the situation. 
On October 26th he wrote to the mayor and aldermen 
of London intimating that he understood that the 
supreme authority was his by custom as eldest brother 
of the late and next in succession to the present King, 
and urging them not to ignore or injure his claim, 
1 Stubbs, iii, 101. 


which, he protested, was intended in his country's 
interests and not in his own. 1 It is difficult to 
determine whether this letter was prompted by 
distrust of his brother or by suspicion of Beaufort. 
The same difficulty attaches to the interpretation of 
an undated draft of an agreement or alliance between 
Bedford and his brother of Gloucester which is pre- 
served among the letters of Bekynton, chancellor of 
Gloucester's household. 2 In this document, to which 
the widowed Queen Katharine was to be a party, 
stress is laid upon the necessity of concord between 
princes in a state, and upon the wisdom of strengthen- 
ing the natural bond of friendship by a civil contract. 
The two parties pledge themselves to be loyal to the 
King and to each other, to watch and not to assist 
each other's enemies, to believe no accusations but 
to seek an explanation from the accused party, and 
to make no alliance or friendship without mutual 
consent. The date of this proposed alliance is 
all-important. If it is to be placed in 1422, the 
omission of Beaufort's name might justly be taken 
" as indicating a common suspicion of the ambitious 
projects of their aspiring uncle," and perhaps of an 
attempt on his part to sow dissension between the 
two brothers. The pledge to make no independent 
alliance might be a warning of Bedford's in advance 
against Gloucester's temptation in the direction of 
Jacqueline and Hainault ; but it might equally well 
have been suggested to Bedford at a later date by the 
difficulties which had resulted from Gloucester's 
continental excursion. It has been suggested that 
Bedford was " in the hands of Beaufort " early in 

1 Vickers, p. 112. 
™ 2 ?it Y ^S n ' LetteyS ' f * 139 " 145 ; Stubbs ' ^ 1°5 I Vickers, 

pp. 11/, 1 lo. 


1426, and would not be likely to make such an 
alliance with his brother at that time. Bedford was 
never in the hands of Beaufort. It is true, on the 
other hand, that on the whole he was on the side of 
Beaufort early in 1426, and it is quite possible that 
this alliance was an attempt of Bedford's to bring 
home the lessons of that crisis to Gloucester, and to 
assure him of support on condition of his continued 
good behaviour. 
Beaufort's The charge of private ambition or personal jealousy 
policy. in the movement of 1422 remains unproven against 

Beaufort. It is probable that neither was entirely 
absent ; it is improbable that either was the dominant 
motive. His policy, whether of limiting the protec- 
torate or of restraining Gloucester, was in the main an 
honest policy conceived in the interests of the nation. 
If the Beauforts had been regarded by Henry V as 
likely to hold the balance, it was probably because 
" he knew that while to the actual holders of sovereign 
power their personal interests are apt to be the first 
consideration, to a house in the position of the 
Beauforts," of semi-royal blood yet of no independent 
position, " the first object is the preservation of the 
dynasty." 1 A strong council at home seemed to 
Beaufort and the barons who stood with him the 
one need of the nation during the King's infancy, 
while the strong man of the royal house was working 
to win and keep the new realm abroad. Yet their 
suspicion of the possibilities of the protectorate in 
the hands of Gloucester led them perhaps too far. 
Restriction at every turn in affairs at home drove him 
to seek an outlet for his energies in foreign ambitions 
which imperilled the interests of England, and forced 
him when he was at home into a policy of agitation 
1 Stubbs, iii, 97. 



or at least into an attitude of hostility, the first stage 
of the faction that broke later into civil war. Con- 
sequences of this kind were too remote and indirect 
to be foreseen by his opponents in 1422, and cannot 
be laid to their charge. Yet Shakespeare, unhistorical 
as he was in detail and in chronology, was right in 
principle in tracing the thread of the Wars of the Roses 
back into the early part of the reign of Henry VI. 

From January to July, 1423, the council met with Financial 
great regularity. Minutes are recorded for seventeen 
of the twenty-eight days of February. x Its business 
was mainly concerned with finance and local adminis- 
tration. Ample provision was made for Gloucester's 
expenses. His salary was fixed at 8,000 marks, the 
usual salary of the regents of the last reign. Mean- 
while difficulties had arisen with regard to the late 
King's will. Dismayed perhaps by their liabilities, 
the executors to whom the late King's personal 
property had been assigned in the parliament of 1422 
refused to discharge their duties. The supervisors 
of the will were Gloucester, Exeter, and the Bishops 
of Winchester and Durham, the latter being now 
chancellor, and they dealt with the matter in council. 
Those of the executors who were members of the 
council agreed to administer to a limited amount, 
and the remainder of the executors one by one con- 
sented to act with them. On the same day, February 
15th, the question of the Bishop of Winchester's loans 
came before the council. The question had appar- 
ently been raised whether the prior claim upon the 
customs which the late King had given the bishop was 
not in conflict with the last parliamentary grant 
of a subsidy for the defence of the realm. It was 
now decided with the advice of the justices and 

1 Proceedings, iii, 23-45. 

9 — (2210) 


sergeants-at-law that the concession of such security 
was not contrary to the act of parliament, since the 
bishop's loan was expended in the defence of the 
realm ; and the treasurer was further instructed to 
issue bills to the chancery authorising the bishop 
to appoint one customs-officer in every port to watch 
over his interests. 

On February 22nd the bishop received two tallies 
for £2,000 in exchange for those which had been given 
him by the treasurer by order of the late King and 
which had expired with the King's death. The 
old tallies were now returned to the treasurer, and new 
ones issued for the payment of the same sum by the 
collectors of the subsidy on wools, hides, and leather 
in the port of London. The debt secured by these 
tallies was part of the last loan for £3,000 made by 
the bishop to Henry V when he sailed from Dover in 
The A much more important matter came before the 

Council of i or d s f the council that same day. The Council of 
Constance had decided that a general council should 
be summoned at the end of five years, and the council 
had been duly summoned to meet at Pavia in 1423. 
The English privy council appointed the Bishops of 
Winchester and Worcester, the Earl of Northumber- 
land and four other laymen along with a doctor of 
divinity and a doctor of laws "to go oversea on an 
embassy of the King to attend the general council 
at Pavia, as it is called," and the next day the council 
issued a commission for the Bishops of Lincoln and 
Chichester and the Prior of Sullac in Aquitaine, who 
were " to go oversea to the court " (i.e., of Rome) to 
demand for Henry VFs French representatives the 
place of honour " due to him in virtue of his realm of 
France," which took precedence of the realm of 



England. There is no record, however, of Beaufort's 
journey to the council or of his doings there. 
Letters of protection were issued in March to William 
Brugges, garter king-at-arms, going to Rome on the 
King's service in the retinue of the Bishop of Win- 
chester, and similar letters to Sir Henry Hase going 
in the bishop's retinue to the general council. The 
council met at Pa via, but was driven by an epidemic 
to migrate in August to Sienna, and was finally dis- 
solved there by the Pope in March, 1424. But Beaufort 
was in attendance at the privy council in England till 
its last meeting on July 18th, and was present at its 
next series of meetings from October 21st onwards. 
Moreover John Whethamstede, Abbot of St. Albans, 
who went to Pavia in March, 1423, as one of the twelve 
delegates of convocation, and returned in February, 
1424, seems to have seen and heard nothing of the 
Bishop of Winchester. The Bishop of Lincoln was 
there, using the opportunity to hold forth against the 
iniquity of allowing religious communities to claim 
exemption from diocesan jurisdiction ; the Bishop of 
Chichester brought the abbot on his sick bed an 
indulgence from the Pope ; and the Bishop of Carlisle 
was president of the English " nation " at the council 
when the poor abbot on the eve of his departure 
called to see him, and asked his support for the cause 
of St. Albans and its order. 1 Beaufort may have 
paid a flying visit to the council at Sienna or to the 
Pope at Rome between July and October, but it has 
left no trace in history. It is possible that he realised 
beforehand the futility of the council, and occupied 
himself elsewhere. The King's delegates had been 
given letters of commission to the princes of Germany, 
and Beaufort may have been exerting himself to bring 
1 Chron. Mon. S. Alb., i, 142, 150, 181. 



of Bedford 




Sigismund and his vassals into action against the 
rival King of France, Charles VII. More probably 
he stayed at home to watch Gloucester. There are 
no traces of any conflict between the two at the privy 
council up to July. But there may have been danger 
in the atmosphere. 

The parliament which was opened by Gloucester in 
October, 1423 (under a special commission as in 1422), 
had an eventful as well as a long session. In certain 
of its transactions Beaufort and Gloucester were 
content to give and take. The bishop, with other 
creditors of the crown, was given security to the extent 
of 20,000 marks for loans recently made or yet to be 
made, of which the bishop himself lent 18,000 marks ; 
and he was now repaid the last instalment of the loan 
of £14,000 which he had advanced in 1421. Glouces- 
ter's wife was naturalised, and Bedford's wife also. 
It was a strange conjunction. Bedford's wife was the 
pious and lovable Anne, sister of the Duke of Bur- 
gundy, whose betrothal in June, 1423, was the seal of 
a formal alliance between her brother and her future 
husband made at Amiens in April. Gloucester, 
" either blinded with ambition or doting for love," 1 
had married the wayward Jacqueline, though her 
existing marriage to John of Brabant was yet un- 
annulled by papal authority, and the new marriage 
spelt defiance to the Duke of Burgundy. 

Another strange conjunction was the coupling of 
the names of Beaufort and Gloucester in the discredit- 
able story of Sir John Mortimer's end. 2 Mortimer 
was the cousin of the Earl of March, who had inherited 
the rival claim to the English throne. Mortimer 
himself was a prisoner in the Tower, on a yet untried 

1 Hall, p. 116. 

* Kingsford, Chron. Lond., pp. 282, 283. 


suspicion of treason, and on February 23rd was 
detected in a second attempt at escape. A gaoler 
who was supposed to have assisted him in the attempt 
told the special jury, on February 25th, an extra- 
ordinary tale. Mortimer, he said, had avowed his 
intention to lead his cousin the earl into revolt in 
Wales, or failing this, for his cousin " was but a daw," 
he intended to claim the crown as his cousin's heir, 
and to appeal to the Dauphin of France to invade 
England. " He said he would fear (i.e., terrify) 
the Duke of Gloucester and smite off his head and all 
the lords' heads ; and specially the bishop's head of 
Winchester, for Mortimer would play with his money." 
The Earl of March was probably innocent of this plot, 
but he was in disgrace at the time. He was appar- 
ently quite content to serve the Lancastrian dynasty, 
but he had excited Gloucester's suspicion by attending 
this very parliament with a large retinue, and the 
council had ordered him off to his lieutenancy in 
Ireland, where he died a few months later. Mortimer 
was given short shrift. A special act of parliament 
was passed on February 26th for this occasion to 
convert escape into treason, and he died a traitor's 
death at Tyburn that same day. " Of whose death 
no small slander arose," says Hall, " amongst the 
common people." It is not even certain whether the 
gaoler was an accomplice of Mortimer or of the 
authorities. The guilt of Mortimer's murder, if not 
of the alleged plot, lies between Gloucester and the 
Beauforts. Either together or singly they could have 
stayed the lords from this crime. Whether the 
motive was a cowardly desire for personal revenge 
on a man who was said to have threatened their lives 
and fortunes, or perhaps rather a less ugly anxiety 
" to avoid things that might chance " in the way of 



nance of 
the Privy 

civil war, remains a mystery. It was a futile wrong 
if it was meant to save the house of Lancaster. The 
heir to the wealth and the claim of March was his 
nephew, Richard of York, thirty years later the 
victor of the battle of St. Albans in the War of the 

The rift meanwhile between Gloucester and the 
council was widening rather than closing. The coun- 
cil was reappointed and enlarged, and new rules were 
framed for its procedure which seem to describe 
Gloucester as at once a colleague and an opponent, 
and to contemplate him in particular even where 
he is not mentioned by name. " My lord of Glouces- 
ter ne none other man of the council . . . shall no 
favour grant neither in bills of right ne of office ne of 
benefice that longeth to the council," but shall refer 
all petitions to the council as a whole. It was declared 
to be " too great a shame that into strange countries 
our sovereign lord shall write his letters by the advice 
of his council . . . and singular persons of the council 
to write the contrary," — apparently an allusion to 
Gloucester's independent action in the question of 
Hainault. The council reserved to itself the right to 
withhold from the courts of common law any case in 
which " unmight " was pitted against " too great 
might " ; and a law officer of the crown was assigned 
to act without payment on behalf of poor suitors. 
The last paragraph of these regulations in the acts of 
the council was omitted in the rolls of parliament ; 
it was a resolution that in any case of dispute between 
members of the council the judgment of the rest of 
the council must be final. " This ordinance above- 
said to keep my lord of Gloucester openly assured in 
his own person to all the remnant of my lords." 
Exeter was absent, but the Bishop of Winchester 


signed next to the primate. The whole series of 
ordinances was a victory for the council. * 

The most important event of the session was the Marriage 
release of the King of Scots, 2 who had spent seventeen "jf f 
of his thirty years in England in a captivity which the King 
had been monotonous rather than miserable. Twice °* Scots, 
he had been taken to France in the retinue of Henry V, 
probably to put the Scots in the French service into 
the position of traitors. He had made friends in 
England, and had lately found a sweetheart. Henry V 
had contemplated his release in 1421, and the council 
now considered the matter ripe for settlement. 
England apparently stood to gain in every way by the 
return of James I to his own realm. If reminiscences 
of English friendships did not keep him at peace 
with England, the anarchy of his own realm might 
keep him at work in Scotland. His ransom would 
be a welcome accession to the impoverished treasury ; 
his influence might recall the Scots from the service 
of the Dauphin. The council instructed the English 
envoys in July, 1423, to ask for a ransom of £40,000, 
which was to be described as the repayment of the 
expenses of the King's maintenance at the English 
court, to press for a truce with a view to a perpetual 
peace, to require the withdrawal of the Scottish troops 
from France, or at least a promise to send no more 
during the expected truce, and to suggest the possi- 
bility of a marriage with some English lady of noble 
or royal birth. The agreement was concluded at 
York in September. The Scotch consented to pay 
the £40,000 in six yearly instalments, to give no further 
assistance to the French forces, and to send envoys 
to London in October in pursuance of the proposal 

1 Proceedings, iii, 148-152. 

2 Ramsay, i, 336-339, 344, 345. 


for an English marriage. No name was mentioned, 
but the name was not unknown. The lady was 
Joan Beaufort, daughter of the late Earl of Somerset, 
and niece of the Bishop of Winchester. Readers of 
old literature will remember the stanzas of The King's 
Quhair, in which the poet-king tells how he looked 
down from his chamber at Windsor one May day in 
1423 and saw her walking under the tower, 

The fairest or the freshest young floure 
That ever I sawe methoght before that houre, 

and how 

Onely through latting of myn eyen fall, 
That sudaynly my hert became hir thrall 
For ever of free wyll ; for of manace (menace) 
There was no takyn (token) in hir suete face. 

The marriage took place while the details of the 
liberation were yet being arranged. The council 
treated James handsomely. They gave him 200 
marks for his bridegroom's outfit and £24 for a piece 
of cloth of gold, and on his wedding day, February 
13th, 1424, presented him with the first instalment 
of his " expenses," which fell due that day, as a dowry 
for his bride. The two lovers were married in the 
church of St. Mary Overy, Southwark, probably by 
the bride's uncle, for after the wedding " great 
solemnity and feast was holden in the. bishop's inn 
of Winchester," 1 Beaufort's palace near the church. 
The final settlement took place at Durham on March 
28th. Scottish hostages were given for the payment 
of the ransom ; a truce for seven years was sealed ; 
and James undertook to keep in order the Scots now 
serving in France as soon as they came back to 
Scotland. In May James was crowned at Scone. 

1 Kingsford, Chron. Lond., p. 282. 


In 1440 Gloucester made this Scottish alliance one Glouces- 
of his grievances against the bishop. * (1) He ter s t 
complained that the terms on which the bishop i n I440# 
released the King were " presumed to be done by 
authority of parliament, where indeed I have heard 
full notable men of the lower house say that they 
never heard of it amongst them." This charge is hard 
to reconcile with the facts of the case. On November 
21st, 1423, a deputation of the commons waited upon 
the upper house to thank Gloucester and the other 
lords for their services in carrying through the 
preliminary treaty of September, and to ask them 
to hasten the conclusion of the matter. On January 
28th parliament authorised commissioners to com- 
plete the arrangements. On February 14th the 
council gave its instructions to the final embassy 
which settled the last details. It is evident from the 
special reference to his name in November that 
Gloucester was largely responsible for the early stages 
of the negotiations. His charge against Beaufort 
must therefore relate to the details of the later stages. 
Here again it was not the bishop, but the council who 
laid down the final terms of negotiation. If Beaufort 
was responsible for their origination, the council was 
responsible for their approval. Gloucester's temper 
must have deranged his memory. Twice in this one 
paragraph he described the bishop pointedly as 
" then being chancellor of England." Beaufort did 
not succeed the Bishop of Durham in the chancellor- 
ship until July, 1424, five months after the Scottish 
marriage. (2) Gloucester complained that this ar- 
rangement " was to great defraudation " of the King's 
highness. He mentioned separately the remission 
of 10,000 marks of the stipulated " costs." But it is 
1 Stevenson, Wars in France, ii, 444. 


hard to see what " defraudation " there was in the 
terms of the treaty apart from this remission. The 
ambassadors, it is true, only secured a truce, not a 
peace, but the council had distinctly admitted in 
their instructions that a peace was too difficult an 
achievement to anticipate. (3) Gloucester asserted 
that the matter was arranged by Beaufort " all to 
wed his niece to the said King." It is true that the 
silence about the name of the lady in the early 
negotiations seems at first sight open to the suspicion 
that the Beauforts wished to get the marriage safely 
through without comment. But it is more probable 
that the ambassadors of July, 1423, gave the true 
explanation of the silence when they remarked that 
" English ladies are not wont to offer themselves in 
marriage." It was as genuine a love-match as can 
be found in royal annals. No doubt the pardonable 
ambition of the Beauforts welcomed the discovery of 
the romance. Possibly it was even utilised by them 
to bribe James into acceding to the English terms. 
But the idea that the treaty was subservient to the 
marriage in the purpose of the council is untenable 
in view of the fact that the release of James had been 
contemplated for two years before he saw his future 
bride. (4) Gloucester's last point of attack was the 
fact that " of the great sum he hath paid you right 
little." This was true enough. The Scottish mar- 
riage was disappointing to all parties in England. 
Little more than £6,000 of the £40,000 came to the 
English treasury. This fact, however, may indicate 
rather that the sum fixed was exorbitant than that 
James was let off cheaply. Each instalment of the 
ransom (one-sixth) was equal to two years' gross 
revenue of the Scottish realm. But the non-payment 
of the ransom was the least serious grievance. 


The stream of Scottish auxiliaries ceased indeed to Disap- 
flow to the standard of the French King. Violations JEjJjjJ^f 
of the truce on the Border were neither frequent nor the 
serious, nor all on the northern side. Yet the marriage, 
situation was precarious. In 1428 James promised 
to give his infant daughter in marriage to the Dauphin, 
and to send a Scottish army to France, in return for 
which the French were to cede to him territory in 
Saintonge. The army was not sent, but the little 
princess Margaret went at last in 1436, and was 
married to the Dauphin early in 1437. Her father's 
murder in that same year left Scotland under a regency 
which had too much work at home to do any more for 
France. Still Gloucester or any Englishman looking 
back in 1440 might well consider a bare truce on the 
Border a poor result of the Scottish marriage of 1424 ; 
and the Beauforts must have felt keenly the disap- 
pointment of all their hopes. Yet they could scarcely 
be blamed for the policy prompted by those hopes. 
They made a bid — a costly bid, Gloucester thought 
after the event had made him wise — for peace in the 
North and advantage across the Channel. They 
could hardly foresee that even a beloved English wife 
would fail to win her Scottish husband from the 
traditional policy of his house. 


tenure of 

ter's claim 
to Hainault 



On July 16th, 1424, Beaufort became chancellor for 
the third time. The explanation of his appointment 
depends upon the question whether it was Bedford 
or Gloucester who was responsible for the change of 
ministry. It may have been a precaution on Bed- 
ford's part to put " a check upon the vagaries of his 
brother/' 1 or it may have been a compromise on 
Gloucester's part to secure the bishop's acquiescence 
in his action in the matter of Jacqueline's inheritance. 
The problem of Hainault was becoming acute. 
Gloucester had considered the dispensation of the 
old anti-Pope Benedict warrant enough for his 
marriage, but Burgundy was still indignant and 
obstinate in his threat of war in the event of Glouces- 
ter's intrusion into Hainault. Bedford tried hard to 
mediate between the two. Burgundy's support was 
indispensable to the English regent in France ; but 
Gloucester was reckless of this consideration, and his 
case against the legality of Jacqueline's marriage with 
the Duke of Brabant was too strong to be ignored. 
Nothing short of a papal bull would convince Bur- 
gundy, and Bedford urged the Pope to settle the 
question soon, but urged in vain. Meanwhile 
Gloucester turned impatiently to the sword to cut 
the knot. The English council had been warned 
that an invasion of Hainault meant war with Bur- 
gundy and disaster to the English cause in France. 
The letter in which this warning was contained has 
1 Stubbs, iii, 103. 



been attributed to Beaufort ; it was more probably a 
message from the loyal University of Paris conveyed 
to the council through Beaufort. * Gloucester, how- 
ever, sailed with Jacqueline for Hainault on October 
16th. It was an anxious time for Bedford, whose 
victories at Cravant in 1423 and at Verneuil in 
August, 1424, seemed now on the point of being 
wasted. Beaufort was no less anxious, and was kept 
informed of the progress of the expedition by an 
unknown correspondent on the spot. 2 It ended in 
failure and dishonour, and in April, 1425, Gloucester 
returned to England, leaving his wife to fall into the 
hands of Burgundy, and transferred his affections 
to her lady-in-waiting, Eleanor Cobham. 

Meanwhile the government of England had been The 
practically in the hands of the chancellor for five j or t" ce " 
months from October, 1424. On February 23rd, services 
1425, the council voted him a special salary of 2,000 and salary, 
marks in addition to his ordinary income as chan- 
cellor and councillor. The reasons assigned for the 
grant were (1) his near relationship to the King, 
(2) the heavy labour and expenditure which he had 
already sustained in discharge of his office " and 
apparently would have to sustain in the future " 
during the absence of the Dukes of Bedford and 
Gloucester, and (3) the fact that the chancellor 
11 always had been and was now very generous in 
advancing money and in divers other services for the 
King and the preservation of his realms of France and 
England." 3 The grant was to cease on the return 
of either duke, and no future chancellor was to rely 
upon the grant as a precedent. Beaufort was in fact 

1 Vickers, p. 131. 

2 Stevenson, Wars in France, ii, 396-400, 409. 

3 Proceedings, iii, 165. 




in Council 

making a new series of loans to the crown. In 
December he lent £1,000, in March £4,000, and in 
June £3,900 ; of the £20,000 for which parliament now 
gave security to the bishop and other creditors, 
£11,032 16s. Id., to be precise, represented the 
bishop's share. There is no such emphatic evidence 
of extraordinary labour. Only eleven meetings of 
the council are recorded for the winter of 1424-5. 
These minutes, however, cannot have represented the 
whole of the administrative work of the chancellor, 
who was now practically vice-protector of the realm. 
The country was apparently quiet, but there was 
trouble in the city, partly industrial, partly political, 
perhaps the first muttering of the storm which burst 
in the autumn. 

Beaufort and the council evidently contemplated 
the possibility of a long absence of Gloucester. The 
French chroniclers say that when he returned in 
April the council was not sparing in its criticism of 
his recent proceedings in Hainault. Beaufort may 
have spoken his mind, but the protest, if made, must 
have been overborne. The only reference to Glouces- 
ter in the acts of the council is the resolution of May 
22nd which granted him the custody of the lands of 
the late Earl of March, which were now in the 
possession of the crown during the minority of the 
earl's heir, the Duke of York. l The rolls of parliament 
contain yet fuller evidence of the influence which 
Gloucester still retained. The session was opened 
by Beaufort on April 30th in the presence of the little 
King. The chancellor's text was unsuggestive, 
" Glory and honour and peace to every one that 
worketh good," and its application general and vague. 
He dwelt upon the three kinds of good, the obedience 

1 Proceedings, iii, 169. 


of subjects, the wisdom of councillors, the financial 
support due to King and realm. There may perhaps 
be a subtle reference to Gloucester in the quotation 
under the head of obedience, " obey your masters, 
not only the good but also the froward," — or to the 
danger of individual predominance in the quotation 
under the head of counsel, " safety in the multitude 
of counsellors." The latter text was made the basis 
of a quaint comparison between the ideal counsellor 
and an elephant. The elephant " is without gall, 
inflexible, and of great memory." So, too, a coun- 
sellor must be free from hatred and bitterness, rigid 
in refusing bribe or favour, and thoughtful alike of 
past, present, and future. Perhaps the hearers were 
meant to contrast certain great counsellors whom 
they knew, but they were given no further guidance 
in the application of the simile. Finally, the chan- 
cellor pointed to the victories of the last two years 
as proofs of the good hand of God over the young 
King. * But whatever Beaufort may have thought or 
wished, parliament showed itself kind to Gloucester. 
It decided the dispute for precedence between the 
Earl Marshal and the Earl of Warwick in favour of 
the Earl Marshal, who had commanded Gloucester's 
troops in Hainault ; 2 it forbade the duel to which 
Burgundy had challenged Gloucester, and committed 
" the personal quarrel and debate " between the two 
to the arbitration of Bedford and the Dowager Queens 
of England and France ; 3 and it compensated Glouces- 
ter for any touch of disappointment in this prohibition 
or for any annoyance at the decision of parliament to 
negotiate with Burgundy for the release of " my 

1 Rot. Pari, iv, 261. 

2 Rot. Pari., iv, 262-274. 

3 Rot. Pari., iv, 277. 









lady's person of Gloucester M by granting in July a 
petition of the commons which in the face of a deficit 
of £20,000 in the treasury recommended a loan of 
20,000 marks in four yearly instalments to meet " the 
diverse necessities " of the King's " bel uncle of 
Gloucester," and suggested that the lords of the 
council should give the necessary security for the 
loan. * 

The relations between Beaufort and Gloucester 
during the earlier part of 1425 are obscure. It is 
possible that both had much to say, and said it. 
Rolls of parliament and acts of council are sometimes 
as studiously silent on the personal relations of states- 
men as chroniclers are gratuitously explanatory of 
their motives. There is nothing improbable in the 
conjecture that Beaufort resented the early termina- 
tion of his quasi-protectorship by Gloucester's return, 
or found it hard to slip back quietly into a secondary 
position on the council ; or in the suggestion that 
Beaufort commented upon the policy and strategy of 
the campaign in Hainault, and that Gloucester 
" retaliated by an attack upon the bishop's adminis- 
tration during his absence." The official records from 
April to July show no sign of such a collision, but the 
sequel proves that a crisis was even then impending. 
When the crisis came, it was evident that the relations 
of the two men had moved a long step further for the 
worse. Questions of policy, details of administration 
were still the casus belli. But it is a true estimate of 
the case to say that " it was about this time that the 
struggle between the two chief men in the kingdom 
passed from the stage of political rivalry to that of 
personal competition." 2 

1 Rot. Pari., iv, 289. 

2 Vickers, p. 164. 


The enmity between protector and chancellor did Beaufort's 
not break into open conflict until October, 1425, but Jiy P ^ ular " 
already in February the chancellor had made enemies London, 
in London. On the night of February 14th " were 
cast many bills in the city and in the suburbs again 
the Flemings, and some were set in the bishop's gate 
of Winchester and in other bishops' gates." 1 Next 
morning, the chronicler adds, the bishop sent Sir His 
Richard Wydeville " to keep the Tower of London ^ r £ s e ° ning 
with men of arms as though it had been in the land of Tower, 
war," and the Tower remained so garrisoned until the 
end of October. The acts of the council on February 
26th contain a resolution to entrust the custody of 
the Tower of London during the King's pleasure to 
Richard Wydeville, knight, chamberlain of the Duke 
of Bedford, " on account of certain urgent causes then 
moving them and certain imminent dangers." The 
seriousness of the situation is proved by the fact that 
Wydeville was authorised to use his own discretion as 
to the number of men-at-arms and archers required, 
and to make his own arrangements with the treasurer 
for their payment. If the chronicler's date, February 
15th, is correct, the garrisoning of the Tower was the 
action of the chancellor, who, in the absence of 
Gloucester, was practically acting as chief councillor 
and virtual protector. Gloucester's absence makes 
it plain that the chancellor's action in the matter 
of the Tower, though it became in a few months a 
casus belli between himself and Gloucester, was in the 
first instance honestly prompted by his fear of an 
anti-foreign riot in the city. It was a bold stretch 
of his authority, but the council by sanctioning the 
step showed that it shared his alarm. The other 
councillors present on the 26th were the Archbishop 
1 Gregory, p. 158. 

io— (2210) 


of Canterbury, the Bishops of London, Worcester, and 
Bath (the treasurer), the keeper of the privy seal, and 
Lords Cromwell, Scrope, Tiptoft and Hungerford. 
The prelates were possibly the " other bishops " 
whose London houses had been placarded like the 
chancellor's, evidently because they had supported the 
policy against which the placards were a protest. It 
would be precarious to build any theory on the absence 
of the greater lay lords on the 26th, for they were 
absent from the council on the 23rd and 25th also, 
when altogether different business was on hand. 
There is no doubt, however, that the chancellor acted 
with a high hand. The chronicler's dates are vague, 
but somewhere in " that same year," and probably 
before Gloucester's return in April, " there were many 
worthy men of London appeached of treason by a false 
boy Peloure by excitacion of the Bishop of Winchester, 
as many men noised and said, ' ' though the good citizen 
adds, " if it were true or not, I remit me to God." 1 
The same happened in other towns also, Leicester, 
Winchester, Canterbury, Exeter, Bristol, Coventry, 
York ; evidently the anti-alien movement was 
gaining ground in other commercial centres. But 
it was in London that the chancellor took the severest 
measures. He sent to Windsor for most of the 
retinue of the King's household, and ordered the 
prentices of the Inns of Court to Westminster, " and 
there they come in their best array " ; and then he 
summoned the mayor and aldermen, and " arrested 
many worthy men of the city." The grievance of 
the merchants found expression in the parliament 
His which met in April. There " was much altercation 

commer- between the lords and the commons for tonnage and 
cial policy. p 0Un dage." Eventually the wool duties from all 
1 Gregory, p. 158. 


merchants, native and foreign, were renewed, and 
tonnage and poundage also from foreign merchants ; 
but the grant of tonnage and poundage from native 
merchants, the first grant of the kind in this reign, 
was only made on condition that " all manner of 
aliens should be put to host as English men been in 
other lands " — i.e., should place themselves at once 
under the roof of a responsible landlord—and sell 
off all their goods within forty days. This condition 
was broken that very year by the Bishop of Win- 
chester, " as the most people said, he being chan- 
cellor the same time," and the violation gave rise to 
"much heaviness and trouble in this land." 1 We 
are not told how he broke the condition, but the 
reference to his chancellorship suggests that perhaps 
he acquitted foreign merchants prosecuted for not 
fulfilling the requirements. His motive in taking such 
a line of action was probably as honest as the action 
itself was fearless. His private interests as the 
greatest wool-merchant of the land might lead him 
rather into co-operation against foreign traders than 
into conflict with English traders. It was probably 
the supreme national interest of the maintenance of 
friendly relations with Burgundy which led him to 
favour the Flemings trading in England, especially at 
a time when those relations were being imperilled by 
Gloucester's proceedings in Hainault. Gloucester's 
name is not mentioned in this matter of the anti- 
Flemish agitation, but it has been suggested that he 
was responsible for the earlier exemption of English 
merchants from tonnage and poundage. He was 
certainly as popular with the commercial magnates Gloucester 
of London as Beaufort was unpopular. There was, f^dustri 
however, an industrial crisis that same year in which Sfcfe, 

1 Gregory, p. 157. 


Gloucester seems to have shown a leaning towards the 
lower classes. Parliament had at the instance of the 
commons passed a statute prohibiting "the annual 
congregations and confederacies made by masons in 
their general chapters and assemblies." These trade- 
unions were combining to defeat the provisions of 
the Statutes of Labourers. 1 The mayor and alder- 
men, in pursuance of the new statute, made certain 
ordinances " against the excessive taking of masons, 
carpenters, tylers, dowbers (i.e., plasterers) and other 
labourers for their daily journeys," and the labourers 
showed their resentment by circulating placards of a 
seditious character in which they threatened to rise 
in their thousands. Beaufort in 1426 complained 
that Gloucester " did not the devoir and diligence 
which it seemed to my said lord the chancellor that he 
might have showed," and in fact allowed the agitation 
to assume a dangerous aspect. 2 The accusation has 
been denied on Gloucester's behalf on the ground 
that the civic authorities, who supported him con- 
sistently, would not have supported him if he had 
disregarded their regulations. Beaufort may of 
course have exaggerated Gloucester's encouragement 
of the agitators ; on the other hand, it is possible that 
Gloucester may have adopted an attitude of non- 
intervention with the view of winning the favour of 
the working classes as far as it could be won without 
losing the support of their employers. 
The Gloucester's main grievance, which led to the final 

struggle conflict, was his exclusion from the Tower. Wydeville 

Tower 6 had strict orders from the chancellor to admit no 

person " stronger than he " without express orders 
from the council ; and after Gloucester's imprudent 

1 Rot. Pari, iv, 292. 

2 Kingsford, Chron. Lond., p. 85. 


interference on behalf of a political prisoner the 
chancellor renewed the instructions with special 
reference to Gloucester by name. At this moment the 
custody of the person of the young King, then at 
Eltham, became a matter of importance and conten- 
tion. Gloucester accused Beaufort of intending to 
take possession of the child ; Beaufort evidently 
expected Gloucester to take the same step. Appar- 
ently either disputant suspected the other of intend- 
ing personal violence. Beaufort collected near his 
palace in Southwark a force of archers from the 
counties of Lancaster and Chester, retainers from 
the royal duchies. Gloucester appealed to his friends 
the mayor and aldermen, whom he had already taught 
to regard the precautions taken at the Tower as an 
insult to the city. The city fathers were dining in 
state on October 29th, the lord mayor's day at that 
time. Gloucester sent for them before the close of 
their banquet, and urged the new mayor " to keep well 
the city that night and make good watch." Next 
morning the northern gate of London Bridge was The 
strongly guarded by order of Gloucester and the mayor. conflict 
The London chronicles are not consistent in detail, London 
but apparently Beaufort's men attempted to force Bridge, 
their way into the city. This move has been regarded 
as an attack upon Gloucester's person, but it was 
probably an attempt to occupy or reinforce the 
Tower. The citizens closed their shops and swarmed 
to the defence of the gate, and Beaufort's men fell 
back and proceeded to fortify the Southwark end of 
the bridge, where the knights and squires and archers 
of his forces drew the chain of the " stulps " (i.e., 
posts), and barricaded the road and garrisoned the 
windows, either to repel an expected attack from the 
citizens or to resist Gloucester's supposed intention of 



appeal to 

making his way to take possession of the young King 
at Eltham. At this stage, however, the primate 
intervened with Peter, Duke of Coimbra and Prince 
of Portugal, a son of Philippa, eldest daughter of 
John of Gaunt, and therefore a nephew of Beaufort 
and a cousin of Gloucester. Eight times on that day 
the two mediators between protector and chancellor 
rode across the bridge before they succeeded in 
removing the danger of actual bloodshed. Then the 
mayor and his aldermen persuaded the people of 
London to go quietly home. The London chroniclers 
are agreed that there was " none harm done through 
all the city." Wavrin, the French chronicler, is 
evidently wrong in his story that Beaufort was penned 
up in the Tower for three days by the violence of 
Gloucester and lost the lives of eight or ten of his 
retinue, — perhaps an echo of a Burgundian and 
therefore anti-Gloucestrian report. On the other 
hand, the impression given by the London chroniclers 
that the whole city came to Gloucester's defence as 
" against the King's enemies " is probably an echo of 
the popularity of the duke. Hall may be nearer the 
truth in describing the shops as shut " for fear of those 
two great personages, for each part had assembled no 
small number of people." The city, moreover, was 
at the mercy of the populace while its authorities and 
its steadier citizens were rallying to Gloucester's side. 

Beaufort wrote a brief message to Bedford the very 
next day, urging him to return at once to England. 
" For, by my troth, if you tarry, we shall put this land 
in adventure with a field. Such a brother you have 
here ; God make him a good man. For your wisdom 
knoweth that the profit of France standeth in the 
welfare of England." 1 Bedford, knowing only too 

1 Hist. MSS. Comm., 5th Report, p. 213. 


well how entirely success in France depended upon 
peace at home, entrusted his command to three 
trusty lieutenants — Warwick, Salisbury, and Suffolk — 
and started for England. Meanwhile Gloucester was 
master of the situation. On November 5th he 
brought the young King to London, and on that same 
day the council consented to lend him 5,000 marks 
to be repaid when the King was fifteen, a loan which 
he promptly spent in sending a small force to Jacque- 
line's aid in Hainault, where it was crushed within two 
months. Bedford landed with his wife on December 
20th, and was met by Beaufort on his way to London. 
The mayor and his citizens escorted the protector — 
for Gloucester was now reduced by his brother's 
presence to his secondary place as chief councillor — 
from Merton to Westminster, where he took up his 
quarters in the King's palace, the duchess and the 
chancellor lodging in the abbey. The mayor and 
citizens presented Bedford with a pair of silver-gilt 
basins containing 1,000 marks, " and yet they had 
but little thank." Bedford's coolness no doubt 
implied disapproval of their recent antagonism to 
the chancellor, and there is no reason to disparage his 
judgment as a mere reflection of the chancellor's 
story of the conflict. 

Parliament had already been summoned to meet Interven- 
on February 18th at Leicester, either because the Bedford 
chancellor was afraid of Gloucester's influence in and the 
London or because the council wished to secure a Counci1 - 
calmer atmosphere. Meanwhile Bedford and the 
council did their best to reconcile the duke and the 
bishop. On J anuary 29th they sent a deputation from 
the council at St. Albans to urge Gloucester to meet 
Beaufort at Northampton on February 13th, when the 
council was to prepare business for the coming 


parliament. The commissioners were to point out to 
Gloucester that the dispute must come before par- 
liament, and had far better be settled before parlia- 
ment met. The duke was to be pressed to withdraw 
his refusal to meet the chancellor. He need not fear 
a riot, for the King's orders would keep the peace, 
and the bishop had promised to restrain his men. 
In fact — they were to tell Gloucester, but only if he 
were still obdurate — the bishop had undertaken to 
reduce his retinue if the duke would do the same. 
" Justice and reason should be duly and indifferently 
ministered " to the duke in " the matters of his 
displeasance and heaviness " against the bishop ; but 
even if he were king it would be unreasonable of him 
to refuse to hear the " answer and excusation "of a 
peer who had offended him. The late King when he 
was Prince of Wales had to meet Archbishop Arundel, 
the chancellor, at a time when there was enmity 
between them. If the duke, however, made his 
attendance at the council conditional upon Beaufort's 
dismissal from the chancellorship, he must be reminded 
that such dismissal would only be reasonable when 
the chancellor had been proved guilty, and that the 
demand for such a dismissal was " too great a taking 
of any subject upon the King and his freedom." 
In any case the duke's presence would be required 
at the parliament at Leicester. Two things are to be 
noticed in these firm and tactful instructions. If 
Beaufort had appealed to Bedford against Gloucester, 
Gloucester had now taken the position of complainant 
against Beaufort, and the council accepted this view 
of the case provisionally. On the other hand, 
Gloucester had put himself in the wrong in refusing 
to face his opponent; There is no need to attribute 


these instructions to Beaufort's influence. They 
evidently represent the judgment of Bedford. 1 

Whether Gloucester came to the council or not, the " TjV 5 
dispute was still unsettled at the meeting of " the of gats." 
parliament of bats," so called because the hostile 
retainers, forbidden to carry weapons, armed them- 
selves with bats or bludgeons. The chancellor in his 
opening speech maintained a discreet silence upon 
the topic of the hour. He pleaded for three matters 
of primary importance, (1) the " observance of the law 
of God and the defence of the flock of God against 
the invasion of perfidious heretics and Lollards," 
to the glory of God ; (2) good counsel and justice, to 
the honour of the King ; (3) solid support of crown 
and country with men and means, to the peace of the 
people. His only allusion to the great quarrel lay 
in his text, sic facite ut salvi sitis. 2 But the quarrel 
was there, and for ten days it kept parliament waiting 
in suspicion and alarm. At last the commons prayed 
the lords to take steps to heal the dissensions which, 
they declared with regret, they understood had arisen 
between certain great men. On March 4th Bedford 
and the. peers undertook on oath " to proceed truly, 
justly and indifferently without any partiality " in 
all matters between the duke and the bishop, and on 
the 7th the duke consented at Bedford's request to 
lay his case before a special commission of nine peers 
and to abide by their arbitration, and Beaufort gave 
a similar promise. The commission was strong and 
well-balanced. Archbishop Chichele was at its head, 
and associated with him were the Dukes of Exeter 
and Norfolk (the bishop's brother and the duke's 
friend respectively), the Bishops of Bath, Worcester, 

1 Proceedings, iii, 181-187. 

2 Rot. Pari., iv, 295. 



ter's accu- 
sations and 
Beaufort 's 

and Durham, the Earl of Stafford, Lord Cromwell, 
and William Alnwick, the keeper of the privy seal. 

Before this commission Gloucester laid a written 
statement of his grievances, and Beaufort a written 
defence of his action. 1 It will be convenient to take 
the charge and the answer on each point together. 
(1) Gloucester complained that when he " being 
protector and defender of this land " desired to take 
up his quarters in the Tower, Wydeville, by Beaufort's 
orders, refused him admission, and was " protected 
and cherished " by Beaufort in this action " against 
the state and worship of the King and of my said lord 
of Gloucester." Beaufort replied that it had been 
decided in Gloucester's presence, before he went to 
Hainault, that the Tower should be " notably stuffed, 
victualled and kept " for causes " such as were then 
thought reasonable." The order was not executed at 
once, but during Gloucester's absence in Hainault 
the King's peace had been disturbed by a popular 
agitation which threatened rebellion and frightened 
strangers under the King's protection into flying from 
England, and the Tower was then placed in Wyde- 
ville 's charge by the council to maintain order in the 
city. Soon after Gloucester's return the council 
heard that he had been expressing his sympathy with 
the citizens, intimating that he would not have 
allowed them to be overawed in this way if he had 
been at home, and " offering them thereupon remedy 
if they would." Shortly afterwards Gloucester had 
removed from the custody of the lieutenant of the 
Tower a " friar Randolph," imprisoned for treason 
against the late King, and had refused to surrender 
the prisoner, declaring that " his commandment was 
sufficient warrant and discharge." The lieutenant 

1 Kingsford, Chron. Lond., pp. 76-86 ; Hall, pp. 130-134. 


reported the matter to Beaufort, who considered 
that the duke " took upon himself further than his 
authority stretched unto," and began to fear that 
" lest the Tower had be strong he would have pro- 
ceeded further." This was the reason why the 
chancellor, when Wydeville came to ask his advice 
about Gloucester's renewed demand for admission 
to the Tower, gave him the distinct order to exclude 
Gloucester or any other magnate without special 
warrant of the council. 

(2) Gloucester's second complaint was that Beaufort 
proposed on his own authority to remove the child- 
King from Eltham " to the intent to put him in such 
governance as him lust." This accusation the 
chancellor simply denied, " for he ne could conceive 
any manner of good or advantage that might have 
grown unto him thereof, but rather great peril and 

(3) Gloucester stated next that in virtue of his own 
claim to " the governance of the King's person " he 
intended to thwart Beaufort's purpose by going to 
Eltham himself, and that Beaufort barricaded the 
Southwark end of the bridge, and garrisoned the 
street, " to the intent of final destruction of my said 
lord of Gloucester's person as well as of those that 
had come with him." To this Beaufort replied that 
he had acted in self-defence. As early as the parlia- 
ment of April he had been warned by various trust- 
worthy persons that Gloucester " purposed him 
bodily harm," and he had been urged to absent him- 
self from Westminster by way of precaution. During 
that very session a city mob had gathered on the 
wharf near the Crane in Vintry Ward and threatened 
they would have thrown the bishop into the Thames, 
" to have taught him to swim with wings." Gloucester 


himself had confessed his enmity. When the rest of 
the council on the arrival of envoys from Bedford 
called upon the duke at his inn on October 28th and 
asked to know the truth, he admitted that " he was 
heavy toward my Lord of Winchester and not without 
causes, peradventure as he would put in writing." 
On the 29th Gloucester had ordered the citizens to 
remain under arms all night, for reasons unknown to 
the chancellor, and strong language had been used 
against the chancellor. That same night Gloucester 
had ordered the men of the Inns of Court to attend him 
at eight in the morning in their best array, and next 
day had demanded of the mayor an escort of 300 
horsemen, evidently to force his way to the King. 
The blockading of the bridge by the chancellor's men 
had been merely intended for " his own surety and 
defence according to law of nature." 

(4) Gloucester finally raked up the old story of the 
arrest of the man who confessed that he was sent to 
murder the Prince of Wales " by excitacion and 
procuring of my Lord of Winchester," and withal 

(5) the more probable but incompatible story that 
the bishop had instigated the Prince to take advantage 
of Henry IV's sickness to claim " the governance and 
crown of this land " for himself. In answer to these 
two charges the chancellor made a general protest 
of his loyalty to all his sovereigns and especially to 
Henry V, who " would not for the time that he was 
King have set in my lord the chancellor so great trust 
as he did, if he had found or trowed in him such 
untruth before." 

(6) Gloucester had apparently complained that 
Beaufort's letter to Bedford implied an intention on 
the part of the chancellor " to gather a field " and 
break the King's peace. Beaufort's answer was that 


the language of the letter proved his loyalty to the 
King and his anxiety to avoid the very danger he 
was accused of inviting. It was Gloucester's negli- 
gence in the face of the rioting of the labourers of 
the city that had encouraged the " field-making," 
and necessitated the appeal to Bedford. 

It is difficult at this distance to strike a true Settlement 
balance between the conflicting evidence of the two °? *Jj® 
antagonists. 1 The support which the Londoners 
gave to Gloucester was too largely a tribute to his 
personal popularity to be taken as a conclusive proof 
of the justice of his claim to stand for the cause of 
law and order. No doubt the struggle was mainly 
" a fight as to who should govern England." Yet 
on the whole Beaufort's was the right cause, though 
he handled it unwisely. Gloucester's proceedings in 
the matter of the Tower were an attempt to override 
the limitations of his protectorship and ignore the 
authority of the council. On the other hand Beaufort 
in his resistance to Gloucester's self-assertion against 
the council was led into a self-assertion on behalf of 
the council which spoiled his case. His letter to 
Bedford was written a week too late. He had made 
the mistake of pitting his own strength against 
Gloucester's instead of calling in the superior authority 
of Bedford in the first instance. At bottom the 
question was constitutional, but Beaufort's action 
gave it a personal aspect. Something of this idea 
seems to have underlain the award of the arbitrators. 
They ignored the constitutional issue and dealt only 
with the personal. On March 12th they ruled that 

1 The fullest discussion of the conflict is Vickers, Gloucester, 
pp. 170-174, an able defence of the duke. For views 
favourable to Beaufort see Ramsay, i, 360-362, 365-367 ; 
Oman, p. 297. 



the bishop was to make solemn declaration in parlia- 
ment of his faithful allegiance in the past to the three 
Lancastrian sovereigns, and Bedford in the name of 
the King and council was to declare him a true and 
loyal subject. The bishop was then to swear that he 
" never imagined ne purposed thing that might be 
hindering or prejudice " to the " person, honour or 
estate " of the duke, and Gloucester was to reply : 
" Bel uncle, sith ye declare you suche a man as ye 
saie, I am riht gladde that it is so, and for suche I take 
you." The two were then to shake hands, " in sign 
and token of good love and accord ; the which was 
done." 1 Shakespeare draws an unwarrantable con- 
trast between the sincerity of the duke and the 
insincerity of the bishop. 

Glouc. So help me God, as I dissemble not. 
Winch. So help me God, as I intend it not. 


of the 

If insincerity there was, it was mutual. Beneath 
the outward reconciliation still smouldered the 
" privy wrath " that broke into flame again and again 
in later years. Even now it was impossible for both 
men to remain in office. Two days later Beaufort, 
conscious of practical defeat or consenting to an 
appeal from Bedford, resigned the chancellorship, 
and Bishop Stafford, the treasurer, followed his 
example. The chancellor had one immediate con- 
solation. The commons, voicing apparently the 
request of the merchant classes, wanted to withhold 
the payment of the subsidies granted in the parliament 
of 1425, evidently on the ground that the restrictions 
upon foreign merchants had been evaded. A vigorous 

1 Kingsford, Chron. Lond., pp. 91-94 ; Hall, pp. 134-137 ; 
Rot. Pari., iv, 296-299. 

2 Henry the Sixth (First Part), Act iii, Scene 1. 


debate ensued, in which doubtless Gloucester sup- 
ported his London friends ; but Bedford and the lords 
decided that the subsidies must be paid without 
reference to the conditions. *■ Bedford's decision may, 
of course, have been partly due to the pressure of 
financial needs ; but it is probable that he shared 
the chancellor's disapproval of the harsh treatment 
of traders of an allied nation. Beaufort, however 
practically retired from public life. He only attended 
the council four times in the next twelve months. 
He was present on November 24th when the council 
drew up fresh rules to secure freedom of discussion 
and efficiency of administration. But he was not 
present on the memorable day in January, 1427, 
when the new chancellor (Kemp, now Archbishop of 
York) and the lords of the council asked and received 
of Bedford a pledge emphatically recognising the 
supremacy of the council except where parliament 
had given definite powers to the protector. Neither 
was he present on the next day when they visited 
Gloucester, who lay sick in his inn, and secured from 
him a similar pledge with the significant addition of 
an apology for the reckless language in which he had 
asserted his independence. 2 It is probable that the 
interview with Bedford was pre-arranged to secure 
the success of the interview with Gloucester. The 
whole affair was an indirect and partial justification 
of the late chancellor in so far as he had recognised 
and resisted the danger of Gloucester's bid for personal 
supremacy. Beaufort could well afford to be absent 
on such an occasion. 

The bishop was, however, contemplating a more 
complete retirement from the scene. On May 14th, 

1 Rot. Pari, iv, 301 ; Ramsay, i, 367 n. 5. 

2 Proceedings, iii, 231-242 ; Stubbs, iii, 108. 


1426, the council received a petition in which he 
requested the King, in consideration of his " humble 
chaplain's long continuance in his service," to give 
him licence to fulfil a long-deferred vow of pilgrim- 
age. 1 When he went abroad with Bedford in March, 

1427, it was to receive the insignia of a cardinal. 
1 Proceedings, iii, 195. 




With his promotion to the cardinalate Beaufort Beaufort 
moved out into the main stream of the church life of g^lish 
the West. For some three years past he had been church 
more closely involved in ecclesiastical affairs than affairs, 
appears at first sight. In August, 1423, he was 
associated with the papal nuncios in the instructions 
which Martin V issued for the detection and prosecu- 
tion of forgers of papal letters and indulgences ; and 
a week later he was instructed along with the primate 
to proceed against the Irish prelates who had been 
attempting to extend to themselves the benefits of 
the anti-papal legislation which England had enacted 
during the schism. 1 Martin was evidently deter- 
mined to retain the services of his former supporter. 
At the same time Beaufort had his part to play as an 
English bishop. In April, 1425, when he appeared in 
convocation as chancellor to commend the prosperity 
of the country to the prayers of the clergy and to 
request a subsidy for Bedford's operations in France, 
he directed the attention of the prelates and clergy to 
" certain defects in the English Church then more 
prominent than usual," which were said to be dimin- 
ishing the devotion of the king's subjects to the 
Church. 2 The language is ambiguous. The defects 
may refer to Lollardism itself, in which case the 
warning is parallel to his demand in the parliament 

1 Papal Letters, vii, 14. 

2 Wilkins, iii, 433. 


II— (22 10) 


of February, 1426, for the suppression of heresy and 
disorder. They may, however, refer to such abuses as 
the non-residence of parochial clergy, which had been 
the burden of more than one petition of the commons, 
and had been urged upon the attention of the episco- 
pate. In that case, the warning in convocation is the 
complement of the appeal in parliament. The Church 
must set her house in order if the state was to guard 
her privileges. It was not enough to suppress the 
Lollards ; the abuses which roused their protests 
must be remedied. It is a curious comment upon this 
question to find the council in March, 1426, giving 
permission to the Pope's nephew, Prosper Colonna, 
to hold English benefices to the annual value of 500 
marks on condition that the King was to receive 
papal bulls securing the right of next presentation 
to the proper patrons. 1 Colonna's case was one of 
Preferment the few points at which Gloucester and Beaufort were 
of the content to give and take. The Pope " provided " his 

nephew. nephew to the archdeaconry of Canterbury in 1424, 
but Gloucester seems to have used his authority to 
delay the young man's entrance upon his archdeaconry 
by way of bringing pressure to bear on the Pope in the 
still unsettled question of Jacqueline's divorce, and 
Martin wrote reluctantly acquiescing in the delay and 
pretending to understand that Gloucester was doing 
his best. 2 The concession made by the council to 
Colonna in March, 1426, was probably an attempt to 
bribe in Gloucester's interests the Pope whom the 
thwarting of Colonna had failed to coerce. But later 
in the spring of 1426 the Pope wrote to Beaufort to 
thank him for his continued devotion to the Roman 
Church, and to John de Obicis, papal collector in 

1 Proceedings, iii, 190. 

2 Bekynton, i, 284. 


England, to express his delight at hearing of Beaufort's 
efforts on behalf of his nephew and to urge him to 
thank "his brotherliness " (the bishop) and make full 
use of his services in the business of Pope and Church. x 
Prosper was at last admitted to the archdeaconry by 
Archbishop Chichele in July, 1426. This time it was 
probably not the protector but the bishop who did 
the Pope a good turn. 

Greater things, however, were at stake in 1426 than Beaufort 
the fortune of a young Roman. Martin was still bent car&nY 
upon the removal of the statutes which barred the and Legate, 
free exercise of papal claims in England. The council 
of regency in 1423 had like the late king ignored his 
appeal for the abolition of the statutes, and Martin 
had to content himself with overawing Chichele in 
1423 into withdrawing his proclamation of indulgences 
to Canterbury pilgrims as an invasion of papal 
privilege. 2 Beaufort's resignation of the chancellor- 
ship in March, 1426, was Martin's opportunity. 
Gloucester, anxious as he was not to be counted an 
enemy at Rome, was a nationalist in church politics 
like Chichele. Beaufort on the other hand was 
regarded at home and abroad as a papalist, and seemed 
just the man to further the interests of the Pope in 
England. Martin accordingly nominated him 
cardinal-priest of St. Eusebius on May 24th, 1426. 
There is no record of the date or manner of the 
consent of the English government to his acceptance 
of this dignity. Perhaps it was merely a tacit 
permission, the negative expression of Gloucester's 
readiness to see him depart. In any case, he did not 
leave England until March 19th, 1427. The council 
made him a parting present of permission to ship 800 

1 Papal Letters, vii, 26. 
a Papal Letters, vii, 12. 



Martin V 


sacks of wool to Cherbourg or Caen, duty paid. 
Bedford's consent was much more positive. The 
London chroniclers describe in detail the ceremony of 
investiture in the presence of the duke and his wife on 
Lady Day in St. Mary's Church at Calais. " Before 
the bishop went to mass the Pope's cousin brought 
the cardinal's hat with great reverence and set it 
upon the altar. And when the mass was done there 
was put upon the bishop a cardinal's habit of scarlet 
furred with puryd. And then there kneeling upon 
his knees before the high altar, the Pope's bulls were 
read to him ; and the first bull was his charge, and the 
second bull was that he should have and rejoice all 
the benefices spiritual and temporal that he had in 
England. And then the regent of France set the hat 
on the bishop's head of Winchester, and bowed and 
obeyed to him and took him afore him, and so went 
to their inns." 1 

The ecclesiastical crisis in England had already 
become acute. Martin had written in haughty terms 
to Chichele in December, 1426, requiring him to lead 
the Church in an attack upon " the execrable statutes " 
of Provisors and Praemunire. 2 The primate pleaded 
that he was willing but helpless. It was rumoured 
that the Pope intended to supersede the archbishop 
as standing representative of the Papacy (legatus 
natus) by the appointment of Cardinal Beaufort, and 
the rumour was speedily confirmed in May, 1427, by 
a bull of suspension for the primate and a bull of 
interdict for England. The council arrested the 
bearer and seized the bulls. Chichele appealed to a 
general council, and protests and testimonials on his 
behalf came fast to Rome from the bishops, the 

1 Kingsford, Chron. Lond., pp. 95, 131. 
3 Papal Letters, vii, 24 ; Wilkins, iii, 482. 


University of Oxford, and even the House of Lords. 1 
The Pope poured out in succession appeals to King 
and parliament, and curt and insolent letters to the 
archbishop, who at last in January, 1428, pleaded 
with the commons to repeal the obnoxious statute of 
Provisors. His plea was fruitless ; all that the 
commons did was to petition the King in council to 
send an embassy to Rome exculpating "our aller good 
father the archbishop of Canterbury and primate of 
all this land " from all charge of disregard for " the 
liberties of the court of Rome in this land." 2 The 
envoys were sent in July, 1428, and the matter was 
dropped ; the Pope could humiliate a gentle primate, 
but he could not dictate to an obstinate parliament. 
There is no evidence of Beaufort's intervention in 
these later stages of the conflict, and it is difficult to 
disentangle the threads of intrigue and trace the hints 
of partisan jealousy which are so frequent in the earlier 
letters of the primate and his supporters. It is 
possible that some of the indications point to the 
influence of Beaufort or his party as having been 
exercised on the papal side. But no definite accusa- 
tion was then made, and no conclusion can now be 

Meanwhile Beaufort was doing the Pope good £ a P al 
service in a very different field. In a letter an- against the 
nouncing the despatch of the cardinal's hat and Hussites, 
vestments, Martin remarked that their colour was 
not to please the eye, but to remind him that he must 
be ready to shed his blood for the Church. 3 The hint 
was explained in a later letter dated March 19th, 1427, 

1 See the whole collection of documents in Wilkins, iii, 

2 Rot. Pari., iv, 322 ; Proceedings, iii, 301 ; Rymer, x, 405. 

3 Papal Letters, vii, 25 ; Raynald, s.a. 1426. 


which probably reached the cardinal shortly after his 
investiture at Calais, but may not have been an 
absolute surprise. Beaufort was to receive a further 
commission which had been contemplated by the Pope 
when he conferred upon him the title of cardinal, but 
which was all the more acceptable and practicable 
now that the cardinal was leaving England. If he 
was powerless to carry through the papal designs 
upon the liberty of the Church of England, he was at 
least free to lead the papal crusade against the 
heretics of Bohemia. The crisis there was more 
urgent than ever. In June, 1426, the Bohemian 
patriots had inflicted a crushing defeat upon the 
Saxon forces that blocked their advance at Aussig. 
The Pope had striven not without success to rouse 
the chivalry of Germany, but he needed a strong man 
to unite and lead the divided and undisciplined forces 
of the Empire, and a man of rank and influence to 
win support in England and France for the cause of 
the Church. Martin found both men in Beaufort, 
and with the full approval of Sigismund he appointed 
the cardinal papal legate in Germany, Bohemia, and 
Hungary to organise the new crusade against the 
Hussites. In his letter of March 19th the Pope 
explained to Beaufort that although his legates had 
failed hitherto he had not yet lost hope. It was still 
his daily prayer that the sick flocks might be healed 
of their leprosy or be cut off from the land of the 
living lest they should infect others with the contagion 
of their heresy. Various reasons, he said, had led 
him to single out the cardinal for this task of conquer- 
ing or converting the heretics — the ability that 
Beaufort had shown in the matter of the unity of the 
Church (i.e., at Constance), his high lineage, his 
experience in affairs of state, and the soldierly fame 



of his realm and nation. The last qualification 
consorts but ill with the comparison of the legate's 
mission to that of " an angel of peace " ; the whole 
tenor of the commission implied that conquest rather 
than conversion was its aim, and the sequel proved 
that the truth was rarely to have a chance of wielding 
its own proper weapons. The cardinal was urged to 
make his acceptance of the task the first fruits of his 
cardinalate ; and the Pope wrote separately also to 
the King of England, to the bishops and other mem- 
bers of his council, and to Bedford, to urge Beaufort 
to undertake the task. At the same time, he wrote 
to the Bishops of Wiirzburg and Bamberg and to 
Frederick, Margrave of Brandenburg, announcing 
Beaufort's appointment as legate and authorising the 
bishops to enlist and absolve soldiers and supporters 
of the crusade. 1 

Beaufort wrote to Martin from Mechlin on June Preferment 
15th in high spirits, accepting his commission and Beaufort's 
promising immediate action. He utilised the occa- nephew, 
sion to press the claim of his nephew, Robert Nevill, 
son of the Earl of Westmoreland, to the bishopric of 
Salisbury. Nepotism was a common fault of the age, 
but this particular case is interesting as evidence of 
a rift between Beaufort and the English council. 
The chapter had elected its dean, Simon Sydenham, 
but Nevill had been recommended both to the Pope 
and to the chapter by letters in the king's name 
procured probably by Beaufort's influence. On May 
15th Gloucester and the council, including the two 
primates and three other bishops, gave their opinion 
man by man in favour of permitting Sydenham to 
prosecute his claim at Rome " notwithstanding the 
royal letters, etc." The Pope's reply to Beaufort's 

1 Papal Letters, vii, 30-32 ; Rayaald, 1427. 


appeal was shamelessly frank. On July 9th, the day 
after his receipt of Beaufort's letter, he had nominated 
Nevill to the vacant see. The election of the dean 
by the chapter was, he said, canonical and unassailable, 
and the bishop-elect highly recommended by many, 
whereas the cardinal's nephew was open to objection 
on the score of age ; he had, however, resisted all 
persuasions and annulled the election, choosing to 
please the faithful cardinal alone rather than many 
others. * Chichele had to consent to consecrate the 
cardinal's nephew in October, 1427. Sydenham 
had to wait his turn ; in February, 1431, he was 
consecrated to Chichester by the cardinal himself. 
Defeat of The response of the Germans to the papal appeal for 

the crusaders was large ; the force was variously num- 

at U Ta d chau bered from 150 > 000 to 200,000. The legate himself 
brought a thousand men, who must have been drawn 
from the forces in France, for it was only in 1429 that 
he obtained permission to raise troops in England. 
Halting on July 13th at Nuremberg to make a vain 
attempt to secure at least a truce between the Arch- 
bishop of Mainz and the Landgrave of Hesse, he crossed 
the Bohemian frontier near Tachau at the end of 
July only to meet the vanguard of the huge German 
army pouring back in panic before a far smaller 
Bohemian force which they had not dared to face. 
Astounded at their cowardice, he urged them in the 
name of God and for the sake of their honour and 
salvation to turn and confront the enemy, and unfurl- 
ing the papal ensign placed himself, crucifix in hand, 
at the head of his own contingent. He succeeded in 
rallying the whole army, and knowing that dissension 
made them their own worst enemies, induced the 
princes to take an oath of mutual fidelity. The 

1 Papal Letters, vii, 32 ; Proceedings, iii, 269. 


Bohemians, weak in number but strong in spirit, 
moved steadily forward with their formidable fighting- 
waggons, which were more than a match for cavalry ; 
and their advance started a second panic in the 
German host. This time the Cardinal of England 
strove in vain to check the stampede. Pleading and 
threatening in turn to deaf ears, he seized the imperial 
flag and tearing it to shreds flung the pieces with 
words of scorn and anger at the feet of the German 
princes, retreating himself at the last only in time to 
save his own person from the hands of the victorious 
Hussites. The Bohemians bursting through the 
forest inflicted heavy loss upon the beaten army on 
its disorderly flight across the frontier, and took the 
town of Tachau by storm. 1 

The disaster made a great impression upon the Beaufort's 
western world. Various explanations were forth- endeavours 
coming at once. The Germans covered their disgrace r ally°the 
by charging their princes with treachery. The Germans, 
Margrave of Brandenburg, it was said, had been 
tempted by the Praguers with an offer of the Bohe- 
mian crown, and the army was paralysed by his 
abstention from the fight. Beaufort saw clearly one 
reason for the failure. Defective organisation and 
poor tactics made the very magnitude of the army 
a disadvantage and a danger, and he set himself in a 
businesslike and soldierly way to raise a small paid 
standing army. His diagnosis was so far correct ; 
but even Beaufort was unwilling or unable to see that 
the best organisation could not give a miscellaneous 
mercenary force the strength which patriotism and 

1 Aeneas Sylvius, Hist. Bohem., c. 48 ; Raynald, 1427, § 5 ; 
Andreas of Ratisbon, Chronicon, in Hofier, Geschichtschreiber 
der Hussitischer Bewegung, ii, 454 ; Palacky, Geschichte von 
Bohmen, iii, 443-447. 


conviction gave to the Hussite. The Pope was as 
blind or as obstinate. The rout of " the faithful," 
which Nicholas Bildeston, the legate's chancellor, 
had reported at Rome, was a terrible blow to Martin's 
hopes. He wrote bravely, however, in September, 
thanking and commending his legate for all that he 
had done or attempted, and urging him to persevere, 
especially in his efforts to rouse or control the princes 
and prelates of Germany. The cardinal would not 
need specific instructions, but he would of course deal 
stringently with the bad example set to the German 
laity by the alleged immorality of the Archbishop of 
Cologne and the Bishop of Wiirzburg, and he would 
insist upon a reconciliation between the prelates of 
Cologne and Mainz, whose abstention had so seriously 
weakened the late crusade. 1 Bulls were issued 
throughout Christendom asking for a tenth to pay 
for the new standing army ; the Pope himself was 
prepared to give a fifth of his revenues. The faithful 
at Pilsen, a town near the scene of the disaster, were 
warned to abstain from controversy with the heretics ; 
the faith needed no other defence beyond the martyrs, 
the councils, and the fathers. Martin wrote to John, 
(2) to Bishop of Olmiitz, who had been made cardinal at 

convert the ^g same t j me as Beaufort and with the same 
emians, p Ur p 0Se ^ ur gi n g him to prevent disputation, or, if it 
were inevitable, to obtain the expert services of doctors 
from the University of Vienna. Beaufort, more 
sanguine of success in the war of words, had already 
written to two former masters of the University of 
Prague to undertake the task of enlightening the 
misguided Bohemians. This particular disputation 
was not without interest, for one of the two antagon- 
ists of Beaufort's champions was Peter Payne, a 

1 Papal Letters, vii, 35. 


Wycliffite refugee and an old Oxonian. But it was a 
fruitless effort. Its aim was apparently rather to 
conciliate the moderate reformers than to convert the 
extremists ; but it left the various parties on worse 
terms than before. 

The Cardinal of England was meanwhile throwing (3)^0 
himself whole-heartedly into the work of preparing for organise 
a second crusade on a plan which was little less than crusade, 
a scheme for the organisation of the Empire. Largely 
through his efforts an imperial diet was held at 
Frankfort in the November and December of 1427. 
A " Hussite-tax " was ordered, to provide funds by 
February, 1428. A small federal council was ap- 
pointed to superintend the preparations, and the 
legate and the Margrave of Brandenburg were to 
head the new army which was to meet on the Bohe- 
mian frontier in June. Beaufort's plan promised 
well, but the promise was not fulfilled. Funds came 
but slowly. Many of the clergy paid their share 
promptly ; but many princes and cities collected 
their quota and then kept the money in hand under 
the pretext of awaiting further orders. The Pope 
pleaded and scolded, and the princes met in council 
again and again, but without result. Later in the 
summer Beaufort made his way to England to collect 
funds and forces, without entrusting his authority in 
Germany to any responsible deputy ; and in his 
absence the fatal weakness of the Empire asserted 
itself once more, and for lack of patriotism and self- 
sacrifice on the part of the German princes the system 
fell to pieces. 1 

When the cardinal landed in England in August, Attitude of 
1428, the crusade was already a familiar topic. He chufdfand 

1 Andr. Ratisbon, Dialog. (Hofler, i, 579) ; Chron. (Hofler, Govern- 
ii, 455) ; Palacky, ii, 455-467. ment - 


had himself sent the primate a copy of the " bull 
legatine" of March, 1427, for publication in the 
province of Canterbury ; and Martin had written to 
Chichele in October enclosing a copy of the general 
letter to all Christendom in which he asked for a tenth 
for the new crusade. Early in May, 1428, the papal 
nuncio, Conzo de Suola, presented his credentials to 
the privy council and also bulls describing the Bohe- 
mian heresy in flagrant terms and requesting a subsidy 
for its extermination. 1 The written answer then 
given by the council is not extant ; but from Beau- 
fort's own subsequent petition it is evident that the 
council consented " to grant people and captains 
notable out of this land," though no definite arrange- 
ment was made, and certainly no subsidy was 
granted. On May 15th Chichele published a papal 
letter on behalf of the crusade. A London chronicler 
also records the coming of this " pardon against the 
heretics, the which pardon was that men should every 
Sunday in the beginning of every month go in 
procession with vii psalms and the litany, and they 
should have a c days of pardon unto the same pro- 
cession." 2 The King and the Queen-mother and 
the lords actually " went on procession through 
London " on June 2nd. Convocation, however, 
ignored Conzo's appeal for funds in June and July ; 
and little more seems to have been done before 
Beaufort's arrival in September. When he published 
his legatine commission early in November, Gloucester 
in the name of the King and the council entered a 
formal protest against the exercise of the office of 
legate in England without the permission of the 
crown. Ten days later the convocation of Canterbury 

1 Proceedings, iii, 295. 
• Gregory, p. 162. 


again ignored the nuncio's demand of a tenth for the 
crusade. Martin had written to the bishops and 
clergy of the Church of England, regretting the 
postponement of the expected subsidy, and urging 
various reasons why the clems Angliae should have 
been prompt to respond to his appeal. England as 
the nursery of the Wicklefistae was both the source and 
the support of the Hussite heresy, and had reason 
still to fear similar outbreaks at home. God had 
enriched the English Church with endowments far 
beyond those of other churches. Finally, they had 
been generous enough in providing for the secular 
needs of their King, and ought to be at least as 
generous in defence of the faith and the Church. 1 
The Pope's appeal was made in vain. Fortified by the 
protest of the government on November 11th, con- 
vocation paid no attention to the papal demand, but 
proceeded to deal with the Lollards and to grant a 
half-tenth to the King. Its action was misreported 
to Martin. Chichele wrote to complain to the Pope 
that one James, papal nuncio to the King and to the 
cardinal, had stated that the bishops had overruled 
the desire of the clergy to grant a subsidy, and were 
endeavouring " to govern the realm and oppress the 
church." As a matter of fact, Chichele said, he had 
acted with the full consent of the cardinal. The 
council had told the cardinal that he must choose 
between men and money, and he had chosen to take 
men. The question of a subsidy had therefore been 
postponed until the expedition should be ready. 2 

The supremacy of the crown and the independence Enlistment 
of convocation having been thus asserted, the council of 
was not unwilling to grant the cardinal something of ^England. 

1 Brown, Fasc. Rer. Expet., ii, 616, 617. 

2 For proceedings in convocation see Wilkins, iii, 491 foil. ; 
Bekynton, vol. i, pp. xciii-xcviii. 


what he desired. The acts of the council contain an 
interesting petition from Beaufort with the answer 
of the council and a formal indenture based upon that 
answer. * The indenture is dated June 18th, 1429 ; 
but as the cardinal started with his contingent on the 
22nd, and as the answer of the council makes a stipula- 
tion with reference to his coming negotiations with 
the Scottish king, it is obvious that the petition and 
answer must be placed before his visit to Scotland 
in February, and early enough to allow time for the 
raising of the contingent. In this petition the 
cardinal sought permission to collect an English force 
of 500 spears and 5,000 archers, in fulfilment of the 
promise made by the council to Conzo the nuncio. 
The terms of his petition mark at once the zeal of the 
churchman and the experience of the soldier. He 
asked for leave to publish the crusade in all parts of 
England, remarking (in obvious allusion to Bishop 
Despenser's expedition in 1383 against the French 
anti-Pope) that " cruciats (i.e., crusades) have been 
late seen in this land where the cause was not so 
great " ; and he wished to enlist any man who would 
offer his services " only of devotion and for soul's 
health." But he proposed to offer a definite rate of 
pay, to appoint his own officers, to enforce strict 
military discipline upon the volunteer as well as upon 
the mercenary, and to charter sufficient ships for 
transport ; and he announced his intention " not 
under colour of the said cruciat to suffer no religious 
men " that were likely to take advantage of the 
crusade " rather far to walk in apostasy than for desire 
of merit." The council, in view of the diminution of 
the population " by mortality and wars," and in view 
of the military needs of the King, limited the number 
1 Proceedings, iii, 330-338. 


of the force to 250 spears and 2,500 bows, and stipu- 
lated that the cost should be met by voluntary 
offerings and not by " a common charge " upon the 
clergy or other estates of the realm, and that all money 
so given should be spent in England in the purchase 
of supplies for the troops raised in England. The 
cardinal was also required to refrain from recruiting 
from the English forces in France, and to provide for 
the return of his men to England. 

A vivid picture of the organisation of the crusade is 
to be seen in three documents preserved in the registry 
of the Prior of Canterbury, viz., (1) the articles of the 
bull which the cardinal-legate had already forwarded 
to Chichele for publication in his diocese, (2) the 
cardinal's own instructions to the preachers of the 
crusade, and (3) the supplementary instructions 
issued by the archbishop in January, 1429, to officials 
of his own diocese. 1 Varying degrees of absolution 
or indulgence were to be granted to different kinds 
of supporters, to crusaders serving in person, to 
senders of men, to donors of small sums, to women 
and such other persons as could only fast and pray. 
Special forms of divine service were provided for the 
conferring of the crusaders' badges, and for the 
monthly masses and litanies and processions on behalf 
of the crusade. The faithful of each rural deanery 
were to be summoned together and notified of the 
times and places at which the indulgences were to be 
obtained ; copies of the indulgence were to be supplied 
to any curate who desired to promote the crusade 
among his people ; and the chief churches of the 
diocese were to have at their doors collecting-boxes 
marked with the cross and labelled, " This chest is 
for the crusade." 

1 Brown, Fasc. Rev. Expet., ii, 611-626. 



with the 



While these preparations were in full swing, the 
cardinal turned his attentions to the northern king- 
dom, the home of his royal niece Joan. On February 
10th the council gave him permission — without which 
special permission " our cousin the cardinal dare not 
take upon himself " the matter in question— to 
Conference arrange a conference with the Scottish King on matters 
" touching the state of the catholic faith and the 
honour and advantage of the universal Church, as well 
as the honour and interest of the realm." 1 The 
cardinal was anxious to obtain Scottish support for 
the crusade ; the council no less anxious to prevent 
Scottish assistance to France. In their answer to 
the cardinal's petition for licence to publish the 
crusade, they had stipulated that he should do his 
best to secure the friendship of the Scottish King and 
the observance of the truce and the " other appoint- 
ments made with the King " of England, i.e., the 
payment of his ransom. The cardinal promptly made 
his way northwards. On February 12th he broke 
his journey at St. Albans, where he was received in 
solemn procession as became a cardinal and a legate, 
the whole convent wearing their red copes. On the 
morrow, the first Sunday in Lent, he took part in the 
regular procession, preceded by his cross-bearer, and 
attended by the abbot, and gave the benediction. 2 
His friendly conference with the Scottish King and 
Queen at Coldingham lasted right on into March, but 
it bore no tangible fruit. The agents of the council 
brought back their receipts instead of the instalment 
of the ransom for which the receipts were to be given ; 3 
and a week after the cardinal's visit to St. Albans 

1 Proceedings, iii, 318. 
3 Amundesham, i, 33, 34. 
3 Ramsay, i, 408. 


on April 11th on his return to London the council 
were busy commissioning ships to intercept the 
French fleet which was rumoured to be on the point 
of conveying a little Scottish princess and 6,000 Scots 
to the court of France. Yet kinship and diplomacy 
had not entirely failed ; there is no record of a 
Scottish contingent for the cardinal's crusade, but a 
suggestion had been made of the possibility of a 
marriage between another little Scottish princess and 
the seven-year-old King of England, which for a time 
engaged the efforts of the council in an attempt to 
neutralise her sister's French alliance. * 

A bitter disappointment awaited the cardinal on 
his return to London. Pending the settlement of the 
question which Gloucester had raised as to his 
retention of the bishopric of Winchester, he was 
requested to refrain from attending the festival of 
St. George at Windsor, at which he was expecting to 
officiate as prelate of the Garter. It is by no means 
certain even that the licensing of his crusade was not 
intended, on Gloucester's part at any rate, to remove 
him from the scene of political action at home. It 
must have been with mingled feelings that he signed 
the agreement with the council on June 18th, which 
confirmed the conditions of the crusade. The council 
on their part revealed their lingering suspicion of the 
cardinal's designs by inserting a clause forbidding him 
to allow his men to be employed " in any other war or 
service save only to the reduction or chastising of the 
heretics of Beeme (Bohemia)," except that he might 
take 200 as an escort " to accompany him further 
unto the court of Rome." At last on June 22nd the 
cardinal and his men took the road for Canterbury ; 
but when they set sail from Dover in July it was to 
1 Proceedings, iii, 323, 324, 

12 — (22Io) 

diverted to 
the aid of 
Bedford in 


proceed direct to the relief of Bedford, who was hard 
pressed near Paris. 

The advent of " the maid of God " (la pucelle de 
Dieu) in March, 1429, had brought new life to the 
French army in spite of the sceptical inaction of its 
King. Early in May Jeanne d'Arc had driven the 
English to raise the siege of Orleans ; and on June 
18th, the very day on which Beaufort's indenture 
was signed, she defeated and captured Talbot at 
Patay. Bedford was expecting daily a small rein- 
forcement under Sir John Ratcliff. This force left 
England on June 29th. It numbered all told 100 
spears and 700 bows, about half the number that 
Bedford in April had asked the council to send. 
Alarmed by the news of the regent's danger, the 
council urged upon Beaufort the necessity of allowing 
his crusaders to serve for six months in France, and 
an agreement to that effect was signed between the 
cardinal and the council at Rochester on July 1st. 1 
There is much in this agreement that is simply 
inexcusable. Beaufort was to be relieved of responsi- 
bility by despatches from the council ordering 
Bedford to detain the crusaders in France. Bonds 
were given to Beaufort by the council in which they 
guaranteed the repayment to the Pope of the cost of 
the six months' service of which he was to be robbed. 
These bonds, however, were only for the immediate 
security of Beaufort as against the council. For fear 
that their dates might give rise to " suspicion of 
collusion between the King's council and the cardinal," 
these bonds were to be replaced by similar bonds 
dated after the issue of Bedford's orders for the 
detention of the crusaders. Beaufort was to induce 
Bedford to pay as much as possible of the cost of the 
1 Proceedings, iii, 339-344. 



men's service in France, " in no wise letting my lord of 
Bedford wit of any surety made here of repayment to 
our said holy Father " ; and the bonds given by the 
councillors were to be reduced in proportion. Imme- 
diately after the publication of Bedford's " prohibi- 
tion " of the crusaders' departure from France, 
messengers were to be sent " unto our holy father 
the Pope and to the princes of Almain with letters 
of excusation containing the causes of restraint and 
delay of passing into Bohemia of the said cardinal's 
retinue, as well in discharging of the King and 
declaration and keeping of his name and fame as 
the foresaid cardinal's." It was bad enough for the 
council to secure the cardinal's compliance by 
conspiring with him to shift the blame and the expense 
respectively upon Bedford in the hour of his need. 
It has been suspected, however, that "the whole 
business was a fraud from the very beginning. ' ' 1 The 
indenture of the crusade was signed on June 18th. 
On June 15th sergeants-at-arms were ordered by 
letters patent to impress and pay ships and mariners, 
and on June 16th " harbingers " were appointed to 
provide quarters in Kent, for " Henry Cardinal of 
England and his company" going abroad on the 
Ktng's service. This may mean that the government 
was giving the same facilities for the despatch of the 
cardinal's crusaders as if they were a contingent 
destined for the army in France. On June 26th 
officers were appointed to attend the muster of the 
cardinal's archers and men-at-arms and report to the 
King 2 , as if the council were still keeping a watchful 
eye upon a force which they did not intend to exceed 
the number licenced. On the other hand it is a 

1 Lingard, iv, 67. 

2 Cal. Patent Rolls, 1422-1429, pp. 554, 555. 


remarkable fact that the contingent numbered 
roughly twice as many men as the council were then 
managing to send out under Ratcliff in response to 
Bedford's appeal made in April. It is possible that 
the council did not realise the gravity of the situation 
in France until they heard the news of Patay. It is, 
however, just as possible that they were surprised to 
find that they could only raise for Bedford against 
the Maid half as many men as Beaufort could raise 
for himself against the Hussite. They may even have 
intended from the very first to utilise Beaufort's men 
in France. In any case, Beaufort himself was innocent 
and unaware of any purpose beyond the crusade. 
That crusade was one of the most whole-hearted efforts 
of his life, and he was clearly taken by surprise when 
the proposal to borrow his crusaders reached him on 
the eve of his departure. His motive in acceding to 
the proposal was honest and honourable. Four days 
later the council rewarded his compliance with a 
present of a thousand marks for his trouble, and this 
reward has been read backwards into a bribe. It 
would indeed have been a poor bait for a rich man. It 
was an altogether inadequate compensation for his 
loss of his reputation at Rome ; and the very dis- 
honesty of the agreement of July 1st bears witness to 
his anxious anticipation of the resentment of the 
Pope if ever he found out that his trusted legate had 
consented, however reluctantly, to the diversion of 
the long-expected reinforcement of the crusade. It is 
not unlikely that Gloucester and others welcomed the 
thought of alienating the Pope from his legate. The 
cardinal's reluctance was real and great. Even Hall, 
usually so prejudiced against the cardinal, approves 
of his action in this case. " By reason," he writes, 
" of the crew sent into Bohemia," Gloucester was 


unable to raise troops at once, and wrote to Beaufort 
at Dover urging him to stop and help Bedford on 
his way. Beaufort was " moved with this counter- 
mand," but obeyed " lest he should be noted not to 
aid the regent of France in so great a cause." 1 He 
may have yielded partly from a desire " to disarm 
domestic opponents," or to win confidence for himself 
and his future action as legate by giving proof now of 
his readiness to postpone his own ambition to the 
interests of his country. More probably he was 
convinced that the need of the hour was the crisis 
in France, and consented to come to the rescue in the 
hope that his help would restore the balance of the 
war and that he might soon pass on to the discharge 
of his original commission. The latter hope was 
doomed to disappointment. His arrival saved the 
situation ; but he was kept hard at work in France, 
and the Pope gave him no second chance. 

The Maid had fought her way to Rheims and seen Beaufort 
Charles VII crowned there on July 17th ; and on in France, 
July 23rd the French army was within striking 
distance of Paris. Two days later the cardinal and 
his crusaders entered the capital. On landing at 
Calais he had marched straight to Amiens, and leaving 
his men there paid a flying visit to the Duke of 
Burgundy at Corbie. The duke's sister Anne, 
Duchess of Bedford, had returned with her brother 
at the close of his last visit to Paris, and was doing 
her best to keep him faithful to his English allies. 
The duke and the cardinal had " great consultations 
and came to rapid decisions " ; and Beaufort, having 
thus stiffened a wavering ally by the way, returned 
to Amiens, and led his men without further delay to 

1 Hall, p. 152. 



Efforts to 
support of 

the regent's assistance. l Bedford was relieved by 
their arrival from all immediate danger, though after 
his first demonstration in force with the new reinforce- 
ments he had to remain on the defensive through 
August in a strong position between Paris and the 
French army. France was renewing her strength 
under the influence of the Maid, and Bedford had 
soon to leave Paris and divide his forces between the 
capital and the endangered northern provinces ; but 
on September 8th Jeanne made an unsuccessful 
attack on Paris, and her superiors, who had left her 
unsupported, withdrew across the Seine and disbanded 
the army. 

Beaufort's doings in France after his relief of 
Bedford are unrecorded, with the exception of a loan 
to Bedford in September for the payment of troops 
to defend Paris ; but early in October he was again 
in the capital, taking his part in the problem of the 
retention of the support of Burgundy. 2 Charles VII 
and his advisers were making advances to Burgundy 
all through August. Bedford did his best to counter- 
act their influence. He sent envoys, possibly under 
Beaufort's leadership ; he appointed the duke 
governor of Paris ; he used his wife's influence with 
her brother for all that it was worth. The failure of 
Jeanne's attack and its sequel decided Burgundy ; he 
turned cool to the French, and marched into Paris on 
September 30. Bedford, less and less sanguine of 
success in the enforcement of the English claims, now 
contemplated confining his own efforts to the com- 
mand in Normandy and leaving Burgundy in author- 
ity over the rest of the English realm in France ; and 

1 Wavrin, 1422-1431, 

2 Beaucourt, ii, 411, 
ii, 126, 141, 536 n. 


Tr., p. 190. 

Stevenson, Wars in France, 


the cardinal was entrusted with important diplomatic 
work during the month of October. On the 10th he 
and the abbot of Mont St. Michel were busily engaged 
in conference with representatives of Burgundy and 
the French court on the question of a general peace ; 
but the only definite result was the proposal of a 
further conference at Auxerre on April 1st, 1430, 
under the auspices of the Duke of Savoy and under 
the mediation of cardinals appointed by the Pope. 
On the 17th, Burgundy and Bedford both left Paris, 
Bedford " with a heavy heart." Beaufort, who was 
still occupied in arranging the transference of the 
government into the hands of the new regent of 
France, for such Burgundy practically was now, 
returned to England shortly afterwards for the 
coronation of the little King early in November. 

Meanwhile the cardinal had paid the price of his Resentment 
compliance with the wishes of the English council. oftheP °pe. 
Bedford was grateful enough for that compliance, to 
judge from the language of his defence before the 
council in 1434. He spoke then with evident sincerity 
of " the refreshing of the retinue that mine uncle the 
cardinal had made for the Church, the which was 
notable and came thither in full good season," and 
enabled him to " set and keep " himself " on the field 
diversdays " against the " enemies that purposed to 
have gotten the remnant of the country." x But the 
gratitude of the regent could not compensate the 
cardinal for the displeasure of the Pope. On August 
11th Martin wrote to Charles VII stating that he had 
heard a rumour of the cardinal's employment of 
English crusaders against the French, and denying all 
responsibility for an action which had left the expec- 
tant Catholics of Germany hopeless and struck a blow 

1 Proceedings, iv, 223. 


at a faithful son of the Church. On September 7th 
he wrote to Charles again, expressing his regret and 
his helplessness, and giving the explanation which 
he had received from the cardinal, to whom he had 
sent a strong protest. The cardinal's excuses were 
that he had merely obeyed the orders of the crown, 
orders stated in terms which precluded disobedience ; 
that his men were not in a mood to be forced into 
Bohemia when they knew that they were wanted in 
France ; and, finally, that the Pope would be repaid 
the cost of the crusaders' services. Martin himself 
attributed the blame in vague but not unintelligible 
language to certain persons (doubtless the English 
council) " who preferred to pursue their own interest 
rather than the common interest of the orthodox 
faith." He regretted that he could do nothing to 
help the King of France. He could exercise no 
control over the crusaders ; they were a long way 
off, and they were Englishmen and would obey their 
King. However, he was writing to restrain Beaufort 
from displaying his legatine dignity in the English 
service. The letter to Beaufort was written next day ; 
and he was forbidden to dishonour the Pope and to 
disgrace himself by wearing the insignia of the 
legatine office in France. 1 A year or more later 
Martin appointed a new legate for Germany. The 
whole affair was a vivid illustration of the impossibility 
of serving two masters ; and the strongest disapproval 
of the terms of the Rochester compromise need not 
preclude the proper appreciation of the fact that 
when the inevitable choice had to be made, Henry of 
Winchester chose to risk the loss of a papal career for 
the sake of his country. 

1 Papal Letters, vii, 38, 39. 




The first great English historian to do justice to The 
Cardinal Beaufort admitted that the acceptance of the difficulties 
cardinalate in 1426 was " the great mistake of his at home. 
life." 1 The offer of that dignity seemed to be the 
appropriate fulfilment of an undoubted ambition 
which he had sacrificed in 1418 in obedience to the 
will of his sovereign. Its attraction was all the 
greater because it seemed to open up a prospect of 
honour abroad just when the door was closing against 
his influence at home. Yet grievous disappointment 
awaited both the cardinal and the Pope who counted 
upon his services in England and on the Continent. 
The cardinal found himself beset by difficulties at 
every step. He was at once compelled to take an 
open part or was suspected of exercising a secret 
influence in the struggle between the Papacy and the 
Church and realm of England over questions of the 
independence of the national episcopate. He lost 
something of the goodwill of his own countrymen for 
the simple reason that a papal legation meant to the 
mind of the ordinary Englishman a heavy addition 
to the charges upon national resources already 
strained to the verge of bankruptcy. Finally, he was 
given but a short respite from the enmity of 
Gloucester, who seized the welcome opportunity of 
fighting him at every point of constitutional precedent 
1 Stubbs, iii, 111. 


in London. 


and principle with reference to the position of an 
English ecclesiastic holding an office in the papal 
service. The Pope's disappointment was no less 
keen. Long before the cardinal proved by his 
turning aside to the help of Bedford in France that 
his own patriotism was stronger even than his 
churchmanship it was evident that his usefulness to 
the papal cause was seriously impaired by the cir- 
cumstances of his own position as well as by the 
general attitude of the English government. 
His On September 1st, 1428, " the Bishop of Winchester 

reception an( j Cardinal of Rome," as he rode into London on his 
return from a year's crusading against the Bohemians, 
was received in state by the mayor and citizens 
" reverently arrayed in red hoods and green robes," 
and was attended in solemn procession to St. Paul's 
and thence to Westminster by the abbots of St. 
Albans and Waltham and a multitude of friars of the 
four orders. The chronicler of St. Albans was 
greatly impressed by the cardinal's grandeur. Before 
the civic procession came in sight, he had changed 
his travelling garb for a cope of crimson red velvet, 
with sleeves which covered his palfrey from ears to 
crupper, and a velvet hat and an ample hood like a 
scholar's cope. His cross was carried on foot before 
him, and on either side rode a knight holding by the 
brims a red hat — " not such very good ones," noticed 
the chronicler to his surprise — while squires held the 
bridle of silver and enamel, and couriers cleared the 
way in front. " The people were greatly delighted " ; 
the conflicts that centred round the papal emissary 
were no concern of a London crowd. The whole 
scene was " to the great honour of city, realm, and 
commonwealth." So says the monastic annalist. 1 
1 Amundesham, i, 26. 


The London chronicler contents himself with recording 
that the bishop-cardinal was " received worthily and 
royally of the mayor and all his brethren." 1 The 
city fathers could not refuse outward tokens of 
respect to a cardinal of royal blood, but they had 
not forgotten the street-war of 1425 between the 
bishop and their favourite "good Duke Humphrey." 
There were, moreover, significant abstentions from 
the day's proceedings. The only nobleman mentioned 
as present was the cardinal's companion, his nephew 
Edmund Beaufort, Earl of Mortain in Normandy. 
The only bishop to meet him was his nephew Robert, 
whom he had helped into the see of Salisbury. 
Abbots and friars, who owed to the Papacy their 
independence of bishop and parish priest, had reason 
to welcome the man whom the Pope delighted to 
honour ; but the monastic chronicler noted that " no 
other bishops were present at the reception " of the 

On September 22nd the cardinal paid a state visit 
to St. Albans. 2 The convent wore their white copes 
in the procession, and " the new organs made a 
mighty noise." The cardinal gave the benediction, 
and " offered " at the martyr's shrine ; and thence 
passed on to Langley to dine with Queen Joan, the 
widow of Henry IV, who was living there in enforced 
retirement. The cardinal also took part in various 
religious ceremonies of note before Christmas. On 
November 19th there was a sermon by an Augustine 
friar and a solemn procession in the city of London, 
and the cardinal was there with his cross like the 
archbishops. 3 On the first Sunday in Advent the 

1 Gregory, p. 162. 

2 Amundesham, i, 28. 

3 Amundesham, i, 31. 



against his 

cardinal celebrated mass at St. Paul's, in the presence 
of both archbishops and a number of bishops and 
abbots, over the body of his kinsman, Thomas 
Montague, Earl of Salisbury, who had lost his life in 
the siege of Orleans. 1 Yet each of these functions 
had been preceded by a conflict or a repulse. A week 
before the London sermon Gloucester made his first 
open protest against the cardinal's position. On 
November 11th, when the legatine commission was 
published, Richard Caudray, the King's proctor, in- 
structed by Gloucester and the council, entered a 
formal veto in the name of the crown against all and 
any acts of the legate. He asserted that by statute 
and custom alike no legate could enter the realm of 
England " except at the summons, petition, requisi- 
tion, invitation, or request " of the King for the time 
being. The cardinal had come uninvited " affirming 
himself to be a legate of the holy Roman see, and using 
the insignia of his apostolic dignity after the manner 
of a legate." The King and his council would not 
object to his approaching them " not as legate but 
just as a cardinal of the holy Roman Church " sent 
by the Pope, especially in matters concerning " the 
exaltation of the catholic faith and the suppression 
of heretics." They would give willing attention to 
such a commissioner, for indeed they were " a most 
Christian prince and catholic men and faithful and 
devoted sons of the Roman Church " ; but there must 
be one saving clause — " always without prejudice to 
the rights and privileges of the crown of my said lord 
the King and his illustrious realm of England." 
These rights, the cardinal "said openly and expressly" 

1 Salisbury's only child Alice was married to Richard 
Nevill, son of the Earl of Westmoreland and his wife Joan, 
the sister of the Bishop of Winchester. 


in his reply, it was never his intention to violate, and 
he met the veto placed upon his legation by a public 
promise not to exercise his commission without 
consent of the crown or in derogation of the rights 
of King and realm. 1 It seems clear that although the 
futile bull of 1427 was a suspension of Chichele's 
ordinary authority as legatus natus, yet Beaufort was 
not actually given a special commission as legate to 
England. The particular exercise of legatine author- 
ity against which the protest of 1428 was made was 
an attempt to collect funds for the anti-Hussite 
crusade in virtue of his original commission as legate 
for Germany. Such a protest was an appropriate 
reception for an English legate, whose commission was 
as foreign in its extent as it was in its origin, and 
whose visit to his native land had been preceded by 
a bull authorising him to tax English revenues for the 
Pope's continental needs. Gloucester and the council 
had spoken on November 11th for the liberties of the 
realm. A week before the cardinal's association with 
the English bishops in the funeral of the brave Earl 
of Salisbury, convocation had given the Church's 
answer to the cardinal's mission by silently passing 
over the demand of a tenth for the crusade. 

The state had asserted its right to control the legate Question 
in the exercise of his authority. The Church had ^ t ^ 
proved its right to grant or refuse his demands. The f his 
cardinal was now permitted to raise men and means bishopric, 
by voluntary effort. The council sent envoys with 
him to Scotland either to keep a watchful eye upon 
his proceedings or more probably to take advantage 
of his personal relationship to do the council's own 
business with the Scotch sovereign. The council 
paid the cardinal's expenses. Immediately before his 

1 Fasc. Rer. Expet, ii, 618 ; Duck, p. 82. 



return, however, in April, Gloucester made a second 
attack upon his status. The opposition to Beaufort 
this time took the form of a protest against the reten- 
tion of an English see by a cardinal of Rome. 
Gloucester raised the question during the cardinal's 
absence whether his acceptance of the cardinalate had 
not ipso facto involved the resignation of the bishopric 
of Winchester, since a cardinal as such was exempted 
from the jurisdiction of Canterbury. Beaufort 
brought the question to a test on a side issue. The 
see of Winchester carried with it the office of prelate 
of the Order of the Garter, and Beaufort now claimed 
the right to exercise this office. At a meeting of the 
" great council " held on April 17th at Westminster 
in the presence of the little King the question was 
discussed whether the cardinal ought or ought not to 
be allowed to officiate, as he claimed, at the annual 
service at Windsor on the approaching feast of St. 
George. The councillors were asked their opinions 
separately, the two archbishops, twelve bishops, and 
four abbots, as well as twelve lay peers and others. 
They all agreed in substance that their first desire 
was to safeguard the authority of the King, and that 
as the matter was " ambiguous and undecided " the 
bishop should be directed to refrain from attending 
and exercising his claim ; and " this conclusion the 
King " — with such responsibility as could attach to a 
monarch of the age of seven — " confirmed with his 
own mouth and ordered that the lord cardinal should 
be told to abstain, etc." This answer was conveyed 
to the cardinal by four lay peers. He brought his 
reply in person next day, and pressed for justice 
or for reasons why justice should not be done to his 
claim. He was asked to withdraw, and the lords of 
the council gave their opinions singly once more. 



They said that it was " an unusual thing to be a 
cardinal and at the same time retain a bishopric in 
England," but still they neither desired nor dared to 
prejudice either the authority of the King during his 
minority, or the privileges of the bishop and his church ; 
so they would content themselves with requesting him 
to refrain from attending the festival for the present. x 
It was a drawn battle. Beaufort was too strong to be 
driven from his position on a side issue ; and two years 
later the question of the retention of the bishopric 
was raised by Gloucester directly on its own merits. 
On the other hand Beaufort had been compelled to 
waive the claim which he had counted on vindicating. 

The cardinal was doubtless glad to fling himself for Coronation 
the next two months into the work of organising his of Henry VI 
crusaders, and then to exchange the bitter limitations SiMteJ" 
of English politics for the freedom of service abroad, 
even though Bohemia had to be forsaken for France! 
In October he returned to England to make the most 
of a fresh opportunity. Bedford had urged the 
council at home to send the young King over to ' 
France to secure the loyalty of his French subjects ; 
and the parliament which met in September, realising 
the urgency of the request all the more now that 
France had crowned its own King, began to make 
hasty preparations for the coronation of Henry VI 
at Westminster which must precede his coronation 
in Paris. The cardinal came home for the purpose. 
He took part in the state ride from the Tower to 
Westminster on the eve of the coronation, and in the 
" hallowing " of the young King in the Abbey on 
Sunday, November 6th, the feast of St. Leonard. 
The chronicler of St. Albans says that it was the 
cardinal who celebrated the mass and Archbishop 

1 Proceedings, iii, 323; Rymer, x, 414; Vickers, p. 213. 



of the 
at the 

Chichele who anointed and crowned the King. 1 
According to the elaborate account of the ceremony 
given by the London chronicle of Gregory it was the 
archbishop who sang the mass ; the Bishop of London 
administered the chalice to the little King, while " the 
Cardinal of Winchester and another bishop held to 
him the towel of silk " as he knelt before the altar. 
In the procession from the Abbey to the hall first came 
the new knights and the lords, then the chancellor 
(the Archbishop of York), bare-headed with his cross, 
" and after him came the cardinal with his cross in 
his habit like a canon in a garment of red chamelet, 
furred with white meniver ; and then followed the 
King," led between the Bishops of Durham and Bath, 
with his train borne up by his tutor the Earl of 
Warwick. The new Earl of Salisbury, Beaufort's 
nephew, acted as Constable of England in Bedford's 
absence, Gloucester as steward, and Norfolk as 
marshal. At the banquet in Westminster Hall " the 
King kept his estate, and on the right hand sat the 
cardinal with a lower estate, and on the left side sat 
the chancellor and a bishop of France, and no mo at 
that table." 2 

The lords decided at once that the coronation had 
reduced Bedford and Gloucester from the rank of 
protector to that of chief councillor. Gloucester may 
have suspected the hand of Beaufort in this matter. 
At any rate, he seized the first opportunity to strike 
again at the cardinal's position. This time it was the 
cardinal's right to sit on the King's council that was 
challenged, and this time the cardinal won his case. 
His place on the council was retained for him by a 
resolution of the lords spiritual and temporal passed 

1 Amundesham, i, 44. 
3 Gregory, pp. 165-170. 


on December 18th, which illustrates at once his 
personal influence in parliament and yet the suspicion 
which parliament felt with regard to the position of 
a prince of the Roman Church at the court of the 
English realm. It was contrary to precedent, they 
stated, that Englishmen who became cardinals should 
be " admitted to the King's councils as councillors 
of the King and realm " ; but in consideration of 
Beaufort's near relation to the king, in recognition of 
his past services to the crown, especially his recent 
expedition to France (i.e., the diverted crusade), and 
in expectation of future services, the cardinal was to 
be not merely admitted but urged to resume his seat 
upon the council. Two very significant stipulations 
were, however, made. He was to abstain from 
attendance at the council when any matter had to be 
discussed which concerned the King and realm on the 
one side and the apostolic see on the other ; and the 
protest made by the council on his first arrival in 
England as cardinal and recorded in the acts of the 
council was to remain unprejudiced and unimpaired. 
Beaufort accepted the situation, and thanked the 
King and the lords for their favour. 1 It was a 
double-edged favour, at once an inexpensive tribute 
to his own importance and an effective annulling of 
his cardinalate in the only matters where that office Commons' 
had any importance of its own. The personal tribute confidence 
was, however, more emphatic than its limitations, and in the 
was echoed by the commons. In granting the King Cardinal, 
a second subsidy on December 20th, they prefaced 
their resolution with " a special recommendation of 
the right-reverend father in Christ the lord Henry by 
divine permission cardinal-priest of St. Eusebius, 
commonly called the Cardinal of England." This 
1 Rot. Pari., iv, 336-338. 
13 — (2210) 


" recommendation " has been taken to mean that the 
commons' second subsidy was granted in response to 
an appeal from the cardinal made out of gratitude 
for the decision of the lords in his favour. He may 
have used his influence in this direction, or the 
subsidy may itself have been a proof of the satis- 
faction felt by the commons at that same decision in 
the cardinal's favour. In any case, the context of the 
paragraph in the roll of parliament proves that the 
" recommendation " was the testimony borne by the 
commons to the cardinal's merits. Lords and 
commons alike spoke well of the cardinal, and 
Gloucester was powerless to gainsay their will. The 
sacrifice of the crusade five months ago had not been 
fruitless. There was a little nervous anxiety on the 
score of the possible influence of the cardinal's office 
in questions between Rome and England, but there 
was every confidence in his personal devotion to the 
interests of his country in all other matters. 
Return to In February, 1430, the cardinal crossed the Channel 
France with to negotiate with the Duke of Burgundy, and on his 
the King. return was induced to cross once more in attendance 
upon the King. He went with some reluctance. 
Perhaps he was afraid of the latent feuds between 
certain noblemen in the King's retinue ; perhaps he 
was unwilling to surrender the prospect of a new 
lease of power at home which seemed probable in the 
light of the recent support given to him in parliament. 
Gloucester on the other hand appeared anxious to be 
rid of his uncle's restraining presence. His com- 
mission as regent during the King's absence required 
him to act only with the concurrence of that part of 
the council which remained in England, and Beaufort's 
presence on the council would make the requirement 
of its concurrence a real check. 


Parliament did not meet again until January, 1431. The 
Beaufort came over to attend the session, and for once Session of 
there was an approach to harmony between the two I431 * 
rivals. They seem to have met on friendly terms 
in connexion with the proposal of this parliament 
that the two royal dukes and their uncle should discuss 
with envoys of France and of Rome the possibilities 
of peace. The session as a whole was uneventful, 
but there is no need to attribute its peaceful character 
either to any special excellence in Gloucester's 
government or to any weakness of the cardinal 
owing to the absence of " his turbulent supporters " 
in France. 1 The commons were unusually liberal 
in their grants to the King. Perhaps Beaufort used 
his influence in that direction ; but Gloucester was 
probably no less convinced than Beaufort that peace 
was yet but a pious hope. In April the cardinal 
went back to the trial of the Maid at Rouen, and 
Gloucester spent the summer and autumn in dealing Demand 
vigorously with an outburst of political Lollardism f <* the 
and cognate disorders in the provinces. Before the [f s n g ^" his 
end of the year the cardinal's position was attacked bishopric!* 
once more. The absence of Beaufort and some of 
his staunchest supporters in France gave his opponents 
an opportunity which they used to the full. No doubt 
the attack was timed deliberately for another reason 
also. The King's return was imminent, and his return 
meant the return of Beaufort and his friends and the 
reduction of the regent to chief councillor again. 
Gloucester may have wished to humiliate beforehand 
the man whom he regarded as bent on his own 
humiliation. At all events he authorised the lawyers 
of the crown to make out a case against the cardinal 
before a great council of fourteen spiritual and eight 
1 Vickers, p. 221. 


temporal peers. Precedents were quoted to prove 
that the acceptance of the dignity of a cardinal had 
always involved the resignation of an English see. 
Archbishop Kilwardby in 1278 and Archbishop 
Langham in 1368 had been deprived on this ground, 
and the rule must be maintained in the interests of 
the welfare of the kingdom. The King's sergeant 
and attorney accordingly presented a formal petition 
that the cardinal should be compelled to resign the 
see of Winchester and refund the revenues received 
from the see since 1426. The regent himself asked 
the Bishop of Worcester whether it was true that the 
cardinal had purchased from the Pope for himself, his 
city and his diocese, an exemption from the jurisdiction 
of Canterbury. The bishop reluctantly admitted 
that the Bishop of Lichfield had told him that he had 
acted on Beaufort's behalf at the papal court in the 
procuring of such an exemption. No further evidence 
of this offence, which was an undoubted breach of 
the statute of Praemunire, was forthcoming at the 
time ; on the other hand the statement of the Bishop 
of Worcester was not denied by the Bishop of Lichfield 
who was present at this very council. The bishops 
and other lords of the council all declared their desire 
to maintain the interests of the crown and realm, but 
in view of the cardinal's services to the nation and of 
his relation to the King they suggested the postpone- 
ment of the whole question until he could return to 
give an account of his action in the matter, and they 
advised that in the meantime the records should be 
searched and the judges asked for their decision on 
the point of law. 1 This stay of proceedings was 
bare justice to an absent defendant. But the council 

» Proceedings, iv, pp. xxxi-xxxiii, 100, 101, 103 ; Rymer, 
x, 497. 


was not without justification in merely suspending 
instead of quashing those proceedings. They were 
probably aware that one of the bulls presented at the 
time of the cardinal's investiture at Calais in 1427 pro- 
vided expressly for the retention of all his ecclesiastical 
preferments in England. The acceptance of a bull 
of this character exposed the cardinal to the penalties 
of the statute of Praemunire just as his acceptance 
of his benefices exposed him to the statute of Provisors. 
Probably it was only Beaufort's rank that saved him 
from summary condemnation on this occasion. The 
matter in question lay entirely within the region 
which the lords in December, 1429, had expressly 
marked off as dangerous ground on which the cardinal 
was not to take part in the deliberations of the council. 
So there was no inconsistency in the lords in welcoming 
and requesting his presence as an English bishop 
at the council in 1429 and in contemplating now the 
possibility of his being condemned for defiance of 
the standing law of the English constitution. That 
their action in postponing the issue for fuller investi- 
gation did involve the contemplation of a verdict 
against his position seems clear from the fact that 
the only lord who protested against their action was 
the Bishop of Carlisle, a known adherent of the car- 
dinal, whose appointment to Carlisle had been met 
by a strong objection from Gloucester in 1429. 

Gloucester was not satisfied with the proceedings Writs of 
of the lords. They had gone too far to be tolerable p ^^^nire 
for a supporter of the cardinal ; they had not gone clrdinal? 16 
far enough to be acceptable to his opponent. He had 
not, however, long to wait. On November 20th the 
privy council ordered writs of Praemunire and attach- 
ment upon the statute to be prepared for service upon 
the cardinal. The issue of formal writs of this 


character implies that the opinion of the judges had 
been given, and given against the cardinal. The 
councillors would not have proposed or consented 
to take such a definite step without some legal 
authority. The decision of the judges was, of course, 
in this case an expert opinion, not a formal sentence. 
But it was sufficient to give moral weight to the 
prejudice against the cardinal's position. Gloucester 
hastened to make the most of his new advantage. 
It was a " great council " which had suggested the 
consultation of the judges. But the temporising 
character of their suggestion gave reason to doubt 
whether they would be eager or even willing to proceed 
to extremities against the cardinal. If the opinion 
of the judges was that Beaufort had violated the law 
of the land, the law had yet to be set in motion. 
There were some at least among the members of that 
larger body who were neither wholly content to 
accept Beaufort's connexion with Rome nor wholly 
pleased to assist Gloucester in his opposition to 
Beaufort. The great council had not been unanimous 
even about Gloucester's salary. The privy council, 
or rather that portion of the privy council which 
remained in England to advise the regent, was more 
fully in sympathy with Gloucester or more completely 
under his control. It was to the privy council 
accordingly that Gloucester turned to give effect to 
the opinion of the legal authorities. 1 Here again, 
however, he was compelled to accept less than he 
expected. Some of the councillors remembered that 
the cardinal was the King's kinsman, that he had 
gone abroad at the request of the council, and that he 
had rendered notable services to the King. Other 

1 Proceedings, iv, 104, 105, with Sir H. Nicolas' 
explanation, Preface, xxxiv-xxxvi. 


reasons for delay were urged by the bishop's vicar- 
general, the Abbot of Chertsey. The lords of the 
council, therefore, decided unanimously to postpone 
the execution of the writs until the King's return. 
Gloucester was reluctant to abandon the hope of 
speedy satisfaction ; but the lords pleaded with him 
to give way, and at last he yielded. The cardinal 
was left, therefore, still in possession of his wealth 
and his freedom. 

Henry came back to England early in February, The 
1432. He was now the duly crowned King of England Cardinal 's 
and of his titular realm of France, and though he Parliament 
had not reached his tenth birthday he was growing 
rapidly " in conceit of his high and royal authority," 
as the Earl of Warwick, his tutor, told the council. 1 
Gloucester seized the opportunity of the King's 
presence to effect at once a change of ministry and 
to replace the chief officers of state by partisans of 
his own. Parliament met in May amid gathering 
clouds which soon burst. The session began with 
a solemn farce. The late regent professed his desire 
to work in harmony with the lords, and obtained their 
consent and promise to work in harmony with him 
and with each other ; and the chancellor duly re- 
ported " this pleasing fiction of concord " to the 
commons. 2 It was more of a challenge than a 
concession on Gloucester's part, and the challenge 
was promptly taken up by Beaufort, who had returned 
to defend himself and now met the charges hanging 
over his head by a bold appeal to the lords in parlia- 
ment, where his strength lay. He complained that 
on his way to Rome, whither he was travelling in 
obedience to repeated instructions from the Pope 

1 Proceedings, iv, 132-137. 

2 Stubbs, hi, 118; Ramsay, i, 440. 


and in virtue of special permission obtained from the 
King at Calais, he heard in Flanders, both from letters 
written to him and from busy rumour, that he had 
been accused and attacked at home on a charge of 
treason. Preferring the integrity of his fair name 
to the preservation of his worldly goods, he had 
returned to England to declare his loyalty and 
innocence in the presence of the King, and to demand 
there a statement of the accusation made against him, 
" whatever might be the estate, rank or dignity " 
of his accuser, — a thinly disguised hint at the person 
of the late regent, his only superior in station beneath 
the King. The accusation itself he was prepared to 
answer in such manner and form as became a person 
of his position. The cardinal's demand was discussed 
by Gloucester and the lords in the presence of the 
King, and finally by command of the King and by 
the advice and assent of the duke and the rest of the 
peers present he was told that nobody had accused 
him of treason, and that nobody, it was believed, could 
or would make such an accusation ; on the contrary, 
the King held, considered and declared him to be 
his true and faithful liege. The cardinal thanked the 
King for this declaration, and requested that it might 
be given him in writing under the great seal, but not, 
he said, because he wished to use the record as a reply 
to any future charge of treason that might be made, 
for he was ready always to answer for himself. His 
request was granted. Orders were given for the 
entering of the proceedings on the roll of parliament 
and for the issue of letters under the royal seal to be 
kept by the cardinal. 1 There is some doubt as to 
the precise reference of this charge of treason. If the 
cardinal referred to the issue of the writ of Praemunire, 
1 Rot. Pari., iv, 390, 391. 



the denial given by Gloucester in the King's name was 
simply false. Probably the cardinal's statement had 
reference to an informal, constructive charge of 
treason. Gloucester or his adherents had talked of 
the breach of Praemunire as practical treason. In that 
case the denial simply amounted to an explanation 
that the cardinal's offence was regarded as merely 
a technical violation of law and not as a conscious 
disloyalty to his sovereign. Such a concession was 
something, but not everything. Gloucester was 
still in possession of the King's favour, and not 
humiliated as a false accuser. The cardinal's char- 
acter was cleared, but his position remained 

Beaufort had a second grievance which he now Protest 
proceeded to state. His plate and jewels which he cfnfisca-* 1 * 
had sent home in advance, including probably certain 
of the King's regalia pledged to him for a recent loan, 
had been seized by the officers of the crown at 
Sandwich. Gloucester was in some way responsible 
for the seizure, and apparently had some personal 
claim upon the jewels or made some such claim. 
It has been suggested that perhaps they had been 
formerly pledged to him by the King and never fully 
redeemed, 1 and that he seized them now to secure 
the repayment of the balance due to himself. It is 
nowhere stated that any of the jewels were royal 
property ; but the supposition is a fair inference from 
the stipulation that the value of the jewels was to be 
retained by the King in the event of his proving to 
have " a good and just title " to them. Beaufort 

1 Vickers, p. 233. Lingard, iv, 71 (ed. 1849) suggests that 
the jewels may have been seized " under the pretence of a 
false entry at the custom house as to their description or 
value." This, however, could only have been the pretext, 
not the reason for the seizure. 

tion of his 


was not under actual sentence, for the writs of 

Praemunire issued by the council in November, 1431, 

had not yet been put into execution. The jewels, 

therefore, can scarcely have been confiscated by way 

of an instalment of the penalties due under that 

statute. Probably the King's supposed title to the 

jewels was based upon an assertion that Beaufort had 

been fully repaid and was not now entitled to retain 

possession of the pledge. Whatever the facts of the 

case were, the dispute was settled by a compromise. 

Parliament agreed to restore the jewels to the cardinal, 

and he agreed to pay £6,000 into the exchequer on 

their account. This payment was to be regarded as 

a loan to the King. If at any time within six years 

the King could justify the seizure of the jewels, the 

loan was not to be repaid ; otherwise the cardinal 

was to receive the whole sum at the end of the period. 

If Gloucester proved to have any just claim on any 

portion of the value of the jewels, he was to be paid 

off by the King. The cardinal agreed also to advance 

a second sum of £6,000 to the King as an ordinary 

loan, and to surrender certain securities which he 

held on the score of recent loans made to the King 

in France to the extent of nearly 13,000 marks. 

Parliament consented at the same time to repay these 

two last sums, in all nearly £14,600, out of the first 

subsidies available. It has been said that Beaufort 

" ultimately managed to creep out of the engagements 

that he had made." * The statement probably refers 

1 Vickers, r . 233. Lingard, on the other hand (iv, 72 n.), 
states, on the evidence of the Pell Records, 425, that the 
King paid the cardinal ^8,000 in June, 1434, the estimated 
value of the jewels. If this payment is distinct, as it seems 
to be, from the repayment of ^6,000 ordered in May, 1434, 
the only conclusion is that the cardinal had not received his 
jewels back again in 1432, in spite of the agreement in 


to the fact that the sum of £6,000 paid by the cardinal 
in consideration of the restitution of the jewels was 
repaid to him while Bedford was in England in May, 
1434, after the expiration of two only of the six years. 
But the sum was repaid because the cardinal succeeded 
in obtaining a declaration from the King at the 
request of the lords that the seizure of the jewels in 
1432 was illegal, and he thereupon promptly lent the 
crown another sum of 10,000 marks. 1 

Beaufort had bought his share of this compromise Act of 
dearly, but he speedily received ample reward for his inde J£ mt y 
sacrifice. The commons rallied to his side with a Cardinal, 
petition to the crown for a statute to secure him 
against all risk of procedure under the acts of Prae- 
munire and Pro visors, in recognition of " his great 
and notable services " to the King and to his father 
before him. The petition was granted, and the 
cardinal "received full parliamentary absolution." 2 
The language of the petition is interesting. In pre- 
vious entries on the rolls of parliament in connexion 
with the vexed question of his position, Beaufort is 
described simply as cardinal ; in this petition he is 
described as cardinal and Bishop of Winchester, and 
again as " the said Henry cardinal, by whatever 
name the said Henry may be named." If the lan- 
guage is deliberate, the only inference is that the 
question was not merely shelved ; the retention of 
the bishopric was at last formally recognised and 
sanctioned. In 1440 indeed Gloucester returned to 
the charge that the cardinal had forfeited his bishop- 
ric. " He sued to our holy father the Pope to have a 
bull declaratory that notwithstanding that he was 
assumpt to the state of cardinal, that the see was not 

1 Proceedings, iv, 236-239. 

2 Ramsay, i, 441. For the petition see Rot. Pari., iv, 392. 



Grounds of 
to the 
of his 

void, where indeed it stood void by a certain time or 
that bull was granted, and so he was exempt from his 
ordinary by the taking on him the state of cardinal ; 
and the bishopric of the Church of Winchester then 
standing void, he took it again of the Pope, the not 
learned not knowing wherein he was fallen in the case 
of provision, whereby all his good was clearly and 
lawfully forfeited to you, my right doubted lord 
(i.e., Henry VI), with more, as the statute declareth, 
for your advantage." 1 But whether the commons 
in 1432 regarded their petition as a pardon for a real 
offence on the part of the cardinal in 1426, or only 
as a refusal to reconsider the question of his status, 
it is certain that Gloucester's futile outburst in 
1440 was the only subsequent protest against the 
constitutional position of " the Cardinal of England." 

It is difficult to estimate the weight to be assigned 
to the various motives which had lain behind this 
opposition to the cardinal's tenure of the bishopric. 
Gloucester's attitude was largely determined in the 
first instance by political rivalry and afterwards by 
personal enmity. Chichele stood for the constitu- 
tional self-government of a national church. Others 
of the bishops on Gloucester's side had designs 
perhaps upon the possible vacancy in the rich see of 
Winchester. But all parties involved seem to have 
shared that inconsistency which marked the attitude 
of English statesmen of that age towards the Papacy, 
and which is vividly illustrated by the language of 
Gloucester's elaborate protest of 1440. He was 
willing to admit that Henry V had no objection to the 
cardinalate being held by English clerks without a 
bishopric in England, but he insisted that the King's 
idea was never intended to permit the elevation of a 

1 Stevenson, ii, 442. 


suffragan above his metropolitan. He was ready 
enough to sanction a preferment which gave him what 
other Christian kings had, " a promoter of his nation " 
at the court of Rome, who might watch over and work 
for English interests at a general council or in any 
matter " that might concern the weal of him and of 
his realm," but " not to abide in this land as any part 
of his council.' ' " And therefore," Gloucester pro- 
ceeded in his appeal to Henry VI, " though it like 
you to do him (i.e., the cardinal) that worship to set 
him in your privy council where that you list, yet in 
your parliaments, where every lord spiritual and 
temporal have their place, him ought to occupy his 
place but as bishop," not as cardinal. Englishmen 
were willing to recognize the papal power at a distance, 
and to accept or invite its action from Rome in certain 
matters and within certain limits, varying with the 
circumstances of the time ; but they were reluctant 
to give its direct representatives as such a footing 
at home in the Church and realm of England. 

Beaufort's own conception of his place and purpose The 

as a papal dignitary is no less difficult to determine. Cardinal's 

i own views 
There are but few letters or speeches of his to reveal 

his view of the relations between his two masters, 

the Crown and the Papacy. Private ambition may 

well account for some part of his motive in accepting, 

perhaps seeking the cardinalate. It was the path to 

an international reputation, if not to the papal throne. 

Patriotism may account for more. In an age typified 

by the Council of Constance with its inextricable 

blending of political and ecclesiastical interests, a 

position of honour at the court of Rome might serve 

a statesman-bishop as a lever to be worked in the 

cause of his King and his country. Such a position 

was fraught with personal complications for himself 



and with dangers for both Church and nation ; the 
complications he was prepared to risk, the dangers 
he was probably rather inclined to minimise. He 
did not share Chichele's idea of English ecclesiastical 
polity, but it is doubtful whether he shared Martin's 
idea of a Papacy governing to the exclusion of the 
English episcopate and in defiance of the English 
monarchy. He had no theoretical solution of the 
problems of church government, no burning zeal for 
church reform. He was neither a philosopher nor an 
enthusiast in the way of churchmanship, but rather 
an opportunist. Yet his opportunism had its limits. 
More than one act of self-sacrifice or self-restraint 
proved that the English statesman was stronger in 
Henry of Winchester than the Roman prince. 

His acceptance of the cardinalate was, however, 
a grave misreading of the future. The retention of 
his see was an evil precedent soon followed. The 
cardinalate. concession granted in his case as a personal privilege 
became a common custom. Primate after primate 
accepted the position of cardinal and special legate ; 
and as the real inherent authority of the archbishop 
came to be obscured by the dignity of a derived office, 
the national church lost more and more of the visible 
signs of her independence and of the self-government 
of her provincial synods. x Even if the Cardinal of 
England was partly blind or indifferent to the loss 
thus involved for the church of his primary allegiance, 
he must have felt with increasing disappointment 
the suspicion with which his action was watched by 
his countrymen. In 1430 a report was heard that 
the Pope had endeavoured at the instance of the 
King's enemies to detach Beaufort from the King and 
his council in France. The report was perhaps true. 
1 Capes, p. 201. 

of his 


Martin may have tried to influence the cardinal in the 
interests of France. Beaufort's patriotism was no 
doubt proof against such a temptation. But the 
report led to an order forbidding any of the King's 
subjects to accompany the cardinal if he left the King 
without special permission. 1 In 1434 when he 
requested the licence of the privy council to go abroad 
when and where he liked, and with such money as he 
wished, on a pilgrimage which it was not safe to make 
known publicly, he concluded with the plea, " consi- 
dering that my full purpose is with the grace of God 
for to die in this land." 2 His request was granted, 
but it is not clear whether his vow of pilgrimage was 
a mere cover for some political design secretly known 
and approved by the privy council, or whether his 
concluding plea was intended to remove a suspicion 
that he contemplated carrying his wealth abroad to 
spend the rest of his days there, in the hope perhaps 
of rising even now to the papal throne itself. Three 
years later he requested permission to go to " the 
court," i.e., to Rome, to perform " his duty," and 
pleaded that he had obtained " a patent of rest," 
i.e., an exemption from further service, and that the 
King was now old enough to dispense with his attend- 
ance. The council refused his request, grounding 
their refusal plausibly on " the unsure ty of the way 
and the great jeopardy of his person," and on the need 
of his services at home or abroad in the negotiations 
for peace with France. 3 The very next year the 
minutes of the privy council contain the blunt resolu- 
tion " that the King grant no licence to my lord 
cardinal to go to the general council." 4 The English 

1 Rymer, x, 472 ; Proceedings, iv, p. xv. 

2 Proceedings, iv, 235 and lxx, lxxi. 

3 Proceedings, v, 9. 

* Proceedings, v, 93. 


government was certainly resentful of the interference 
of the Council of Basel in the congress of Arras in 
1435 ; but it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the 
cardinal himself was suspected of pursuing his own 
designs at the expense of his country's interests. 
The cardinal may be acquitted of this suspicion in 
the light of history, but the suspicion itself is intelli- 
gible enough. It was the natural view for his 
contemporaries to take of his dual position as an 
English statesman and a member of the sacred college 
at Rome, and it was no slight hindrance to the working 
out of the most unselfish features of his policy for 




The abandonment of the Bohemian crusade and the The 
loss of his legatine dignity left the Cardinal of England Cardinal's 
free, though at a great price, to devote himself to the l^f 1 
affairs of his own country ; but for the last twenty 
years of his life his attention was divided between 
two anxieties. There was the wearying alternation of 
war and diplomacy in France ; there was the inter- 
mittent conflict at home which owed its gravity to the 
persistent enmity of Gloucester, and found its points 
of attack at one time in the ecclesiastical position of 
the cardinal-bishop, at another in his foreign policy. 
The attack upon the cardinal's status was practically 
dropped in 1432, though something of the suspicion 
aroused by his connexion with the Roman court still 
lingered after that connexion had been accepted and 
recognised. It was the cardinal's foreign policy on 
which the criticism of Gloucester fastened more and 
more as the cardinal's once precarious position gained 
in security. In fact, the references made in 1440 to 
Beaufort's early offences against the precedents of 
Church and realm were merely part of a general attack 
upon the statesman who had dared to make sacrifices 
for the sake of peace. His preferments, his loans, 
his home administration, everything that could be 
turned into fuel,— all were flung into what was meant 
for a final conflagration to consume the cardinal and 
all his works. 


14 — (2310) 






The history of English policy in France after 1430 
falls into two chapters. The first was an anxious bid 
for victory, which began with the coronation of the 
child-King and ended with the conference at Arras 
and the death of Bedford in 1435. The second was 
a reluctant passing from defeat to surrender, which 
ended in the marriage of the King to Margaret of 
Anjou in 1445. While there seemed to be still a 
prospect of success, Beaufort spared neither himself 
nor his countrymen in the effort to regain the hold of 
England upon France. He contributed loan after 
loan ; he gave both diplomatic and military support 
to Bedford ; he strove by concession and conciliation 
to retain the indispensable support of England's only 
ally, the Duke of Burgundy. When in one month 
Burgundy went over to the side of France and the 
death of Bedford robbed England of her greatest 
leader, Beaufort was wise enough to read the hand- 
writing on the wall, though none too soon, and strong 
enough to revise his country's policy and to work 
for peace. The final surrender was made by other 
hands, and went further than the author of the policy 
had contemplated. But the cardinal deserves full 
credit for the wisdom and courage of the first steps 
towards the abandonment of an impossible task. 

In October, 1429, the regent and his ally left Paris 
almost ungoverned and unprotected. Bedford retired 
to Rouen to retain or recover what he could of 
Normandy. Burgundy went off to Flanders to 
marry his third wife, Isabella of Portugal, who was to 
play such a prominent part in the negotiations between 
England and France. The daughter of John the First 
of Portugal and Philippa of Lancaster, she was the 
half-niece of the cardinal and the cousin of Bedford, 
and she had lately stayed in England on her way from 


Portugal. Burgundy himself had been on terms of 
truce with France since August, and was pledged 
to a conference at Auxerre in April, 1430. In 
November his envoys and those of the Duke of Savoy 
met the French representatives to prepare for the 
conference ; and the French king promised to take 
part in the conference on condition that the English 
would bring over the prisoners of Agincourt and 
provide facilities for communication between the 
exiled nobles and their king. In December the 
duke's agent, Lannoy, was in England laying before 
the council his master's advice. They must take 
part in the conference, if they wanted to show their 
sincerity in the cause of peace and to retain the 
support of their French subjects. The one thing 
needful was to secure a friendly cardinal as mediator. 
At the same time they must prepare for vigorous war. 
The King must come in person and in force before the 
conference met. The French believed themselves to 
be the masters of the situation, and peace was 
improbable ; the duke must therefore be given 
territory, authority, troops, and pay to induce and 
enable him to clear the neighbourhood of Paris in 
preparation for Henry's arrival. The support of 
Savoy, Richemont, and Brittany must be bought, 
and the friendship of neighbouring princes secured 
Finally, " the Cardinal of England " must be sent 
at once to direct affairs in France and to consult the 
Duke in Flanders on his way. * 

The English government followed these suggestions 
on nearly every point. On December 15th the 
cardinal was granted £1,000 for his mission to 
Burgundy, though his salary was to be reduced if he 
returned within three months, except at the King's 

1 Beaucourt, ii, 415, 416. 




mended to 
the Pope as 
a mediator. 

command. His passage was paid on February 8th, 
and before the end of the month he had concluded an 
agreement with Burgundy. The duke was to receive 
Champagne and Brie and to be repaid the cost of 
their conquest. Meanwhile on December 20th letters 
had been addressed to the King's French subjects 
announcing that he was coming to their help in such 
force that he trusted to see them soon " living, labour- 
ing and trading in good peace and tranquillity." 1 
In significant contrast to these brave promises stands 
the very next document in the records of the council, 
dated January 5th, 1430. It was a commission to 
Dr. Nicholas Billeston, evidently the Nicholas 
Bildeston who as the chancellor of the Cardinal of 
England in 1427 had conveyed to the Pope the tidings 
of the crusaders' rout at Tachau. Billeston was to 
go to Rome and tell the Pope that the King had heard 
that " certain princes " had decided to ask his holiness 
to send certain cardinals into France as negotiators 
or mediators in the cause of peace. He was to 
request the Pope in that case to send mediators 
who had not already shown themselves favourable to 
" the King's adversary of France " ; otherwise the 
negotiations were predestined to failure. In particu- 
lar he was to express the King's desire that the 
Cardinal of England, who for more than thirty years 
had taken part in the councils of the King and 
diligently done the King's business, and therefore 
knew the state of the King and of his realms, might 
attend the conferences held in France or elsewhere 
" for the pacification of the said wars." If his 
holiness wanted to know in what capacity the King 
desired the cardinal to attend, as a mediator or as 
a partisan, Billeston was to answer, "in whichever 
1 Proceedings, iv, 10. 


capacity his holiness should please. " If the cardinal's 
relation to the King or his place of birth or other 
reasonable cause prevented his being regarded as 
" an indifferent person " or " a suitable mediator," 
permission was to be sought for the cardinal to attend 
at least as an advocate of the King. The whole 
commission betrays the anxiety of the council as to 
the composition of the peace conference or to the 
conduct of the negotiations. Gloucester and Beaufort 
both signed the envoy's instructions. The envoy, 
however, was changed. Robert Fitzhugh, the King's 
proctor at Rome, was after all entrusted with this 
delicate mission. 1 It is an interesting query whether 
Billeston was dropped because his name recalled 
previous errands to Rome in 1427 and after in the 
service of the cardinal-legate. The Pope had indeed 
" other reasonable cause " to refuse Beaufort as a 
mediator. Only six months had elapsed since the 
diversion of the crusaders to France. The council 
must have felt that their request was doomed to 
failure ; and the cardinal must have realised more 
deeply than ever the cost of his patriotic action in 
July, 1429. It had cut short his own ambition then ; 
now it was all too likely to limit his opportunities of 
serving his country. The venture was made none the 
less. An order was signed on January 18th for the 
payment of two sums of £2,400 and £4,833 owed by 
the council " as well to the lord Pope as to the 
lord cardinal " for the troops retained for the defence 
of the realm and sent into France in the company of 
the cardinal. 2 Perhaps this order was intended as a 
tardy restitution and a tentative propitiation. 

1 Proceedings, iv, 12-15. 
a Ibid., 16. 



Failure of 
the confer- 

on the 

The conference, however, itself was but a pretence 
on either side to gain time. The Duke of Savoy was 
reluctant to abandon the hope of a meeting, but in 
March, 1430, first Burgundy and then his chief vassal, 
John of Luxemburg, withdrew, and finally on March 
27th Savoy wrote to the King of France that the 
Burgundian chancellor had come to tell him that the 
Cardinal of England and the other English envoys 
had asked for a postponement of the conference from 
April 1st to June 1st. The King of France consented 
to the postponement, remarking that he had seen 
no sign of peaceful intentions on the part of the 
English, for they had taken no steps to bring over the 
captive French nobles upon whose arrival the negotia- 
tions in part depended. The Duke of Savoy soon saw 
that the French king was not a whit less determined 
to abandon the conference ; and on May 29th his 
last hope was destroyed by a long letter from his 
nephew of Burgundy at Compiegne enclosing a reply 
in the negative from the Cardinal of England, intimat- 
ing that he himself shared the Englishmen's doubts 
of the sincerity of the French, and concluding with 
the triumphant announcement that on May 23rd he 
had captured "her whom they call the Maid." 1 
Burgundy's own desire for a peaceful settlement had 
vanished on the arrival of men and means from his 
English allies. 

The cardinal had returned to England at the end 
of March or early in April, 1430, bringing a favourable 
report of the loyalty of their Burgundian adherents. 
He had made good use of his time. On May 13th an 
order was signed for the repayment of £500 advanced 
by the cardinal to Sir John of Luxemburg, whose 
service he had secured for the King while he was on 
1 Beaucourt, ii, 419 foil. 


his mission to Burgundy. x On his return he found 
fresh work waiting for him. He was requested to 
cross the Channel again almost at once in the retinue 
of the young King. He was reluctant to go back to 
France so soon, and consented only on conditions of 
his own. On April 16th, so runs the memorandum 
in the acts of the privy council, " at Canterbury, at 
the great and busy prayer and instance of my lord 
of Gloucester and the remnant of the lords of the 
King's council, my lord the cardinal granted to go 
over into France with the King and to abide there 
with him and to do the good that he may, if so be 
that he find at his thither coming that the lords and 
captains and other that go at this time also over with 
the King will be of good rule and governance and 
eschew division and taking parties one against an- 
other by dissension or by their own authority, and 
else he protested to come home and report the cause 
of his departing from thence to the King's council 
here." Various articles of agreement were accord- 
ingly drawn up and accepted by the council. Quarrels 
" betwixt lord and lord or party and party " were to 
be settled by the rest of the lords. Decisions of the 
lords of the council in France were to hold good as 
the acts of the whole council, except in important 
matters requiring the consultation of all the council- 
lors in England and France " personally or by writ- 
ing." Bedford's regency of France was to cease on 
the King's arrival. Councillors and chief officers 
were not to be dismissed nor appointed except by 
consent of the whole council. Promotions and 
recommendations of individuals were to have the 
sanction of both parts of the council. This insist- 
ence upon mutual reference, doubtless a necessary 

1 Proceedings, iv, 33. 


safeguard, especially against Gloucester's proceedings 
at home, was yet a hindrance to prompt and efficient 
administration. But the precautions taken against 
dissension and insubordination, a sad confession indeed 
in the face of a great undertaking, show that the 
cardinal had a shrewd conception of England's real 
danger. It is interesting to find Gloucester assenting 
to Beaufort for once. The Duke of Norfolk and the 
Earls of Huntingdon and Warwick then and there 
" at the instance of my lord the cardinal made 
assurance in the hands of my lord of Gloucester " 
that they would submit any dissension or quarrel to 
the council. x 
Beaufort The English government had done its best to 

with the respond to Burgundy's appeal for vigorous action. 
France" The forces that crossed with the King numbered 1 ,200 
lances and 3,500 bows, and, dissensions apart, there 
was a gallant array of commanders, including two 
dukes, six earls and eight barons. Gloucester, who 
was left at home with a strictly defined commission as 
Lieutenant of England, had few but bishops to counsel 
or control his action. The expedition crossed the 
Channel on St. George's Day, April 23rd ; and king, 
cardinal and lords went straight to mass together at 
St. Nicholas' Church at Calais immediately after their 
landing " at ten of the bell before noon." The troops 
then moved out and forward at once in various 
directions to begin their task of fighting the way to 
Paris clear for the King. It was no easy task ; three 
months elapsed before Henry could safely venture 
southwards. The cardinal seems to have remained in 
attendance upon the King at Calais. He was cer- 
tainly there at the end of June, for on June 22nd he 
received instructions from the council to expel thence 
1 Proceedings, iv, 35-38. 


certain Englishmen who had been guilty of serious 
misbehaviour. 1 Meanwhile Bedford and his com- 
manders were slowly but surely regaining a firm hold 
upon Normandy and Paris, and on July 29th Henry 
VI made his state entry into Rouen, where he re- 
mained for more than a year. In August the English 
resumed possession of Paris, and in January, 1431, 
Bedford once more rode into the capital. 

Burgundy himself had met with little but failure Discontent 
in his part of the campaign of 1430. His own Q U ^ e of 
dominions were attacked by the French ; he had to Burgundy, 
retire to take possession of Brabant, which had fallen 
to him on the death of its duke ; and the Anglo- 
Burgundian force which he left to besiege Compiegne 
was at last compelled to retreat. On November 4th 
he wrote to Henry VI a letter of mingled complaint 
and apology. 2 He had done his best, he said, to fulfil 
his agreement with his uncle the cardinal, but he had 
not received payment for his own artillery or for the 
English troops in his service. Even his own territories 
were now endangered and his revenues stopped by 
the hostility of the Emperor. At the same time he 
instructed his envoys to press for payment, and to 
warn the English council of the disasters that must 
befall the joint cause in default of more vigorous 
financial support. If there were difficulties in the 
way of payment, " the said envoys/' so ran the duke's 
instruction, " might secretly and discreetly open " 
the fact that the cardinal had on previous occasions 
suggested that the Duke of Bourbon might be surren- 
dered in payment of the King's debt ; the Duke of 
Burgundy would gladly accept this settlement in lieu 
of money. The envoys were to state also that the 

1 Stevenson, ii, 147. 

2 Stevenson, ii, 156-164. 





Pope had appointed two cardinals to come into France 
and negotiate for peace ; and it had been arranged 
that the expenses of one should be paid by the King 
and the expenses of the other by " the Dauphin and 
the adverse party." The duke would be glad of the 
King's advice ; the Pope, it was said, would sanction 
the levying of half a tenth for the payment of the 
cardinal-mediator, but the King must advance ready 
money before the cardinal could come. x The English 
council at Rouen was in no hurry to reply. Finance 
was an increasing difficulty ; diplomacy was once 
more in the air. Parliament had been summoned to 
meet early in January, 1431, and on December 20th 
Beaufort went to England to attend the session, 
probably also to lay Burgundy's complaints and 
requests before the councillors at home. The 
commons responded with a great effort ; besides the 
ordinary subsidies and duties a new land-tax was 
instituted, and securities were authorised for loans 
to the amount of £50,000. But the monetary burdens 
of the nation were reaching the point of exhaustion. 
The council sent £14,000 for the war in France during 
the winter. The payments, too, for Beaufort's 
services were a heavy item. His salary was £1,000 
a quarter. Gloucester was " still more rapacious " ; 
in November, 1431, his salary, reduced to 2,000 marks 
in 1429, was raised to 6,000. Gloucester, moreover, 
was no lender to the state. Beaufort had advanced 
£2,800 in Normandy in November, 1430, and over 
£600 in February ; the sums were, it is true, repaid 
in March, 1431, but they had served their purpose in 
meeting the demands of the hour for the payment of 
starved troops. Parliament, however, conscious of 
the growing burden of debt, was not unwilling to pave 
1 Stevenson, ii, 164-181. 


the way for the discussion of peace. Pope Martin, 
while urging Burgundy privately to make peace even 
if it meant abandoning his English allies, had written 
to Beaufort at Calais to exercise his influence with the 
King in the direction of peace, and the cardinal had 
found Henry inclined to accept the suggestion, — at 
least so said the council in 1433. x It was probably 
at this juncture that the council at Westminster on 
November 7th forbade the King's lieges to accom- 
pany the cardinal away from the King without special 
leave. 2 The council was perhaps alarmed at the 
possibility of Beaufort's being captured by papal 
influence. In November, 1430, Martin nominated 
Nicholas Albergati, Cardinal of St. Cross, to undertake 
the work of pacificator, and in December wrote to ask 
Henry VI to welcome his legate. Parliament took 
the opportunity to give its preliminary consent to 
the idea. By the Treaty of Troyes it was stipulated 
that no peace should be made with the Dauphin 
without the consent of the three estates of both 
realms. The lords and commons now authorised 
Bedford, Gloucester, and Beaufort to treat for peace 
on such conditions as they might think " convenable 
and expedient." Special reference was made to the 
reported mission of the Cardinal of St. Cross, and also 
to the pending negotiations with Spain and Scotland 
for a similar purpose. It was admitted that it would 
be wrong for " a Christian prince to refuse peace 
offered with means reasonable " ; but this pious 
sentiment was outweighed in sincerity by the second 
ground which parliament assigned for its action, — 
" also considering the burden of the war and how 

1 Stevenson, ii, 250, 251. 

2 Rymer, x, 472. 


grievous and heavy it is to this land, and how 
behoveful therefore the peace were to it." 1 
Reply This resolution of parliament set the Cardinal of 

Council to England free to act as circumstances might require, 
Burgundy, and he returned to France to see the end of the trial 
of the Maid. 2 On May 28th the English council at 
Rouen replied at last to the Duke of Burgundy, 
doubtless in the light of the cardinal's report from 
home. The King, they said, regretted the sufferings 
and losses of the duke's territories as much as if they 
had been his own, and would do his best to help the 
duke as he had done in the past ; they hinted by the 
way that things had been managed better there two 
years ago by my Lord of Salisbury. They promised 
to place 600 lances and 1,200 bows at the duke's 
service for his campaign in Picardy during July and 
August. They would inspect the agreements made 
with the cardinal at Bruges, Ghent, and Calais with 
reference to the payment of the Burgundian artillery, 
and would be glad to discuss the matter with the 
duke's agents. With regard to the hostility of the 
Emperor, his envoys were now with the King, who 
would consult the duke before making any arrange- 
ment with the Emperor. With regard to the release 
of the Duke of Bourbon, the cardinal, who had lately 
returned from England, had told the council at Rouen 
that he was not aware of any decision having been 
made in England. The matter had indeed been 
discussed, but the Duke of Bourbon had declined to 
entertain the proposals made, and there the question 
had remained. They would enquire whether it had 

1 Rot. Pari., iv, 371. 

2 On April i8th he was given a licence to ship 800 sacks of 
wool from any English port to any foreign port, subject to 
any custom or subsidy such as other native merchants were 
liable to pay ; Cal. Patent Rolls, Henr. vi, 1429-1436, p. 1 18. 


proceeded any further since the cardinal left England, 
and would in that case inform the duke. 1 It was not 
a satisfactory reply from the duke's point of view. Truce 
The duke's position, moreover, was becoming preca- between 
rious, and self-interest swung him steadily to the side ^Trance 
of France. The diplomacy of Cardinal Albergati 
had worked towards the same end. Martin's death 
in February, 1431, had only delayed Albergati's 
mission ; the new Pope, Eugenius IV, confirmed his 
appointment as mediator, and wrote to the duke to 
co-operate with his efforts, and Albergati followed up 
his visits to Charles VII and Henry VI by a visit to 
Burgundy, who was glad to accept as an immediate 
relief to himself the truce which the cardinal urged 
as an instalment of a wider settlement. 2 The duke 
reserved the right to serve Bedford with not more 
than 500 lances; but his real attitude towards the 
English cause at this moment was revealed by his 
absence from the coronation of the young King at 
Paris on December 16th. 

The year 1431 was marked by a heartless crime Trial and 
and a hollow ceremony, both intended to further the execution 
English cause in France, and both doomed to failure. oftheMaid - 
Jeanne d'Arc was burned at Rouen on May 30th ; 
Henry VI was crowned King of France in the Church 
of Notre Dame on December 16th. Beaufort took 
part in both scenes. Nothing is known of his share 
in the earlier stages of the Maid's fate. It was Bed- 
ford apparently who had made up his mind that the 
Maid must die ; four years later he described her as 

1 Stevenson, ii, 188-193. The bearer took with him also 
a short private letter to the duke from the cardinal which 
contained, however, nothing beyond kind words and a 
reference to the bearer for further information ; ii, 194 195 

2 Beaucourt, ii, 438-442. 


" a disciple and limb of the Fiend that used false 
enchantments and sorcery." 1 The agents of the 
crime were her own countrymen, but their action 
was at least sanctioned by the English regent of 
France, and the cardinal at least assented. The Maid 
was captured on May 24th by the troops of John of 
Luxemburg, a vassal of Burgundy ; and the duke, 
ignoring the application of the University of Paris, 
which claimed her as a heretic, sold her in July to the 
English council for 10,000 francs, paid out of a subsidy 
which Bedford levied from the parliament of Nor- 
mandy. The agent in this bargain was Pierre 
Cauchon, Bishop of Beauvais, " a creature of the 
Anglo-Burgundian party," who claimed the right to 
try the Maid on the ground that she had been captured 
within his diocese. At the close of the year she was 
conveyed by the English to Rouen ; the Chapter of 
Rouen gave the Bishop of Beauvais a faculty to 
exercise his jurisdiction in their city ; and he pro- 
ceeded to hold his court in conjunction with the local 
vicar of the Inquisition and a number of doctors of 
the University of Paris. The Maid was cross- 
examined day after day through February and March 
on her visions of the saints and on the " voices " 
which had guided and encouraged her in the field 
and in her cell ; and her simple assertion of her direct 
mission from heaven was cunningly pressed into 
apparent defiance of the authority of the Church. 
In April her answers were submitted to divines who 
pronounced her visions mere delusions or emanations 
of the devil. She was threatened with torture ; her 
honour was endangered by the insults of her gaolers, 
until the Duchess of Bedford intervened to protect 
her ; at last she was practically condemned to death 
1 Proceedings, iv, 223. 


and then privately and treacherously urged to recant 
in order to secure her relapse. On May 24th she was 
brought before her judges again in the churchyard 
of St. Ouen, with the executioner's cart standing by 
the side of her platform. On this occasion her judges 
were accompanied by Cardinal Beaufort, who had 
been absent in England from December to May, and 
Bishop Alnwick of Norwich, " the only Englishmen 
who appeared in this black business." 1 The preacher 
ended his sermon with a last vain demand for her 
submission, which Jeanne answered by an appeal to 
the Pope or to any tribunal but her present judges ; 
and Bishop Cauchon began to recite her formal 
condemnation, when the Maid broke down and con- 
sented to sign a paper in which she confessed that she 
had sinned in taking up arms and in wearing man's 
attire and that her visions were delusions. She was 
then sentenced to imprisonment and perpetual 
penance. Four days later she was declared to have 
relapsed ; she had resumed male garments for pro- 
tection's sake, and she had heard the voices of 
St. Katharine and St. Margaret, reproaching her for 
denying her divine mission. On May 29th the court 
met again in haste to condemn the Maid as a relapsed 
heretic— the deliberate end and aim of their whole 
procedure— and next morning she was burned in the 
old market-place of Rouen, looking piteously upon a 
crucifix brought at her request from a neighbouring 
church, and calling upon Christ and the saints to help 
her at the last. 

Beaufort's share in the last stages of this dark The 
tragedy is placed beyond doubt by the evidence given Cardina1 ' 
during the " process of rehabilitation " in 1455 by the'triS. 
1 Oman, p. 315. 


which the reputation of the Maid was vindicated. 1 
It was Warwick and Beaufort who paid the expenses 
of the trial of 1431 out of English revenues in France. 
It was they who summoned physicians and instructed 
them to attend to the Maid's health; from the 
statement of one of the physicians it is clear that 
it was Warwick who frankly avowed that she had 
cost the King too dear to be allowed to die a natural 
death, but Beaufort's silence seems to imply his 
assent to the avowal. It was to the Cardinal of 
England that the Prior of Longueville was reported as 
a partisan of the Maid and denied the report to save 
his life. It was the cardinal who kept in his own 
hands or his secretary's one of the three keys of 
Jeanne's prison-chamber in the castle of Rouen, the 
other two remaining with the inquisitor and the 
prosecutor, " for the English feared greatly that she 
would escape them." At " the sermon of St. Ouen " 
an English clerk, bachelor in theology, and keeper of 
the private seal of the Cardinal of England, inter- 
rupted the Bishop of Beauvais, who was urging the 
Maid to save her life by recanting, and accused him 
of partiality in her favour. The bishop denied the 
charge and threw down his papers in a temper, but 
the cardinal reproved his chaplain and bade him hold 
his tongue. When Jeanne yielded and consented to 
recant her errors, the bishop turned to the cardinal 
and asked him what he ought to do. The cardinal 
replied that he must admit the Maid to penance, 
and the bishop laid aside the sentence which he had 
begun to read, and gave the Maid a form of abjuration 
to recite. The cardinal might well silence his 

» Quicherat, Proas, i, 443 ; ii, 6, 348 ; iii, 51, 55, 184, 185, 
243, 355; Murray, Jeanne D'Arc, 106, 127, 161, 187, 190, 
198, 199, 208, 209, 254, 259. 


chaplain ; the pressure put upon the Maid to recant 
was no mercy but a means to a more cruel end. 
When Warwick complained to the bishop and the 
doctors that the King had lost his prisoner, one of 
them replied that they would soon have her again. 
They were working for a relapse which would put 
the Maid absolutely in their power. Ysambard, a 
Dominican friar of Rouen and an assessor of the judges 
of 1431, said in 1449 that the Cardinal of England 
and many other Englishmen were moved to com- 
passion and to tears by the contrition and penitence 
of Jeanne's last hour, and by her " speaking words so 
pitiful, devout, and catholic." It was in any case but 
a passing emotion ; the Archdeacon of Rouen stated 
afterwards that it was the cardinal who ordered the 
ashes of the Maid to be collected and flung into the 
Seine, doubtless to destroy the popular belief in her 
divine mission and power. It is an ugly page in 
English history. The only thing that can be said 
for the Englishmen concerned is that even their guilt 
was less than the guilt of the French, of the King 
who could have saved his saviour by the mere threat 
of retaliation upon such a prisoner as Lord Talbot, of 
the clergy who resented the unauthorised inspiration 
of " the Maid of God," of the nobles who hated the 
leadership of a poor and pious girl. The only thing 
that can be said for Beaufort is that even a Bedford 
could initiate or sanction the crime which he could 
help to commit. The whole story is a lurid revelation 
of the ghastly contrasts within the character of that 

The execution was not even a political success. Coronation 
It was not the death of the Maid that " checked for ? n f ^[ s y VI 
a time the uprising of French nationality," 1 but the 

1 Ramsay, i, 431. 

15 — (3210) 


weakness of the French King and still more the 
supremacy of adventurers at his court, the same 
causes which had robbed the Maid of success again 
and again. It is doubtful even whether it was her 
execution which enabled the English to crown 
Henry VI as King of France. It certainly did not 
enable them to crown him in the time-honoured place 
of sacring, the Cathedral of Rheims. The English 
council had contemplated his coronation at Rheims, 
but had left the course of the King's campaign to 
" the discretion of my Lord of Bedford, the cardinal 
and others of his blood and of his council," suggesting 
merely that it might be expedient to visit Paris and 
strengthen its loyalty on the way to Rheims. 1 In 
the exercise of this discretion, Bedford and Beaufort 
decided to hold the coronation at Paris. It was more 
important thai the King should be crowned without 
further delay than that he should be crowned in the 
traditional place. The King entered the capital in 
state on December 2nd, escorted by the cardinal, the 
Bishops of Paris, Therouanne (Louis of Luxemburg, 
the English Chancellor of France), Noyon, Bath, and 
Norwich, the Dukes of Bedford and York, and the 
Earls of Warwick, Salisbury, and Suffolk. The civic 
authorities met their English King in a gorgeous 
procession, and the city was ablaze with pageantry ; 
but the French nobility of the Burgundian party was 
practically unrepresented. The coronation itself took 
place in the Church of Notre Dame on Sunday, 
December 16th. It was the cardinal who "hallowed " 
the young King and sang the mass, to the great 
annoyance of the Bishop of Paris, who was " not 
content that the cardinal should do such a high 

1 Proceedings, iv, 92, 97. 


ceremony in his church and jurisdiction." 1 It was 
indeed a needless offence to the Church of the realm, 
and the absence of many of the local clergy gave the 
coronation the unfortunate appearance of " a purely 
English affair." 2 The ritual, too, was "more after 
the English than the French use " ; and the flagon 
in which the King made his offering of wine was seized 
by his officers and only restored to the canons of the 
cathedral church, whose perquisite it was, after a 
costly suit before the King and his council. The 
banquet which followed the coronation was a fiasco ; 
the premature irruption of the crowd left the great 
men of the city and the university to struggle for their 
places with common folk, and the people who had lent 
the plate had reclaimed it for fear of thieves. A later 
writer adds a far more serious disaster to the mishaps 
of the day. Hall relates that Beaufort, brooking no 
equal, insisted on Bedford's dropping the title of 
regent during the King's presence in France, and that 
Bedford " took such a secret displeasure with this 
doing that he never after favoured the cardinal, but 
repugned and disdained at all things that he did or 
devised," and so " through this unhappy division the 
glory of England began fast to decay and fade away 
in France." 3 Hall's judgment is seriously at fault 
there. The failure of the English cause in France 
lay ultimately in its own unrighteousness. Neither 
is his account of the facts correct. Bedford and 
Beaufort continued to labour together in that cause. 
As a matter of fact the suspension of the dignity of 
regent was one of the provisions of the agreement 

1 Hall, p. 161. 

2 Oman, p. 317 ; cp. Ramsay, i, 432. For a full account 
of the ceremony, see Journal d'un Bourgeois de Paris, pp 
274-278 ; Monstrelet, p. 631 foil. 

3 Hall, p. 162. 




made by the privy council in April, 1430, before the 
King left England. 1 It is true that those provisions 
represented largely the judgment of Beaufort, who 
made their acceptance the condition of his consenting 
to go abroad with the King, and it was probably at 
his suggestion that they were read over and confirmed 
by the council in England on May 1st, 1431, just 
before he went abroad again to the King. The fact 
remains, however, that if he did insist that " the 
authority of the substitute was clearly derogate," as 
Hall says, he was not merely expressing a strictly 
correct opinion of his own, but enforcing a resolution 
of the council at home which had the assent of 

Less than a fortnight after his coronation the young 
King left Paris for Rouen and Calais, leaving dis- 
content behind him. The University of Paris had 
been rewarded for its zeal in the cause of the Maid's 
trial by a remission of taxation ; but the city had no 
remission or amnesty or largess to mark its English 
King's coronation. In February the King was back 
in England. Bedford, disappointed by the failure 
of the King's visit to rally his French subjects, turned 
to face a new year which proved to be his worst in 
France. Rouen was just saved ; Chartres was lost ; 
Lagny was besieged in vain ; and in November the 
plague robbed him of his wife, Anne of Burgundy, who 
had spent herself in the service of the famine-stricken 
poor of Paris, and whose death now severed the one 
personal link that bound the two dukes together. 

The record of the year 1432 was no less disappoint- 
ing in the field of diplomacy, if indeed the English 
hoped or cared to make any actual progress with 
negotiations in which they were as disinclined as the 

1 Proceedings, iv, 37. 


French to make any real concession. The cardinal 
seems to have taken no direct part in these negotia- 
tions. He had remained behind in France when the 
King returned to England, and when he did come 
back in time to make his defence against Gloucester 
in the parliament of May, 1432, he stated that when 
the news of his impeachment for treason reached him 
in Flanders he was on his way to Rome by special 
permission of the King and in answer to repeated 
instructions from the Pope. It is possible that these 
instructions had reference to the negotiations which 
Cardinal Albergati was conducting. In that case 
Beaufort's visit to Flanders was perhaps intended 
to make sure of the correctness of the Duke of 
Burgundy's attitude ; and his summons to Rome was 
perhaps an invitation to discuss the French situation 
with the Pope. It is more probable, however, that 
the papal instructions referred to the general council 
just opened at Basel in December, 1431. Beaufort 
as an English bishop and statesman and a cardinal 
of Rome was perhaps to be enlisted in support of 
the Pope's attempt to control the council. Whatever 
was the purpose of his journey towards Rome, it was 
prevented by his return to England to face the danger 
which threatened him there, and there he remained 
at least until the autumn. He was given permission 
in November, 1432, to attend the general council. 
Meanwhile many proposals were made but few steps 
taken towards the holding of the expected conference 
in France. Cardinal Albergati did his best by corre- 
spondence and by interviews with Bedford, Burgundy 
and the French court. Meetings of envoys took 
place in November, 1432, near Auxerre, and in March, 
1433, near Melun ; 1 an English embassy had come 

1 Beaucourt, ii, 442-453. 





efforts to 





over between the two meetings but had apparently 
gone no further than to consult or instruct Bedford. 
At last the Cardinal of St. Cross persuaded Charles VII 
to accept the English proposal of a conference of all 
parties at Calais, including the French prisoners from 
England, and to offer a truce for four months. The 
captive Dukes of Orleans and Bourbon were waiting 
meanwhile anxiously at Dover, and Gloucester spent 
a month waiting at Calais (April 22nd-May 23rd) in 
company with Bedford and Beaufort and the chan- 
cellors and councillors of the two English realms. 
They waited in vain ; the French envoys never came. 1 
When the Cardinal of St. Cross held a new conference 
at Corbeil in July, the English Chancellor of France 
(Louis of Luxemburg) refused to sign the agreement 
brought by the French. He gave no reason, but one 
obvious reason was that the French had simply 
played with the English offer of a conference at Calais. 
Another reason was given in a later despatch from 
the English council to Burgundy ; a short truce 
would enable the French to revictual their garrisons, 
while it would not suffice for any adequate negotia- 
tions for peace. The cardinal recognised that his 
mission was hopeless and went off bitterly disappointed 
to Basel. In August the Council of Basel itself took 
up the task of negotiation. 

Meanwhile the relations between Burgundy and 
England had been seriously strained. The duke's 
absence from the coronation at Paris in December, 
1431, had given great offence. The Cardinal of 
England, realising and perhaps sharing this resent- 
ment at the time, took an early opportunity to 
strengthen the bond of personal association between 
the houses of Lancaster and Burgundy. In April, 

1 Proceedings, iv, 257 ; Stevenson, ii, 254, 255. 


1432, the duke's second wife, Isabella of Portugal, 
the cardinal's niece, gave birth to her first-born son 
at Ghent, the very city that gave her English grand- 
father his surname of Gaunt ; and the cardinal stood 
at the font as one of the sponsors for the child. x 
The strongest personal link, however, between 
Burgundy and England was the Duchess of Bedford. 
It was a great misfortune for England to be deprived 
of her mediating influence ; it was a fatal mistake of 
Bedford to fill her place as he did. In April, 1433, 
five months after her death, he married a handsome 
girl of seventeen, Jacqueline or Jacquette, the 
daughter of Peter of Luxemburg, Count of St. Pol, 
and niece of John of Luxemburg, the chief commander 
of the Burgundian army. It was her other uncle, 
Louis of Luxemburg, Bishop of Therouanne, the 
English Chancellor of France, who had taken advan- 
tage of Bedford's passing fancy to press this match ; 
and doubtless Bedford hushed his own sense of 
disloyalty to the first wife of his heart by flattering 
himself that he had gained the adhesion of a great 
Burgundian house. The gain, however, was far 
outweighed by the serious offence given to the Duke 
of Burgundy. His sister's memory was dishonoured 
by such a speedy remarriage ; his feudal dignity was 
violated by the neglect to ask his consent. If Bedford 
was blind to the danger, Beaufort was not. The 
cardinal realised far more vividly than Bedford how 
completely England depended now upon the assist- 
ance of Burgundy, whether in securing satisfactory 
terms of negotiation or in retaining or regaining hold 
of conquests in France. Accordingly he did his 
utmost to reconcile the two men. In this task he had 
the unwonted co-operation of his rival Gloucester, 
1 Monstrelet, Engl. Trans., 1810, vii, 106. 


who had come over to Calais on April 23rd to meet 
the expected envoys of the French court. Beaufort 
yielded to the joint request of Bedford and Gloucester, 
and lent a further sum of 5,000 marks to the King. 
Gloucester put in writing a solemn statement of his 
own readiness to submit to the arbitration of Beaufort 
and Bedford all matters of dispute still unsettled 
between himself and the Duke of Burgundy. This 
declaration marked perhaps a momentary reconcilia- 
tion of all three Englishmen between themselves ; but 
it was perhaps intended at this juncture to conciliate 
Burgundy. 1 In that case it was indeed " a strange 
turning of the tables " that Humphrey of Gloucester, 
who had married a Jacqueline of Hainault in defiance 
of Burgundy, should be now propitiating Burgundy's 
wrath against the reckless marriage of John of 
Bedford with a Jacqueline of Luxemburg. When 
Gloucester went home in May, the cardinal took a 
further step. He induced the two estranged allies to 
consent to meet at St. Omer. They were to confer 
together on " several public matters/' i.e., questions 
of war or peace with France, and to consider " certain 
angry expressions used and reported on both sides," 
i.e., between themselves. The time and place of 
meeting had been all arranged to avoid the question 
of waiting for one another ; but Bedford insisted on 
waiting at his lodgings for a formal visit from Bur- 
gundy, and insisted in vain. The lords of their 
retinues tried in vain to mediate between the two. 
At last the cardinal called on the duke, and drawing 
him aside asked him in a friendly way why he could 
not pay a complimentary visit to a royal prince who 

1 Vickers, p. 236; Stevenson (ii, 417, 418) dated the 
declaration 1428, but Vickers seems right in placing it here in 


had taken the trouble to come to meet him in his own 
town. The duke's only answer was that he was 
prepared to meet Bedford at the place appointed. 
The cardinal after a last appeal to the duke returned 
to his nephew ; and the two dukes went their ways 
" more discontented with each other than before." 1 
The cardinal was baffled and distressed. He returned 
with Bedford to Calais, and did his best there to 
minimise the mischief by giving audience several 
times to a Burgundian envoy who had just returned 
from England. 

1 Monstrelet, Engl. Tr., vii, 116, 117. 




Bedford's At the end of June, 1433, the main scene of action 
]England° was transferred to England. The war, indeed, was 
still in vigorous progress. Willoughby, Huntingdon, 
Arundel, and Talbot were holding their own, and 
Burgundy had been driven in spite of his truce into 
one of his most brilliant campaigns. But the centre 
of gravity both in English politics and in Burgundian 
diplomacy had shifted to London. Gloucester had 
returned from Calais to England in May to summon 
parliament ; Bedford and his new duchess entered 
London on the last week in June ; and when parlia- 
ment met on July 8th the three virtual rulers of 
England, Bedford, Gloucester, and Beaufort, were all 
present at Westminster, not unconscious that a crisis 
was impending. Bedford's purpose in returning to 
England was at least twofold ; he desired at once 
to vindicate the record of his own action in France 
and to urge the needs of the war. Possibly there 
was a third reason ; if he was aware of the intended 
mission of the Burgundian envoys who received their 
credentials at Arras on June 15th, it was natural 
under the circumstances of his recent quarrel with 
Burgundy that he should wish to be at the English 
court at the time of their arrival. The cardinal was 
almost certainly aware of their mission, for after the 
two dukes had parted at St. Omer without meeting, 
he had several interviews at Calais with another 



Burgundian envoy who had paid a preparatory visit 
to England in the spring. 

In fact, though Philip of Burgundy and John of Burgun- 
Bedford had quarrelled, they could not afford to embassy in 
fight, and Burgundy now sent Hugh of Lannoy, his London, 
ablest agent, to sound English feeling and to renew 
his relations with the English government, but also 
to feel the pulse of the French prisoners whose 
mediation promised to be the next line of negotiation 
with France. The story of Lannoy's mission is told 
in the three letters which he and his companion 
despatched to their master from Lille on July 18th. 1 
On their arrival in London they found the English 
generally ill-affected, and met with a harsh reception ; 
but afterwards they came to the conclusion that 
" things had softened down considerably." Their 
master's chief fear was groundless ; the English were 
not contemplating a separate peace with France ; 
certain persons were indeed pressing the idea of a 
marriage between the King and a daughter of " the 
Dauphin," but such an alliance would only come as 
part of a general peace. Such was the gist of their 
preface. In the first of the three documents which 
followed they described their reception in detail. 
The Earl of Warwick received them graciously, though 
" somewhat more gravely " than he had done in 
France. Very early next morning they called upon 
the Cardinal of England before he went to mass. 
He, too, gave them a gracious reception, asked after 
the duke, and promised to do what he could for their 
success and their lord's pleasure ; " but truly," they 
said, " we did find him somewhat stranger than 
before this we have been accustomed to do." 
They found the King and his uncles and lords at 

1 Stevenson, ii, 218-248. 


Guildford, and were invited to lay their letters before 
the King in council next week. At the council they 
were compelled to state their message in writing, 
and were told to communicate the details of their 
master's proposals privately to the cardinal, the 
Archbishop of York, and the Earl of Warwick ; and 
next day at the cardinal's house they unfolded their 
plans for the securing of the necessary support of 
Brittany and Richemont and Savoy and other lords 
of France and neighbouring countries. On July 7th 
the council gave them a written answer to forward to 
Burgundy, and referred them to the cardinal for an 
answer to the proposals made at his house. The 
cardinal's answer was that the King wished the duke 
to proceed with his negotiations with Savoy, Brittany, 
and Richemont ; the King could make no offer of 
territory or money to these lords until parliament 
had met, but the cardinal thought it certain that the 
King would then send " a notable embassy " to the 
duke to deal with this and other questions. 

The second letter described their interview with the 
captive Duke of Orleans at the house of his custodian, 
the Earl of Suffolk. • Orleans protested that he had 
offered his services to the English government as a 
mediator ; but he was like a sword in its sheath, 
useless until it was drawn. He could do nothing 
unless he could confer with his friends in France ; he 
was sure some of them would work for a general peace 
on his lines. The Earl of Suffolk told the duke that 
the King would gladly use him in the cause of peace. 
None the less the envoys saw that Suffolk and the 
English generally resented their conference with the 

The third letter contained notes of various observa- 
tions upon the state of opinion in England. Suffolk 


told them that peace was in sight ; the King had given 
safe-conducts for envoys from France to the Duke of 
Orleans. They had heard that the Duke of Orleans, 
if he failed to induce the Dauphin to make peace, 
would find a way out of his captivity somehow ; if he • 
could only consult Burgundy or Brittany, the thing 
could be done. The Regent of France, Bedford, had 
been very kind. He had found them waiting at 
Calais, and provided them with a ship. He was 
reported to have spoken strongly on behalf of the 
Duke of Burgundy at the council. He had told them 
on their farewell visit how much he regretted the 
duke's ill opinion of him ; the duke was one of the 
princes whom he loved best ; their attitude towards 
each other was harmful to the King's and to the 
public good ; and he intended to do his utmost for 
the King and the duke, and looked forward to a 
renewal of their friendship. The cardinal, when 
they went to take their leave, assured them that they 
could tell his good nephew the duke that when 
parliament rose (which it would do " either on peace 
or on disturbance or to make more vigorous war than 
ever before "), the King, he hoped, would send to 
make all arrangements with the duke. As for their 
own impressions, they believed that the English 
were exerting themselves either to make peace with 
the Dauphin on whatever terms they could or to find 
money to raise a large and powerful army. " From 
what we can perceive, they know very well that the 
affairs of France cannot long continue in the state 
in which they are now." 

The answer given by the English council entirely Reply 
bears out this last impression. The duke had urged ° f the .. 
a more vigorous policy either for peace or for war. 
The council recounted all the steps that had been 


taken by the English in France to negotiate for peace 
or a truce, by way of proving that the fault did not 
lie with the English. As for the other alternative, 
a vigorous campaign to enforce peace, the King was 
grateful to the duke for his past help, and prayed 
the duke to remember the heavy burdens which he 
had borne from the first year of his life and was still 
bearing. He was doing his utmost now to support 
Burgundy in the field, and would soon lay the whole 
situation before parliament. He had no intention 
of abandoning his crown and sovereignty in France, 
but he was prepared to treat for a peace long enough 
to prevent unfair advantage being taken of the 
interval. Finally, he repudiated all evil reports of 
the duke, in whom he placed the fullest confidence. x 
Bedford When parliament met on July 8th, the chancellor, 

on his John, Bishop of Bath and Wells, delivered an alle- 

gorical discourse upon the text, " The mountains shall 
bring peace and the little hills righteousness unto the 
people " (Ps. lxxii, 3). The mountains, he explained, 
were the prelates and magnates, whose duty was 
unity and concord ; the hills were the knights, squires, 
and merchants, whose duty was equity and justice to 
all classes ; the people were the yeomen, artisans, and 
" the vulgar," and their duty was obedience to the 
King and his laws. 2 The peace desired was appar- 
ently peace at home. There was no distinct refer- 
ence to foreign affairs. The silence of expectation 
was broken on the sixth day of the session by a 
challenge from Bedford. He had come home, he 
said, for various urgent reasons touching not only 
the King and the welfare of his realm of France but 
also his own good name. He had heard that the 

1 Stevenson, ii, 249-262. 

2 Rot. Pari., iv, 419. 


losses sustained by the King in France had been 
attributed to his neglect, and he asked to be confronted 
with his accusers. His request was considered by the 
council, and he was solemnly assured by the chan- 
cellor that " no such profane and scandalous words " 
had come to the hearing of the King or of Gloucester 
or of any of the council ; and the King publicly 
declared his confidence in his " true and faithful liege 
and dearest uncle," and gave him special thanks for 
" his good, laudable and fruitful services." 1 Bedford 
was scarcely satisfied, and it was probably his influ- 
ence with the King that led to two significant changes 
in the ministry. Lord Cromwell became treasurer, 
and the Earl of Suffolk steward of the household! 
They were adherents of the cardinal ; their prede- 
cessors were part of the ministry which owed its 
formation to Gloucester early in 1432. It has been 
supposed on this ground, and also on the ground of 
the similarity between Bedford's challenge on this 
occasion and Beaufort's in 1432, that it was the 
cardinal's "machinations" 2 that had induced 
Bedford to come home and adopt an attitude of 
self-vindication which involved a tacit accusation of 
Gloucester. It is true that the cardinal had always, 
as far as can be seen, stood well with Bedford ; and 
the cardinal's wealth was indispensable to the 
commandant of the English forces in France. But 
Bedford had other sources of evidence ; he had spent 
a month with Gloucester and sundry lords of the 
council at Calais quite recently. Bedford, moreover, 
was too strong a man to act upon a judgment of even 
the sincerest partisan. It is all the more important 
to look closely at such an accusation against the 

1 Rot. Pari., iv, 420. 

2 Vickers, p. 237. 



of the 
Duke of 

cardinal, because there is perhaps a temptation and 
a tendency to use the cardinal's jealousy of Gloucester 
as a constant factor in English politics and the final 
and sufficient explanation of every political movement 
which is not quite transparently due to other forces. 
Bedford was assuredly no echo or reflection of 
Beaufort. It is quite possible, however, that the 
danger which Bedford had returned to combat was 
not merely the disloyal criticism of his brother of 
Gloucester but rather the growing unpopularity of 
the war itself. The subsidy of 1432 was limited 
expressly to the defence of the realm and especially 
the safe keeping of the sea. That same year saw the 
first English embassy despatched to France to 
negotiate for a peace or a truce, and the news of its 
progress was awaited with anxious interest. Beau- 
fort, who spent a large part of 1432 in England, may 
have warned Bedford of this increasing discontent 
with the continuance of the war ; and Bedford may 
have seen and heard enough at Calais from Gloucester 
and the lords who were in sympathy with this feeling 
to convince him that his first duty was to grapple 
with the opposition which found expression partly 
in the attempt to throw the responsibility of failure 
upon himself and partly in the refusal to make any 
sacrifices of its own. 

Parliament adjourned from August 13th to 
October 13th. The vacation was occupied in a futile 
effort to make something of the mediation of the 
Duke of Orleans. On August 14th the Duke of 
Orleans signed a secret agreement with the English 
government. 1 Henry VI was to send English 
ambassadors to a conference at Calais or in Normandy 
about October 15th ; the duke would invite Brittany, 

1 Rymer, x, 556-563. 


Bourbon, and other French lords. If peace were not 
concluded within a year, the duke would return to 
England. • In any case, he would recognise Henry's 
claim to the French crown, hold his fiefs as Henry's 
liege, secure the same recognition from certain lords 
of France, and win the alliance of certain lords outside 
France. Burgundy was informed of the approaching 
conference, and appointed envoys to attend. Beau- 
fort, Warwick, and Suffolk crossed to Calais in readi- 
ness to meet the envoys of Charles of France, but 
a second time they waited in vain. The King of 
France made no response to the appeal of the Duke 
of Orleans ; and the English plenipotentiaries 
returned to take their places in the parliament which 
had met again on October 13th. 

On November 24th the commons, who had recently Bedford to 
renewed their old protest against the countenance e^nd" 1 
given by certain great lords to crimes of violence in 
the country, came forward with a petition to the 
King to retain Bedford in England. He had done his 
best in France, they said, shrinking from no danger 
or hardship, and his life was too " great a treasure 
to the King and both his lands " to be exposed to 
further peril. Moreover, his coming into England 
had been an untold boon ; " the restful rule and 
governail of this land hath greatly grown and been 
increased thereby, as well by the noble mirror and 
example that he hath given to other, restfully govern- 
ing himself and all his keeping, and obeying the 
King's peace and his laws, and making those that be 
toward him to do the same." * They urged the King 
to desire him to remain in England for the sake of his 
King and country. The King instructed the chan- 
cellor to summon Gloucester, Beaufort, the two 

1 Rot. Pari., iv, 423. 

16 — (2210) 


archbishops and other lords to consider this petition ; 
and they reported in favour of the commons request. 
Bedford, visibly touched by this unique proof of 
affection and confidence, placed his services at the 
King's command. 
Financial The new chief councillor lost no time in setting an 
Reform. example of self-denial for his country's sake. One 
of the new ministers appointed under his influence 
in July had already justified his appointment. Lord 
Cromwell, the new treasurer, had spent the recess 
in compiling a careful estimate of the finances of the 
realm. Roughly the net revenue was £40,000 ; the 
ordinary expenditure about £55,000; the debts 
amounted to £164,000. 1 Cromwell had great diffi- 
culty in getting parliament to face his budget in 
October, but Bedford kept the figures in mind. 
One of the heaviest burdens was the cost of the 
ministerial salaries. The very day after his accept- 
ance of the King's command to stay in England he 
offered to content himself with an ordinary salary of 
£1,000 instead of the £4,000 which Gloucester had 
been receiving; 2 Gloucester followed his example 
three days later ; 3 at the end of the session Beaufort 
and four other prelates made a similar sacrifice by 
consenting to forego their allowance as councillors on 
condition that they were not required to attend during 
the vacations, thus saving the country £2,000 a year. 4 
Unfortunately, the commons admired without imi- 
tating ; their grants showed no increase. At the 
treasurer's earnest request a sort of financial com- 
mittee of council was appointed, including Bedford, 

» Rot. Pari., iv, 432-438. 

2 Rot. Pari., iv, 424. 

8 Proceedings, iv, 185. 

4 Rot. Pari., iv, 446. 


Gloucester, and Beaufort, " to see the books of the 
King's revenues, yearly charges and debts," and to 
determine the order in which the various liabilities 
were to be met. 1 It was a much-needed reform. 
There was no maladministration, but there was no 
system ; debts were paid by incurring new debts, 
and the book-keeping was rudimentary, and the exact 
balance often hard to determine. It is possible that 
Beaufort advised or helped the treasurer in his 
attempts at financial reform ; in 1442 the old cardinal 
spoke strongly at the council on the subject of un- 
businesslike methods of meeting the liabilities of the 
government. 2 Meanwhile the Duke of Bedford laid 
down very definite conditions to which he required 
assent before he would undertake the conduct of 
affairs at home. He asked to know the names of the 
councillors who were to act with him ; he insisted on 
the necessity of his own consent as well as of that 
of the council in any change in its membership, and 
in the summoning of parliament and the appointment 
to bishoprics or to offices of state. These require- 
ments have been rightly taken as proving that Bedford 
saw that " conciliar government was not what the 
country needed." 3 It is possible that Gloucester's 
own self-assertion in past years may have had its 
origin in part in a similar conviction that the council 
must have a guiding and controlling head. Nothing, 
however, marks more clearly the difference between 
the two men than the fact that the lords gave gladly 
to Bedford the place which in 1422 and in 1428 they 
absolutely refused to give to Gloucester. It is a fact 
which should be remembered in favour of Beaufort's 
attitude towards Gloucester's claims in the past. 

1 Rot. Pari., iv, 439. 

2 Proceedings, v, 216. 

3 Vickers, p. 241. 








The desire of the commons to keep John of Bedford 
at home practically involved the suggestion of the 
abandonment of a vigorous policy in France. Bedford 
had yielded to their desire without approving the 
implied suggestion. The honour of England, the 
memory of his brother, the labour of eleven of the 
best years of his own life, were at stake ; if France 
were a hopeless dream, Normandy could and must be 
saved and kept. Probably the two motives that 
weighed most in favour of his compliance with the 
petition of November 24th were drawn from the 
claims of the war. He needed rest to recruit his 
shattered health for a fresh campaign; England 
needed pulling together and rousing for a new effort. 
Beaufort shared his view of the situation. Gloucester, 
too, was probably sincere after a fashion in his zeal 
for the honour of England in France, though his offer 
of personal service was possibly prompted by dis- 
satisfaction with his inferior position at home ; but 
his idea of the war was as impracticable as it was 
ambitious, and he could not even manage to put it 
into shape without casting a reflection upon his brother 
of Bedford. In April, 1434, he laid before a great 
council summoned for the purpose at Westminster 
certain proposals of his own for the conduct of the 
war. Bedford asked for a written statement to 
which he could reply. The council, including as it 
did some of the ablest soldiers who had fought in 
France, examined Gloucester's scheme and on May 
5th rejected it unhesitatingly. It would require, they 
said, at least £50,000 ; and the county commissioners 
for loans and the treasurer could vouch for the 
impossibility of raising such a sum. They spoke 
strongly of the way in which the credulity of an 
ignorant public had been misled by rumours that the 


council had rejected proposals which would have 
relieved the people of taxation for years. Finally, 
they suggested that Gloucester should explain how 
the money was to be raised, and state whether he 
wished parliament to be summoned to discuss his 
plans. On May 8th Bedford produced his written 
defence of his procedure in France, and now Gloucester 
insisted on having an opportunity for a written 
rejoinder ; but the council advised the King to close 
the discussion by a declaration of confidence in both 
his uncles. 1 There is no record of the part taken 
in this dispute by Beaufort or any other councillor. 
It is quite likely, however, that as the next in influence 
to the two parties in the dispute he used his position 
to lead the council or to advise the young King. If 
this supposition is correct, the scene was an interesting 
counterpart to the parliament of 1426. Bedford had 
held the balance then between Beaufort and Glouces- 
ter ; this time it was Beaufort who turned the scale 
against Gloucester in favour of Bedford. The public 
reconciliation of 1426 left the duke and the bishop 
still opponents at heart. The drawn conflict of 1434 
left the two royal brothers still estranged. When 
Bedford made his will in 1435 he appointed as his 
executors Beaufort and Archbishop Kemp of York, 
and never mentioned Gloucester at all. 

Bedford's heart and conscience were in France, Bedford's 
and in June he announced his intention of returning proposals 
to his life's work. On June 9th he unburdened ^r^ 
his soul before the council. The King's subjects in 
France were loyal, but they could not hold out in the 
absence of solid and constant help ; the King's sub- 
jects in England he had found kind and loving, but his 
mission to England had been a failure. Yet he could 
1 Proceedings, iv, 210-216. 



Beaufort as 
of the 



not allow England to lose a conquest for which his 
brother and comrades had laid down their lives. He 
made three practical suggestions for the prosecution 
of the war. He proposed that the garrisons of Calais 
and its frontier should be placed at his orders, and 
that the private estates of the Lancastrian house 
should be devoted to the maintenance of 200 spears 
and 600 bows, in which case he was prepared to 
spend his own income from Normandy in the main- 
tenance of a similar force. * The Lancaster estates 
had been " enfeoffed " or conveyed by the late King 
for the payment of legacies and debts, including his 
own " chantry," i.e., the masses to be sung in his 
memory. The cardinal and his fellow " feoffees " or 
trustees did not see their way to break these obliga- 
tions. " After long replication " they asked on June 
14th for another day to consider their problem, and 
next day the cardinal enquired " whether the King 
and his lords then present could think that the foresaid 
feoffees might with true conscience and their worldly 
worships leave their estate, considering that the 
King's prayers and desires, whose soul God rest, be 
not yet performed." The council thought that if 
the King assigned to the trustees sufficient revenues 
from other sources they might surrender the 
Lancaster estates " with conscience and worship 
unhurt for so great a good to the King as this 
is." 2 The arrangement, however, was never carried 


On June 20th Bedford said good-bye to the council, 
and urged them to keep the promises made in Decem- 
ber, 1433 ; but the treasury had no money to pay for 
his escort of 400 men, and after the lords had tried in 

1 Proceedings, iv, 222-229. 
a Proceedings, iv. 229-232. 


vain to borrow the sum, the cardinal came forward at 
Bedford's request to their great relief and advanced 
3,000 marks for the purpose. The acts of the council 
during that month were largely concerned with the 
cardinal's loans. 1 On May 10th, he obtained a 
decision in favour of his right to the possession of the 
jewels confiscated in 1432, and therefore to the repay- 
ment of the £6,000 advanced by him in 1432. He 
promised at once to lend 10,000 marks and advanced 
the money on June 2nd. He was rigid, however, in 
his demands for security. Proper assignments were 
to be made in his favour on the incoming revenues. 
He was to receive such " weddes " (i.e., pledges) as he 
himself approved and to keep them as his own pro- 
perty in default of repayment at such time as he might 
fix. The 10,000 marks were to be repaid " in gold of 
the coin of England of just weight " ; if silver were 
tendered he would keep his " weddes." He asked for 
a statement of the salary due to him on the score of 
his attendance on the King in France, and for pay- 
ment of the net balance still owing. Finally, he 
required a guarantee against any change or postpone- 
ment of the assignments made on the revenues in his 
favour. All these demands were granted, except that 
he was promised " weddes " for 7,000 marks only, 
the lords of the council making themselves responsible 
for the remaining 3,000 ; the repayment of the whole 
sum was assigned on the clerical and lay subsidies. 
On June 16th he received letters patent for these 
assignments. On June 18th certain lords received 
an assignment on the lay subsidies to enable them to 
repay him 5,000 marks which he had lent at Calais at 
the request of Bedford and Gloucester and the council 
for the payment of the garrisons in France and for 

1 Proceedings, iv, 232-239, 242, 247-254. 


the siege of St. Val£ry. On June 20th he was given 
a promise of security for the old loans not yet repaid, 
and for the new loan of 3,000 marks for Bedford's 
escort ; and on June 23rd the whole agreement was 
embodied in letters patent. The " weddes " had been 
taken out of the " great treasury " at Westminster 
and placed in his possession on June 7th by Lord 
Cromwell, the treasurer, and the indenture then made 
between the treasurer and the creditor contains an 
elaborate description of each of the " jewels." There 
was " a pusan of gold called the rich collar," a great 
" ouch " of St. George's arms, a jewelled sword of 
gold called the Sword of Spain, a tablet of gold of the 
Passion of Christ, a tabernacle of gold containing an 
image of our Lady, a great ship called the Tiger, two 
great gold candlesticks, two gold basons, and two gold 
censers, valued in all at £4,924 6s. 8d., " and so 
lacketh of the sum of 10,000 marks £1,742 6s. 8d." 
It is evident that the cardinal was at least as scrupu- 
lous in exacting security for his loans as he was in 
requiring authority for the suspension of his obliga- 
tions as trustee for the Lancastrian estates. The 
very poverty of the treasury, however, is sufficient 
justification for his demands. A banker must be 
repaid if he is to lend again. On the other hand these 
records reveal the extent of the cardinal's loans. 
It is no wonder that when early in June he asked 
permission to take large sums of money or plate 
on a journey abroad for reasons which for safety's 
sake were not to be made public, he baited his 
request with the assurance that his full purpose was 
with the grace of God to die in this land. The council 
might well require assuring that their banker was not 
removing his wealth permanently beyond the reach 
of a needy government. 


Bedford crossed the Channel early in July, 1434, Beaufort 
and was confronted at once by a series of peasant Honfleur. 
risings in Normandy, which taxed all his resources 
the rest of the year. It was a terrible disappointment, 
for he had done his best to be just to Normandy. 
He had built up a constitutional government ; he 
had fostered industry and commerce ; he had founded 
a university at Caen. Still he had been compelled to 
tax the people heavily, and when the peasantry were 
armed by the government against the depredations 
of " free lances," they turned against the English 
garrisons. A return of these garrisons for the year 
1433-1434 was made by order of Bedford at Michael- 
mas, and in this return the Cardinal of England 
appears as captain of Honfleur, with three mounted 
lances, ten unmounted, and thirty-nine archers. 1 
There is no reason to consider this particular garrison 
as a merely titular command ; so it is evident that at 
sixty the military instinct of Henry of Winchester 
was still strong. The English on the whole held their 
own in 1434. Arundel was successful in Maine, and 
Talbot in Picardy, while Burgundy was steadily 
recovering his own territories. In 1435 the tide 
turned ; Arundel was defeated and slain in the north, 
and elsewhere the French fought their way right up 
to Paris. But it was not merely the vicissitudes of 
war that led to the great effort made in 1435 to retain 
the English position by diplomacy ; it was the growing 
pressure of the Papacy and the Council of Basel, and 
the yielding loyalty of Burgundy. 

The general council which met at Basel in 1431 set The 
itself to face three great tasks, the suppression of j^jj ^^ 
heresy, the reform of the Church, and the pacification the English 
of Christendom. Its first year was mainly spent in Govern- 

1 Stevenson, ii. [541]. 


a struggle for existence. l Pope Eugenius ordered its 
dissolution, and it was only the support of Sigismund 
that enabled the council to force the Pope in February, 
1433, to revoke the dissolution. In June, 1432, the 
University of Paris appealed to Oxford and Cambridge 
to recognise and attend the council, and in July 
Sigismund, the council and the Pope all sent envoys to 
the English government ; and eventually the Earl of 
Huntingdon, the Bishop of Rochester, and the Arch- 
bishop of York were nominated as official representa- 
tives. In November Beaufort was given permission 
to attend the council and take £10,000 in money and 
jewels to the value of 5,000 marks, though nothing is 
said to show whether the money was intended for 
private or for national purposes. 2 He did not make 
his way to the council at once, for on February 16th, 
1433, he was given a licence to take £20,000 on his 
journey to the Council of Basel, and on February 20th 
a safe-conduct for his journey to Sigismund, King of 
the Romans, with whom he was to remain " on the 
King's service " not more than one year. 3 Here 
again details are wanting. It is uncertain whether 
the cardinal's mission to Sigismund had reference to 
the conflict still existing between pope and council, 
or to the attitude of Sigismund towards the war in 
France. It is even doubtful whether the mission 
was carried out. Sigismund was in Italy, working 
for his own coronation as emperor. Beaufort was at 
Calais in April. There was time, however, for him 
to attend the council. Some English envoys certainly 
went to the council, and came back at once by way 
of protest against an oath imposed by the council on 

1 Creighton, ii, 61-91 (ed. 1892). 

2 Rymer, x, 525. 

3 Rymer, x, 538, 539. 


all delegates, possibly also against its method of 
organisation. The council had rejected the method 
of deliberation by " nations," which had enabled 
England and Germany to play such a prominent part 
in the Council of Constance. The Bishop of Lodi 
wrote to Gloucester in June, 1433, to urge the return 
of the English envoys, and Henry VI replied on 
July 17th, no doubt in accordance with the advice 
of his council ; Bedford, Gloucester, and Beaufort 
were all then at Westminster. The King protested 
against the imposition of the oath and against the 
violent language of the council towards the Pope. 1 
The English government resented the neutralisation 
of national influence at Basel, and convocation in 
November declared itself on the side of the Pope 
against the council. In January, 1434, however, the 
Pope, driven from Rome and beset with difficulties, 
gave way and recognised the council, and decided to 
send cardinals to preside. 

Meanwhile the council had taken in hand the English 
pacification of Christendom in August, 1433, imme- ^assy 
diately after the failure of the mission of the papal council, 
mediator, Cardinal Albergati. 2 First the Duke of 
Burgundy and then the King of France accepted the 
council's offer of mediation. A bishop from the 
council came to consult the English government in 
November, 1433, and early in May, 1434, an embassy 
came from Burgundy. The English government 
stated in its reply to Burgundy on June 11th that 
the council and the Emperor had already broached 
the question of peace, but that the King had not 
accepted their offer owing to the prospect of a success- 
ful issue from the mission of Cardinal Albergati ; 

1 Bekynton, ii, 144, 61. 

2 Beaucourt, ii, 508-510. 


this mission having failed, the King was now sending 
an embassy to the council, and hoped that the duke's 
representatives would co-operate with his in the mat- 
ter of peace and in all matters concerning the Church. 
The English representatives were the Bishops 
of London, Rochester, and Dax (in Aquitaine), 
and the Earl of Mortain (Edmund Beaufort), the 
Abbots of Glastonbury and York, the Prior of Norwich, 
the Dean of Salisbury (Dr. Brouns), and two knights, 
Sir H. Brounfleet and Sir J. Colvile. Their instruc- 
tions, dated May 31st, were extensive and precise. 1 
They were to postpone their public audience until 
they had sounded the general opinion of the council, 
to protest against the new oath, to press for the system 
of voting by nations and especially to insist upon the 
consent of a nation to any decree directly affecting 
its interests, to act in concert with the Emperor, and 
at the same time to confer with the envoys of France 
and Burgundy. On the question of the relations 
between the Pope and the council, their instructions 
were guarded. They were to use their discretion, 
but if they heard on the way that the council was 
proceeding to depose the Pope and elect another, 
they were to wait where they were for further in- 
structions. They were to explain that the resumption 
of the alien priories in England had been justified by 
the anti-national use made of their revenues, and 
that those revenues had been applied by the King to 
religious purposes. They were to claim for the 
clergy of Aquitaine the same privileges as those 
granted to the clergy of the rest of France, and to 
protest against the restitution of the clergy of 
Normandy deprived by the King. They were to 
assist the King's French representatives to secure a 
1 Bekynton, ii, 260-269. 


place in the council, and they were to explain that 
the King's intentions were peaceful, but his persever- 
ing efforts had been frustrated by the unyielding 
temper of France. These instructions dealt with 
matters of considerable difficulty, and the English 
government was not above the use of other lubricants 
than the eloquence of its envoys. It is possible that 
the cardinal's £20,000 in February, 1433, was meant 
in part to smooth the way. It is certain that in 
April, 1434, the privy council ordered the purchase 
of collars of the King's livery, six of gold, twenty-four 
of silver-gilt, and sixty of silver, to be sent to the 
Emperor for distribution among the citizens of Basel 
and such knights and squires as the Emperor and the 
King's envoys thought fit to honour ; in May 400 
ducats and in June 100 marks were given to the envoys 
for the purpose of " retaining advocates at the 
council " ; and in November letters of exchange for 
1,000 marks were sent for distribution at the council 
at the discretion of the envoys " to the honour and 
advantage of the King." 1 On one point at least 
these inducements failed of their purpose. In 
February, 1435, the King had to write to the Cardinal 
of St. Angelo, president of the council, to request an 
audience for the envoys representing his realm of 
France, who had been refused admission again and 
again. 2 The point was significant of the attitude 
of the council towards the claim of Henry VI to the 
crown of France. It was precisely that claim on 
which the coming negotiations would turn ; and the 
claim was already disallowed by the council which 
was promoting the negotiations. 

1 Proceedings, iv, 207, 217, 221, 289. 
8 Proceedings, iv, 297. 



proposal of 
at Calais. 

The Cardinal of England was doubtless behind the 
scenes in the various stages of these negotiations, even 
where his name does not appear. Just on the verge 
of Bedford's departure for Normandy in July, 1434, 
a further opportunity of mediation was conceded to 
the Duke of Orleans. The privy council consented 
that he should confer with his friends " the lords of 
the blood of the party adverse " at Calais, on condition 
that the Dukes of Bedford and Gloucester and the 
cardinal were also at Calais. If the French lords only 
sent envoys to Calais, the duke might go in sure 
keeping, but he must pay his own expenses " if the 
treaty profit not." The sea must be searched to 
prevent his capture ; he must give security for his 
expenses ; and the council must be consulted, and 
" not one man to take upon him to send him forth 
ne to let his going or contrary the advice taken before 
of his going." 1 The concession was made probably 
to satisfy the Duke of Brittany's repeated requests ; 
but the precautions with which it was hedged prove 
at once how valuable an asset the possession of the 
duke was and how dubious his sincerity, — possibly 
also how suspicious the council was of the unauthor- 
ised activity of some or any particular councillor, 
though it would be an unwarranted supposition to 
name either Gloucester, Beaufort, Suffolk or any 
other. Nothing seems to have been done to give 
effect to the concession. The duke apparently never 
went to Calais. The cardinal returned home from 
France in the autumn of 1434. In November the 
signature H. Cardinal appears again at the head of the 
privy council, taking precedence as usual of the 
Archbishop of Canterbury. Two of the transactions 
in which he took part deserve notice as illustrating 

1 Proceedings, iv, 259, 260. 



respectively the state of affairs at home and the 
attitude of the government towards the Papacy. 

(1) On November 12th a full meeting of the 
council made a deferential but determined protest 
against the King's inclination " to change the rule 
and governance that afore in his tender age hath by 
his great council in parliament and else been advised 
and appointed for the good and surety of his noble 
person and of this land." 1 The protest hinted that 
private influence had been brought to bear upon the 
boy King, and urged that if any " such motions and 
stirrings apart as have been made but late ago " were 
made in future, he ought in view of his youth and 
inexperience to take the advice of " his great council 
or his continual council," as he used to do. No clue 
is given to indicate the " things of great weight and 
substance " in which the King had shown a tendency 
to ignore his council. It is possible that his lords 
resented his enthusiasm for the Pope against the 
Council of Basel. On the other hand, in the light of 
recent events, the absence of Gloucester's name from 
the council at this time suggests that it was the 
private intervention of a royal duke which the council 
resented as an infringement of their authority. 

(2) On November 14th the council wrote to the 
Pope in the King's name to urge the revocation of a 
papal " provision." 2 Two sees were vacant, Worces- 
ter now for some years, Rochester quite lately by the 
death of its bishop at Basel. The King had appointed 
Thomas Bourchier to Worcester ; the Pope had 
appointed Dr. Brouns, Dean of Salisbury, then at 
Basel. In October the council wrote to tell the 
English " courtisans at the court of Rome " that the 

1 Proceedings, iv, 287-289. 

2 Proceedings, iv, 285, 286. 

The King 
and his 

and papal 
" provi- 
sions. ' ' 


King would shortly recommend to the Pope a fit 
candidate for the see of Rochester ; meanwhile the 
English agents were to endeavour to prevent any 
premature " provision." On November 5th a royal 
letter was sent to Brouns, reminding him that the 
King's assent was necessary to his provision, and 
warning him that he would never have that assent 
to Worcester or any other see while he opposed the 
King's will as he was doing in this matter ; finally 
he was ordered to state his intentions at once to the 
King and to the Pope. In the letter signed on 
November 14th the council pressed the Pope to 
recognise Bourchier as Bishop of Worcester, and 
intimated that the King would approve the appoint- 
ment of Brouns to Rochester ; and this compromise 
was eventually accepted by the Pope. 




For the Council of Basel the peace of Europe was one Under- 
of several important objects. For the Duke of standing 
Burgundy it had become the one object of his efforts. Bu^fndy 
War was more costly and fruitless than ever. England and France, 
could give him less and less ; France, rid of the 
adventurers who had ruled its court, could give him 
a place among its magnates. In September and 
December he signed truces with his brothers-in-law, 
the Constable of France and the Duke of Bourbon.' 
In January, 1435, he held at Nevers a conference of 
French nobles which " assumed the aspect of a family 
gathering, "t and which ended in the signing of pre- 
liminaries of peace. A conference was to be held 
between all parties at Arras on July 1st. The Pope 
and the council were to be represented at the confer- 
ence. If the French King's " reasonable offers " were 
rejected by the English, the Duke of Burgundy was 
to undertake the " pacification " of the kingdom ; 
and definite cessions of territory were promised him 
in the event of his being driven to turn from the 
English to the French side. In May the duke sent 
envoys to London to tell the English court, as he had 
already told the English in Paris, that peace must be 
made, and that the French would never recognise the 
English claim to the crown of France. On June 4th 
Gloucester and Beaufort and the rest of the council 
issued orders for the presentation of gold plate to the 
1 Ramsay, i, 464, 465. 


17— (2210) 


Burgundian envoys and of money to delegates from 
the Council of Basel, but the answer given to the envoys 
was unpromising. The English were willing to attend 
the conference at Arras, but unwilling to waive the 
obligations of the Treaty of Troyes of 1420. They 
were no less unwilling either to trust Burgundy or to 
lose him. They placed him at the head of their 
first list of plenipotentiaries ; but they wrote to ask 
the Pope whether it was true that he had released 
the duke and others from their oaths of allegiance to 
the English. At the head of the alternative list of 
commissioners stood the name of the Cardinal of 
England, 1 but his departure to the congress was 
delayed, probably to enable him to intervene with 
revised instructions. 
Negotia- All through July the conference was still in process 

A??as at of assembling at Arras. "The Great Parliament," 
- as it was called, included representatives not only of 
England, France and Burgundy, but also of Sicily, 
Spain, Portugal, Denmark, Poland, and Italy ; its 
composition was proof enough of the interest which 
practically all Europe felt in the question of peace. 2 
Its first proper session was opened on August 5th 
in the Abbey of St. Vaast, under the presidence of 
the Cardinal of St. Cross, the papal delegate ; the 
second place of honour was occupied by the other 
mediator, the delegate of the Council of- Basel, the 
Cardinal of Cyprus. On August 3rd the Duke of 
Burgundy declined to act as a representative of 
England. On August 8th the Archbishop of York 
protested that the King of England only recognised 

i Rymer, x, 610-616. 

2 For the history of the congress see Beaucourt, n, 523-53U 
(from original documents, French and English) ; Ramsay, 
i, 467-472. 


the presidents of the congress as mediators, not as 
judges. The first week of the congress was spent 
in formalities. It was on August 10th that the 
English envoys made their first public offer,— a futile 
demand for the surrender of towns and territories 
unjustly held in defiance of their King's rights. 
A more serious offer was made by them on the 12th 
which probably represents their original instructions ; 
they proposed a marriage between Henry and a French 
princess, and a truce for twenty years or more to 
enable the King; on attaining man's estate, to treat 
in his own person. The French refused to accept a 
truce, and offered on their part additions to Henry's 
territories in Guienne, and a sum of 600,000 crowns, 
on condition that Henry should renounce his claim 
to the French throne, restore all his conquests in 
" France," and hold his other dominions as a fief 
of the French crown. These proposals, which were 
practically identical with the last offers made by the 
French at Winchester the summer before Agincourt, 
were rejected. The French then made a further offer 
of practically the whole of Normandy, but the only 
answer made by the English was to add to their 
proposals of a truce and a marriage the offer to accept 
a ransom for the release of the Duke of Orleans. 
On August 16th the cardinals pressed the English 
to make some practicable proposal. At this point 
the English envoys fell back upon the secondary 
instructions issued to them on July 31st and held in 
reserve in case " the King's party adverse will in no 
wise be agreed with the offers made unto them " in 
the first instance. They proposed to cede everything 
beyond the Loire but Gascony and Guienne, and to 
accept a French princess, " rather than fail of a good 
conclusion of peace for default thereof, without land 



or money." They were, in fact, willing to pay an 
annual revenue of 120,000 saluts (crowns) in return 
for the retention of their title in France. The French, 
however, were willing to pay 150,000 for the main- 
tenance of the status quo, but refused to accept any 
other situation of affairs. They told the cardinals that 
they could consider no offer which did not involve the 
renunciation of the English claim to the French crown. 
This renunciation the English were not prepared to 
offer or consent to make ; and the negotiations hung 
fire until the arrival of the Cardinal of England. 
Arrival of Beaufort entered Arras on August 23rd, and was 
Beaufort me t by the Duke of Burgundy. The duke paid him 
a visit on the 25th, but the cardinal was not invited 
to meet the French ambassadors who dined that 
afternoon at the duke's table. On the 27th negotia- 
tions were resumed. Beaufort was inclined to put an 
abrupt end to the conference when he found that the 
French were standing firm to their demand for the 
renunciation of the crown ; and when the presiding 
cardinals persuaded the envoys of both parties to 
produce an ultimatum, the Cardinal of England 
remained in the background, leaving the actual 
negotiation to the Archbishop of York, though doubt- 
less prompting and controlling the English embassy 
at each step. On the 29th the English produced an 
ultimatum which was practically the second alternative 
of their revised instructions ; each party was to retain 
what it held, except that there was to be " a commuta- 
tion and interchange of such places and lands as either 
party hath enclaved within the obeisance of other," 
i.e., a sort of " rectification of frontiers." Next day 
the French produced their ultimatum ; the English to 
renounce all rights to the crown of France and in 
return to receive the whole of Normandy as a fief ; 


the Duke of Orleans to be set free ; a French princess 
to be married to Henry VI without a dowry. On the 
31st the Archbishop of York rejected these terms 
absolutely. The King of England had no intention 
of renouncing his sovereignty over what territory 
he might retain. They were very much obliged to the 
Pope, the council and the cardinals for their efforts 
to mediate, but the conference was at an end. The 
Cardinal of St. Cross regretted the failure of the 
conference, and urged the English to accept the 
" great, notable and reasonable " offers which left 
them the best third of the realm of France ; and 
finally he stated that he had the Pope's authority to 
conclude a " particular " peace, i.e., between 
Burgundy and France, if the general peace proved 
impracticable. To this statement the cardinals 
adhered in spite of a protest from the English that 
the duke was bound by his oath to make no peace 
independently of England. 

On the afternoon of the 1st the duke entertained Breach 
the English at dinner with lavish splendour. It was Bur^ndy 
a hollow display. After dinner the Cardinal of and the 
England had a private interview with his host ; the En g lish - 
Archbishop of York was called in, and the two spent 
an hour together with the duke. The cardinal's 
excitement grew so intense that the sweat burst out 
upon his forehead ; and the lords in waiting tried 
in vain to cut the argument short by pretending to 
bring in the belated spices. The breach had come ; 
the duke spent the last hours of the night in a private 
conference with the Cardinal of St. Cross. The rup- 
ture of the negotiations, already an open secret on the 
29th, was a public fact before the 4th of September ; 
but a final effort was made on that day to meet the 
objection of the English that the renunciation of 



of the 
English at 

their sovereign's rights could not be validly or safely 
made during his minority. The Cardinal of England 
and his colleagues met the French in the Church of 
Our Lady at Arras, and promised to lay the French 
proposals before the King if they were stated in 
writing. On the 5th they took their leave of Bur- 
gundy, and on the 6th left Arras. The next day 
the French drafted letters containing their last offers, 
with one important concession : the question of the 
renunciation was to be suspended until Henry 
attained his majority, on condition that the English 
should evacuate the territories which were eventually 
to belong to the French, and should reinstate all 
dispossessed holders of lands or benefices within the 
territories ceded to England. The time-limit fixed 
for the acceptance or rejection of this offer was 
January 1st, 1436. It was rejected in London, and 
its rejection finally fastened the responsibility of 
the failure of the conference upon the shoulders of 
the English. One London chronicler attributes the 
return of the envoys to the fact that " the French 
party had cast a train with great treason for to have 
betrayed the cardinal with the said lords " of the 
embassy, "and therefore the said English party 
would no further proceed." x The reference seems to 
be to a raid of the Armagnac captains upon Artois on 
August 25th, but the injured party in this case was 
the Duke of Burgundy rather than the English, and 
the raid was, therefore, obviously not instigated by 
the French authorities. Another chronicler says 
more vaguely that the conference " was to no profit, 
for the French part was not all true in their coming." 2 
If this accusation refers to insincerity in negotiation, 

1 Kingsford, Chron. Lond., pp. 139, 310 

2 Gregory, p. 177. 


it might be made with equal or greater justice against 
the English. It was not peace that they desired, 
but a diplomatic recognition of that title in France 
which they could not enforce by arms and would not 
as yet surrender. Their attitude at this point may 
be summed up in two of the arguments of Sir John 
Fastolf 's report upon the situation in September, 1435. 
The surrender of the claim now would be a confession 
that " all their wars and conquest hath been but 
usurpation and tyranny." The continuance of the 
war was at least a maintenance of the claim ; " better 
is a country to be wasted for a time than lost." 
Fastolf was probably voicing the views of Bedford 
and Beaufort ; they in turn were still dominated by 
the aim of Henry V. The chronicler, however, may 
be referring to an understanding between the French 
and Burgundy. Such an understanding had become 
more and more obvious since the gathering at Nevers 
early in 1435. At Arras again Burgundy had 
postponed his own arrival till near the arrival of the 
French envoys, and had been in continual touch 
with them throughout August. The English envoys 
had at least this excuse for their impracticable 
attitude towards the proposals of the French, that 
those proposals had the support of Burgundy, the 
nominal ally of England and now the secret friend 
of France. The secrecy was soon gone. Ten days 
of discussion of details, and there came on September 
21st a Treaty of Arras between Duke Philip and King 
Charles which ended the twenty-five years of feud 
between the Burgundians and the Armagnacs. 
Burgundy was bound to the English by the Treaties 
of Troyes and Amiens and " by fifteen years of 
fellowship in arms." 1 The cardinals absolved him 
1 Stevenson, ii [576, 577]. 


from his oaths ; the death of Bedford on September 
14th broke the tie of comradeship ; and a week later 
Burgundy became the sworn ally of the French on 
terms of his own which made him " practically a third 
king in France." x His secession, however, was after 
all inevitable, and though the resentment of the 
English was intelligible enough, it was no justification 
for their obstinate insistence upon the French title. 
Even with the support of Burgundy they had lost 
ground during the last five years ; the prospect of 
regaining the lost ground in the face of Burgundian 
abstention or opposition was hopeless. The last 
offer which they refused at least gave them Nor- 
mandy ; and the last solemn charge of Henry V 
and the policy of Bedford in 1429 alike revealed the 
consciousness that Normandy might be the most that 
England could keep. " Fifteen years later an 
Englishman could groan at the thought of what had 
been refused at Arras." 2 The best that can be said 
for the refusal, for which the English people and 
council were alike responsible, is that it was dictated 
not merely by a national pride which clung 
desperately to an untenable position but by a 
doggedly faithful loyalty to the memory of the King 
whose life had been spent and lost in pursuit of 
the unattainable ideal of an English realm across the 
War with Burgundy had no desire to push England to the 
Burgundy. p f n t f war. It was England that drew the sword. 
Immediately after the conclusion of the Treaty of 
Arras ambassadors were despatched to England from 
the duke and the cardinals to explain and enforce 
the position of affairs. Their papers were seized at 

1 Ramsay, i, 473. 

2 Ramsay, i, 472. 


Calais, and they were themselves guarded strictly in 
uncomfortable lodgings in London. When the letters 
were read before the King and his lords, the King 
wept over the omission of his French title in the 
duke's letter, and foretold misfortune for his realm of 
France. The Cardinal of Winchester and the Duke 
of Gloucester, says the French chronicler Wavrin, 
left the council abruptly, indignant but undecided, 
and the councillors gathered in little knots and abused 
each other as well as Burgundy and his ministers. 
Then came the news that Burgundy had taken 
possession of his reward, towns once nominally English 
territory. London lost its head : the mob plundered 
the Flemish merchants' houses, the government 
dismissed the envoys with a practical threat of 
reprisals, the chancellor laid before parliament a 
garbled account of the conference at Arras, and 
parliament sanctioned war against Burgundy as well 
as against France. The duke's complaints against 
English interference with Flemish subjects at home 
and abroad were met by the council with partial 
explanation and partial denial, and the breach was 
complete. Burgundy sent troops to assist the French 
in the recovery of Paris ; the Duke of York, the 
commander of the English reinforcements, was 
actually authorised to negotiate with the French 
against Burgundy. Calais was promptly besieged 
by the Burgundian forces ; but the Earl of Mortain, 
Beaufort's nephew, one of York's lieutenants, relieved 
the garrison, and the siege was raised, Gloucester, the 
new Lieutenant of Calais, arriving only in time to 
make a punitive raid into Flanders. 

The cardinal's share in the events of 1436 is not Prominence 
disclosed by the records. The only appearance of his £ f Jft* , 
name at the council is among the signatures to the a t home. 


King's letter to Burgundy in March. 1 Possibly the 
references in that letter to the King's action in 
suppressing outrages upon Flemish subjects may 
indicate that the cardinal had endeavoured already to 
prevent the breach with Burgundy from being carried 
to an extent fatal to English commerce. Beaufort 
was certainly the first English statesman to endeavour 
to close that breach. But from April, 1437, to May, 
1438, the proceedings of the council show the cardinal 
in continual attendance. 2 He had indeed at first 
shared the general disheartenment of the early part 
of 1437. The Duke of York declined to remain in 
command in France after his year's service expired, 
and was succeeded by the old Earl of Warwick, who 
was glad apparently to exchange the growing difficul- 
ties of the tutorship of the young King for even the 
hardships of an uphill struggle in the field. The 
English chancellor in France, the Bishop of Rouen, 
came over to find relief as a naturalised citizen of 
England and as Bishop of Ely. On April 13th the 
cardinal himself wanted to resign his councillorship 
on the ground that he was entitled to rest now and 
the King was old enough to dispense with his services. 
He asked leave to go " to do his duty " at Rome, but 
was refused permission ; perhaps the council were 
apprehensive of his private ambitions, perhaps they 
were genuinely anxious to retain his services, as they 
said, for negotiations at home or in France. The 
cardinal yielded, and took up his burden again. On 
the 18th he was granted some other petition of his not 
further specified, and the minute of the council adds 
the brief but sufficient explanation, "he hath lent 
10,000 marks." He had also postponed the repayment 

1 Proceedings, iv, 329-334. 

2 Proceedings, v, 6-101. 


of this loan and of another of 4,000 marks, and 
promised to restore the royal jewels held by him 
in pledge. The gratitude of the council went further ; 
in June he received a general pardon for all irregular- 
ities in the matter of his loans, and in July further 
security was given for sums yet due to him. His 
prominence is illustrated in various interesting ways. 
On May 14th the Earl of Suffolk brought the keeper 
of the privy seal " a ring to token from my lord the 
cardinal letting him wit that my said lord the cardinal 
would that this bill should pass as it is desired," 
apparently one of the ordinances relating to " the 
requests of France and Normandy." In November 
when the Duke of Burgundy's movements seemed to 
threaten Calais again, and the different members of 
the council gave their advice upon the way to meet the 
danger, it was the cardinal who announced the King's 
wish that commissioners should be appointed to 
muster the gentlemen of each county in readiness 
" for the rescuing of Calais." 

Early in 1438 he was requested by the council to Negotia- 
lay before them letters sent to " his fatherhood " by [i° n ^ ith 
the Queen of Scotland with reference to the coming Scotland, 
of a Scottish embassy. The murder of James I in 
February, 1437, had left the cardinal's niece Joan a 
widowed queen, and she soon made overtures for 
peace with England which her uncle succeeded in 
persuading the council to accept. At the same meet- 
ing of the council a list of the lords spiritual and 
temporal was sent to the cardinal with the request 
that he would in the King's name " appoint such as 
him shall seem best " to attend the obit of the 
Emperor Sigismund, who had died in December, 1437, 
and to go to the general council, and others again to 
act as lords marchers of Wales. 


th C ith "1 ^ he ambassaciors appointed were instructed to 
of Basel, exert their influence with the electors in favour of 
Sigismund's son-in-law, Albert, Duke of Austria ; and 
in May the council suggested a marriage between 
Henry and a daughter of the new Emperor. At the 
same time the English government endeavoured, as 
Sigismund had done, to avert or heal the breach 
between the Council of Basel and the Pope. In 
September, 1437, Eugeniushad issued a bull transfer- 
ring the council to Ferrara in compliance with the 
wishes of the Greek Church, which was prepared to 
send delegates to Italy to discuss the question of 
reunion. The council refused to be transferred and 
proceeded to suspend the Pope, and their " monition " 
was laid before the English council in November. 
Henry wrote an indignant remonstrance to Basel, but 
in February the English council was prepared to send 
envoys either to Basel or to Ferrara. In May their 
envoys were instructed " not lightly to adhere to 
the one party or the other, but put it in suspense for 
a time and thereof certify the King and have his 
intent therein, lest he should fall into schism." 1 
Henry wrote to the Pope to express his sympathy, and 
to the council at Basel to say that in spite of their 
discourteous reception of his messengers he proposed 
to send envoys to promote peace. 2 It would be 
interesting to know how far the King's attitude was 
due to his own devotion to the Papacy or to the 
influence of the cardinal ; but there is no evidence 
to decide the question. The privy council advised 
the King early in 1438 " to grant no licence to my lord 

1 Proceedings, v, 96-98. 

2 Bekynton's Correspondence contains many interesting 
communications between Henry VI and the powers of the 
Church with reference to Basel, the Papacy, the Greek Church, 


cardinal to go to the general council/' 1 but it is 
doubtful again whether their advice was due rather 
to their suspicion of his attitude on papal questions 
or to their desire to retain his services at home. 
Peace was once more under consideration, and the 
cardinal was by position and by inclination the 
fittest negotiator that the English government had 
at its command. The war was still prosecuted as 
strenuously as circumstances permitted, and 
Edmund Beaufort, now Earl of Dorset, went to 
France in June, 1438, in command of the year's 
reinforcements ; but his uncle the cardinal was 
already, it would seem, laying his plans for further 

In January the council agreed to waive their (3) with 
demand for the prepayment of the cost of sending the France i 
Duke of Orleans to Cherbourg for a conference, but 
the French made no response. Meanwhile the 
cardinal was watchful of every opening on the side (4) with the 
of Burgundy. His niece the duchess, Isabella of Duchess of 
Portugal, was a kinswoman and a friend of England. UrgUn y * 
Hugh de Lannoy, the famous Burgundian diplomat, 
was at the English council in May, 1438. On Novem- 
ber 21st at the cardinal's request safe-conduct was 
given to a returning Burgundian envoy, and on the 
23rd the cardinal, the Archbishop of York and others 
were empowered to treat with the duchess. 2 The 
primary question was the renewal of commercial 
intercourse between England and Flanders, but the 
negotiations soon extended to the question of a 
conference to discuss peace with France. The 
cardinal's investments in wool were not his only or 
chief motive for welcoming peace with Flanders ; 

1 Proceedings, v, 93. 

2 Rynier, x, 713-716. 



Proposal of 
at Calais. 

Burgundy was now his only hope for England. If 
the Burgundian alliance against France was gone 
beyond recall, Burgundian mediation with France was 
worth an effort. The duchess was more sincere, the 
duke more powerful than the prisoner of Orleans 
round whom the futile attempts at negotiation with 
France had centred in the last two years. Such 
mediation must involve some abatement of English 
claims, but the cardinal was aware by this time, 
perhaps even earlier, that those claims were now a 
mere flourish ; and England stood to lose less through 
the mediation of Burgundy than through any other 
line of negotiation. 

The cardinal went over to Calais with other coun- 
cillors to meet the duchess in person in January, 1439, 
and the conference was all arranged before the spring. 
The English consented to bring the Duke of Orleans ; 
the French consented to come to Calais. The 
duchess scored a point of her own in getting possession 
at once of the little French princess, Katharine, who 
was to be her son's bride, but it is doubtful whether 
this alliance did not neutralise any advantage that the 
English expected to gain from her relation to the 
house of Lancaster. 
Instruc- Tne cnief members oi the English embassy consisted 

tions of the of the Archbishop of York, the Duke of Norfolk, and 
English the Earls of Stafford and Oxford. Their instructions 
were signed on May 21st. They were actually 
instructed in the first instance to demand the uncon- 
ditional surrender of all France as " the most reason- 
able mean of peace," and this demand was even 
inserted in the credentials which were to be produced 
before the French. x It may have been intended to 
satisfy Gloucester's objection to any semblance of a 
1 Rymer, x, 720-733. 


concession, 1 but it was probably a mere bluff, for the 
rest of the instructions gave the envoys a sliding scale 
of concessions to be offered in turn, which went far 
beyond any previous proposals from the side of 
England. The cardinal, " more as a prelate of the 
Church and as a mediator and stirrer to the peace," 
was to dwell upon the cost of the war to Christendom 
as a sacrifice of life and as a hindrance to the extension 
of the Christian faith ; upon the only alternatives, the 
destruction of one power or the concord of the two ; 
upon the " nighness of blood " between the princes 
concerned ; upon the duties of sovereigns to secure 
peace and justice for their people ; upon the fact that 
France had " not at all times been wholly under the 
governance of one sole king, nor it is not of the 
necessity of the law of God or of nature nor also of 
the necessity for the behoveful governance thereof 
that it so be." " By these motives and other such 
as my lord the cardinal's great wisdom will advise " 
the temper of the conference was to be attuned to the 
reception of a series of offers. 2 First, the envoys were 
to ask for a petition of France which left each king 
in possession of the titular sovereignty of the whole ; 
in the last resort they were to offer to accept the 
Bretigny dominion (Guienne, Poitou) with Normandy, 
Maine and Calais, all to be held in absolute sovereignty. 
With regard to the reinstatement of dispossessed 
partisans of France within the English territories, 
they were to make partial concessions under protest. 
If the old proposal for a marriage between Henry and 
a French princess were revived, they were to press 
for the conclusion of peace first, and not to bind the 
King ; in any case they were to ask for a dowry of 

1 Ramsay, ii, 11. 

2 Proceedings, v, 356, 357. 


a million crowns, if they could not get two millions. 
The price of the release of the Duke of Orleans was 
to be 100,000 marks. If peace proved unattainable 
the Duchess of Burgundy and the Duke of Orleans 
were to be utilised as mediators of such a truce, long 
or short, as might be had. But the most significant 
instruction of all was the reference to " the leaving 
of the name and crown of France." They were to 
lay stress upon the fact of the coronation of Henry in 
Paris with the assent of " a great party of the peers 
of France " in person or by proxy, and upon the 
ancient examples of rival kings in France ; " but 
finally rather than the thing fall to rupture, the said 
ambassadors shall report them in this matter to my 
lord the cardinal to whom the King hath opened and 
declared all his intent in this matter. ' ' * This can only 
mean that the cardinal had persuaded the King and 
council to allow him in the last resort to make the 
great surrender which at Arras he himself had refused 
to allow to be made. 
Bekynton's The story of the conference is told in detail in the 
i° u j£ al journal of Dr. Thomas Bekynton, one of the English 
conference, envoys. 2 Beaufort and the ambassadors crossed 
to Calais on June 26th. The French arrived on the 
28th, and on the 29th were told that the time and place 
and conditions of meeting must be left to the decision 
of the cardinal and the duchess, who were the presid- 
ing mediators. They dined with the English at the 
Archbishop of York's house, and next day called to 
take leave of the cardinal, and swore a solemn oath 
before the altar in the cardinal's oratory, the Arch- 
bishop of Rheims placing his right hand on his breast, 

1 Proceedings, v, 360, 361. 

2 Proceedings, v, 334-407 ; English summary in chrono- 
logical catalogue, pp. xiii-xxx ; see also preface, pp. 


and the rest of the French envoys placing theirs in the 
cardinal's. The purport of the oath was that they 
would in no way do or allow to be done any injury 
to the English envoys or to the mediators or their 
retinues. Two English envoys went to administer 
a similar oath to the Duke of Burgundy at St. Omer, 
and to consult the duchess. On July 2nd, the feast 
of St. Swithin, the patron saint of Winchester, the 
cardinal entertained all the ambassadors and knights 
and young gentlemen of rank (domicellos) then in 
Calais. The duchess decided that the conferences 
should take place near Oye between Calais and 
Gravelines, that three hundred persons on either side 
might attend, armed with swords and daggers only, 
and that ten scouts on either side should patrol the 
neighbourhood daily. On July 6th Dr. Bildeston 
celebrated mass in the cardinal's chapel, and soon 
after six the cardinal and the ambassadors rode out 
to the meeting-place. The Duke of Orleans, who was 
left behind at Calais to prevent any attempt to rescue 
him, resented his detention, remarking that in his 
absence " the others would do nought but beat the 
wind." The diarist dwells with pride upon the 
splendour of the cardinal's tent at Oye. It was built 
of timber, covered with new canvas ; it had pantry, 
butlery, wine-cellar, and chambers, and a central hall 
hung with scarlet tapestry, large enough to seat three 
hundred persons at table, with a kitchen at the end. 
The duchess had a tent of her own nearly as large, 
but it was built of rotten timber and covered with old 
sails, though it was sumptuously lined with cloth of 
Arras. For the conference the duchess had reserved 
a beautiful tent between the two. 

The duchess arrived about ten with her niece the 
Princess of Navarre and her ladies, richly dressed in 

1 8— (22 10) 


cloth of gold. The cardinal met her with an affection- 
ate embrace, and led the way to the conference tent. 
At Arras he had been merely the senior envoy on the 
English side. At Oye he occupied the central seat 
of honour, with the duchess on his right and the 
princess on his left, while the ambassadors sat on either 
side. The Archbishop of York opened the conference 
with a Latin oration in praise of the mediators, and 
the ambassadors exchanged their credentials. The 
cardinal, who was fasting that day in honour of 
St. Thomas the martyr, retired to dine, but his dinner 
was interrupted by messengers from the duchess. 
The French had taken grave exception to the terms 
of the English credentials. They protested against 
the bare reference to their king as " Charles of Valois," 
against the demand for the surrender of France, which 
in the opinion of the duchess herself would have been 
more wisely confined to the envoys' own instructions, 
and also against the absence of any authorisation to 
consider the question of the renunciation of the 
crown ; and the cardinal had to consent to the 
revision of the credentials, and to promise that the 
English council would accept the revision. The 
duchess and the French then returned to Gravelines, 
the cardinal and the English to Calais. 

The parties met again at Oye on July 10th. Revised 
credentials were read and approved on both sides ; 
the French had corrected certain obscurities in theirs 
at the request of the English. The Archbishop of 
York then proceeded to demand the cession of France, 
arguing in favour of the King's title first from his 
victories won in its defence, secondly from the 
prophecy of St. Bride in her Book of Revelations that 
when the realm of France had been reduced to true 
humility it would revert to its lawful heir. The 


Archbishop of Rheims retorted with a converse 
argument from the victories of the French King and 
with a prophecy of John the Hermit that after France 
had suffered for her sins she would finally drive the 
English from the realm. The English prelate insisted 
on the superior inspiration of St. Bride, but eventually 
passed on to the second of his instructions, and offered 
to cede certain territories south of the Loire. The 
French refused to consider any offer unless the English 
were prepared to renounce their title, to do homage 
for their territories, and to reinstate all dispossessed 
French partisans within those territories. In that 
case they would cede all present possessions of the 
English in Aquitaine. Their offer was rejected by the 
English. The cardinal spent an hour after dinner 
alone with the duchess in the conference tent, but 
had to tell his countrymen afterwards that the French 
would not yield their points, and that a truce was as 
much as the English could expect. 

On July 13th the duchess and the French ambassa- Interven- 
dors had an interview with the Duke of Orleans tion °* the 
outside Calais, the cardinal coming in from time to f° Basel 
time. In answer to an appeal from the duchess, the declined, 
duke assured her that he would gladly die to secure 
peace, but nothing came of the interview. On the 
15th the cardinal and the ambassadors gave an 
audience to the Bishop of Vique, a legate sent from 
the Council of Basel to treat for peace. Next day the 
Archbishop of York thanked the council for its good 
intentions, but explained that the ambassadors could 
only attend to the appointed mediators, the cardinal 
and the duchess. It was the partisanship of the 
fathers of the council at the conference at Arras that 
had made the present conference necessary, and the 
council had better take care moreover now to avoid 



of the 

the responsibility of causing a schism in the Church. 
The legate replied with a word of compliment for the 
mediators, a word of defence for the council, and a 
word of condemnation for the Pope. The archbishop 
adhered to his complaint about the conduct of the 
council at Arras, and refused to discuss the Pope ; 
there were differences of opinion about the respective 
authority of pope and council, but no doubt his 
holiness could do justice to his own character when he 
thought fit. 

The duchess was recalled to St. Omer for a few days 
by the illness of her husband, but returned for a 
conference on the 18th. The cardinal had an inter- 
view with her from which he came at once to tell the 
English that the duchess regarded peace as hopeless, 
since the French demanded the renunciation of the 
crown and the English refused the demand of homage. 
She had urged him to discuss the question of a truce 
for thirty, twenty, or at least fifteen years, the respec- 
tive claims of crown and homage to be waived for that 
period, and the King to be free to resume his French 
title and reopen the war at a year's notice. 
Unfortunately, when the proposal of the duchess was 
reduced to writing at the request of the English, it 
was found that the French had inserted two other 
conditions, the release of the Duke of Orleans and the 
restoration of the ejected clerical and lay owners. 
In that form the proposal had no chance of acceptance 
by the English, and the Duke of Orleans admitted 
to the cardinal that he shared the original impression 
of the English and their surprise at the alterations. 
Negotiation on such an uncertain basis was difficult. 
The English replied with an offer to be content with 
the ancient possessions of the King's predecessors 
before the title to the French crown arose ; but the 


French were not satisfied with the specification 
subsequently given of these possessions. The English 
complained of the indefiniteness of the cessions 
offered them during the time of the proposed truce. 
The duchess pressed them in vain to accept at least 
the outline of the proposal, and in her vexation burst 
into tears, " whether of anger or sorrow," writes 
Bekynton, " I know not." During the interchange 
of schedules the cardinal seized the opportunity to 
confer with Lannoy and other Burgundian envoys 
whom he had invited to Calais ; he was anxious to 
come to terms with Burgundy, even if terms with 
France should prove unattainable. On the 29th the 
cardinal met the duchess and the French ambassadors 
at Oye, and told the English next day that the French 
had offered to allow the King to keep his possessions 
in Guienne and practically all Normandy. On the 
29th all parties met near Calais, and it was agreed 
that the conferences should be suspended until 
September 11th, and meanwhile the English should 
consult the King. The Archbishop of York and two 
other ambassadors sailed for England on August 
5th. The cardinal remained at Calais. He took 
the precaution of increasing the sentries in view of 
rumoured attempts at a rescue of the Duke of Orleans, 
and on the 6th went to stay at the Castle of Hammes. 
There the Bishop of Norwich and Bekynton paid him 
a visit, and after dinner the cardinal rode with them 
to the chapel and tomb of St. Gertrude, where they 
made their offerings and said their devotions, and 
brought away some of the earth from the saint s 
grave " because it was said in common opinion to 
drive away rats." The cardinal was recalled to 
Calais on the 19th by the news of the capture of part 
of the town of Meaux by the Constable of France. 



tions from 

He was suffering from dysentery, but he took care 
to keep the King informed of the news from Meaux, 
and he rode out in the intervals of his sickness to 
examine an irruption of the sea, and made a contract 
for the necessary labour to repair the breach. On 
September 7th he gave audience to a deputation of 
Flemish herring-fishers who came to request a 
safe-conduct for their boats. 

On September 9th the ambassadors returned from 
England with their new instructions. On the three 
main points — the final or even temporary renuncia- 
tion of the crown, the homage to the French King, the 
reinstatement of the dispossessed — these instructions 
required the ambassadors simply to refuse the French 
demands. From a pious desire to avoid the guilt of 
bloodshed or schism, the King would be content with 
Normandy, Guienne, Calais, Guisnes and their 
marches, all " to hold immediately of God and in no 
wise of any earthly creature." In the last resort 
he would reinstate the dispossessed in Normandy on 
condition that the present holders were given a just 
compensation, of which the King woud pay a 
quarter, if his ambassadors could not shift it all off 
his shoulders, and " the King's adversary " must pay 
the rest. The Duke of Orleans might be released, but 
only on bail to plead for peace, in default of which 
he must return to captivity. To these instructions 
was appended an elaborate justification of the King's 
refusals. To waive his title even for a time would be 
to discredit the justice of his former position or the 
courage of his policy, to say nothing of the necessity 
of revising the seal, coinage, and arms of the English 
realm. To reinstate the dispossessed would be to eject 
persons at present holding lands of the King under 
good title or legal grant, to garrison his territories 


with avowed enemies, and to imperil his hold upon 
those territories if the war broke out again, as it 
might at a year's notice. To accept such terms would 
show far " too great a simpleness and lack of foresight." 

The refusal, however, showed a far greater lack of Glouces- 
foresight. There can be little doubt that it was r |spons- 
Gloucester who was responsible for the refusal, ibility. 
Within six months Gloucester penned his famous 
indictment of the cardinal and his party. In that 
indictment Gloucester stated proudly that when his 
advice was asked by the King after the Archbishop 
of York had endeavoured to persuade the King to 
consent to the renunciation, he replied : "I would 
never agree me thereto, to die therefore." 1 In 
Beaufort's absence Gloucester was the dominant 
personality at the council. He may be acquitted 
perhaps of the crime of giving a judgment on national 
policy out of private antagonism to the promoter of 
that policy. He can scarcely be acquitted of wilful 
blindness to the trend of events. High-flown language 
about the title as vital to the honour of the King and 
his predecessors was not to the point. The question 
of holding anything at all in France with or without 
title was rapidly becoming acute. 

The last clause of the new instructions recommended F f ai J}J re 
that the cardinal should offer the King's last terms in conference, 
person " where it seemed that they may so better be 
put in overture than immediately by the said ambas- 
sadors." The compliment was double-edged, for the 
cardinal was foredoomed to failure. On September 
11th the English went to the place of conference, and 
found that the French had not been seen at Gravelines 
since the end of July ; and the cardinal informed his 
countrymen on their return to Calais that " the 

1 Stevenson, ii, 446. 


adversary of France " had written to the Duchess of 
Burgundy and the Duke of Orleans to say that the 
question of peace must be laid before the estates 
general on September 25th, and the conference must 
be postponed until after that date. The English 
decided that the conference was at an end, but the 
cardinal was to continue to negotiate with the duchess 
and Orleans. On the 15th the duchess drove to 
Calais to hear the news from England. The cardinal 
told the ambassadors next day that she pressed hard 
for the acceptance of her proposed form of peace ; 
and when he convinced her that there was no hope of 
its acceptance she argued in person or by her chan- 
cellor in favour of the continuation of the negotiations 
as lately suggested by the French. The cardinal 
refused to consider this proposal, and attributed the 
delay of the French to " fraud," adding that they had 
made larger concessions at Arras than they now 
offered. The duchess thereupon played the candid 
friend. She reminded the cardinal that the King 
was in a stronger position then, and ran through a list 
of towns lost by the English since Arras. The 
cardinal did not need reminding ; but the new 
instructions from England drove him to maintain an 
attitude which he knew to be absurd in the face of 
Truce with facts. The subject of France was then dropped, 
urgun y. j^ e duchess, however, had an end of her own to secure, 
and she asked " mildly enough, in fact coolly, it 
seemed, and in an offhand sort of way," whether 
the cardinal wished the truce with Burgundy to 
continue, and whether he had anything further to say 
about mercantile intercourse between England and 
Flanders. The cardinal replied by asking her the 
same question, and an agreement was made which 
ended in the signature a fortnight later of a truce for 


three years which safeguarded the commercial 
interests of the two countries. On October 2nd the 
cardinal and the ambassadors heard mass in the 
Carmelite Church at Calais, and at seven set sail for 
England to report their failure. The only consoling 
feature in the situation was the truce with Burgundy, 
which meant safety for Calais and freedom to attend 
to the defence of Normandy. 


Proposal to 
release the 
Duke of 



Before the year 1439 was over both England and 
France were preparing for a fresh conference in 
accordance with the last proposals of the Duchess of 
Burgundy at Oye. The cardinal's return to England 
had restored the supremacy of the peace party at 
home. In France the English were more and more 
content perforce to remain on the defensive. The 
veteran Warwick had died in harness early in 1439, 
and his place was filled by the Earl of Somerset, the 
cardinal's nephew, a far inferior leader. Guienne 
was now hard pressed by a French invasion ; Nor- 
mandy was still in sore straits. The case for nego- 
tiation was stronger than ever. The negotiations, 
however, were indirect this time ; the question of the 
year was the release of the Duke of Orleans. It was 
a quadrilateral deal. France was anxious to regain 
a prisoner more valuable even to England as a hostage 
than to France as a subject. Burgundy was bent on 
uniting the great lords of France in an attempt to 
keep the power of their King in check, and the support 
of Orleans was a necessary and a promising factor in 
this attempt. The Cardinal of England welcomed 
the opportunity of at once laying Burgundy under an 
obligation and weakening the realm of France from 
within. It was obviously impossible to explain 
publicly the origin or aim of the new policy, but there 
were other respectable and plausible considerations 
which could be urged in favour of the release of a 


prisoner upon whose retention Henry V had insisted 
so strongly in his last wishes. The Duke of Orleans 
had continually asserted his desire and his ability to 
procure peace if he were only set at liberty, and of 
course his ransom would be a welcome relief to the 
exhausted treasury. The captive duke himself was no 
mere pivot of the plan ; he wanted power as well as 
freedom. He was ready to buy the termination of 
a quarter of a century of exile at any price, but he 
was also pledged already by a private understanding 
with the Duchess Isabella to bury the past feud of 
his house in an alliance with Burgundy. The whole 
scheme was a complicated network of conspiring 
interests which were ultimately bound to prove 
conflicting. Meanwhile it provoked Gloucester into 
an outburst of antagonism fiercer than ever. 

It was characteristic of Gloucester that his first Glouces- 
protest was a personal attack upon the cardinal and ^.^ 
the Archbishop of York, the leaders of the peace party, upon 
Their present policy was, indeed, included in the Beaufort, 
indictment, but the indictment ran back to Beaufort's 
first acceptance of the cardinalate in 1417. It was an 
indiscriminate array of every possible accusation 
against his old rival and opponent. x The first two 
charges (1,2) denounced the illegality of his position 
as cardinal and bishop, regardless of the fact that 
parliament and council had long ago given that 
position full indemnity and recognition, and that the 
cardinal had himself won the acquiescence of the 
primate, if not his approval, by refraining from 
interference in church affairs at home these last ten 

1 Stevenson, ii, 440-451, from Ashmole MS. 856 (Bodleian 
Library), pp. 392-405 ; Arnold's Chronicle, pp. 279-286 ; 
Hall, pp. 197-201. The numbers in the text above are the 
numbers of the " items " as they are given in the indictment. 


years. (3) The third charge reveals the line of party 
cleavage at this time ; Beaufort and Kemp were 
accused of having usurped the position of " chief 
councillor," which should be the privilege of the 
Archbishop of Canterbury, and also of " estranging " 
and excluding from their rightful share in the King's 
confidence Gloucester himself and the Duke of York 
and the Earl of Huntingdon and other lords. 
Gloucester next turned to deal with matters of finance. 
He asserted (4) that during the King's " tender age " 
the cardinal once lent £4,000 on royal jewels valued 
at 22,000 marks (over £14,000), and instead of 
allowing the treasurer to redeem the jewels at the 
time agreed made him spend the money on part of 
another army, in order to retain the jewels to his own 
profit and to the King's loss. (5) The cardinal's loans 
had been and were still secured by assignments on the 
customs of the port of Southampton within his own 
diocese ; Gloucester now hinted that as the cardinal 
was himself the " chief merchant of wools " in the 
land, and the customs-officers were his servants, 
the revenue probably suffered undiscoverable losses. 
(6) His loans were indeed great in amount, but they 
were delayed till they were practically useless. 
(15) Jewels forfeited by the cardinal to the value of 
£11,000 by weight had been recovered by him " for 
the loan of a little parcel thereof," the King being 
thus " defrauded wholly of them." (16) The cardinal 
had purchased of the King certain estates, e.g., the 
castle and lordship of Chirk in Wales ; and Gloucester 
had only consented, he said, under protest, in order 
to avoid the abandonment of the expedition to 
Guienne, which apparently depended on the cardinal's 
advances. But the cardinal had stipulated that the 
King must give him possession by Easter, 1440, or 


else surrender to him the Norfolk estates of the 
Duchy of Lancaster to the annual value of 700 or 800 
marks. (18) He had " sued a pardon," {i.e., an 
exemption) for life from the payment of the tenths 
due from the see of Winchester, regardless of the 
King's needs and of the bad example thus set to 
other lords spiritual to shift their share of national 
burdens on to the temporalty and the King's " poor 
people." (7) He had abused his position as " feoffee " 
or trustee of the late King's estate by giving Elizabeth 
Beauchamp 300 marks' worth of property on her 
marriage, though the King's will expressly stipulated 
that she was to receive the property only in case of 
her marriage within a year. Then there was his 
preferment of his nephew, Swynford, though here 
Gloucester gave no word of specification. (8) The 
Scottish King had been released by the bishop 
without authority to the " great defraudation " of 
the King of England, all for the sake of making a 
queen of the bishop's niece ; the bishop had sacrificed 
a sixth of the ransom, and the Scottish King had paid 
but little of the rest. (20) Finally, the duke attacked 
the sources of the cardinal's wealth. " Of his church 
it might not rise ; inheritance hath he none." At a 
time when the poverty of the King's subjects made 
honesty and efficiency more needful than ever, the 
cardinal had sold offices and commands in France to 
the highest bidder, regardless of service or ability. 
Further back still, the cardinal, " having the rule of 
the King," had purchased a pardon for his offence 
against the statute of provisors, whereas the property 
forfeited by this offence would under careful manage- 
ment have paid the cost of the war for many years, 
and saved the King's poor people from taxation. 
In seven other articles of the indictment Gloucester 


fell foul of the policy of the cardinal and the arch- 
bishop. (9) Money had been wasted on embassies. 
An embassy had been sent to Arras "for a feigned 
colourable peace/' but the only result was a peace 
between Burgundy and France, which might never 
have come if the conference at Arras had not given 
them an opportunity of meeting " to conclude their 
confederacy and conspiration " against the King. 
(10) Another embassy had been sent to Calais lately 
(i.e., early in 1439). Its reasons were unknown to 
Gloucester, the King's " sole uncle," and to other 
lords of his kin and council ; and its cost might well 
have gone to defend the realm and to protect com- 
merce. (11) Then came the conferences at Calais in 
the summer of 1439. In spite of the " natural war " 
between the Dukes of Orleans and Burgundy, the 
cardinal and the archbishop had allowed Orleans to 
confer privately with the French lords as well as 
with the Duchess of Burgundy, and the result had 
been a peace and alliance between the two dukes, 
" to the greatest fortifying," Gloucester told the 
King, " of your capital adversary." Meanwhile the 
French had used the time of the conference to capture 
Meaux and other places in Normandy. (12) The 
archbishop had been sent home by the cardinal to 
induce the King to grant the French demands, and 
had actually urged the King to surrender his title 
for a time, " to the great note of infamy that ever 
fell " to the King and his noble progenitors. For 
his own part Gloucester had resisted and would resist 
the surrender ; he would live and die in defence of the 
King's honour and his coronation oath in France. 
(13) Now the two prelates had persuaded the King to 
consent to a renewal of the conferences in March or 
April, 1440. The responsibility for the failure of 


1439 lay, as the world could see, with the " untruths " 
of the adverse party ; the next failure would be made 
to rest upon the King. (14) Finally, the proposal 
to release the Duke of Orleans was the work of the 
same two prelates. Yet the late King had by his last 
will urged that the release should be postponed till 
the conquest of France was completed, and then 
should only be conceded under strict safeguards. 

The personal element was evident again in two of 
the closing charges. (17) The cardinal, in spite of the 
fact that he had " no manner of authority nor interest 
unto the crown," had " taken upon him estate royal " 
by summoning the council several times to his own 
house, a thing which had not been done in the case of 
greater men than himself without express command 
of the King. (19) Gloucester complained that his 
offers of personal service in France had been rejected 
" by the labour of the said cardinal in preferring other 
of his singular affection," who had only succeeding 
in losing ground. The Earl of Dorset's recent 
expedition was a notorious failure. Gloucester con- 
cluded his tirade by disavowing any intention of 
accusing the council; he had, he said, named the 
persons responsible for the " disordinate rule" of 
which he complained. His business lay with the 
cardinal and the archbishop, who "pretended the 
governance " of the King and realm. He asked the 
King outright to exclude them from his council " to 
that intent that men may be at their freedom to say 
what them thinketh of truth" ; finally, he posed as 
the brave advocate of the suppressed, " for though 
I dare speak of my truth, the poor dare not so." 
When the cardinal and archbishop had cleared 
themselves, then they might safely be restored to the 
King's council. 



Estimate of 

Some of the charges in this pamphlet of Gloucester's 
have been already considered in their place, e.g., the 
indictment, cardinalate, the Scottish marriage, the retention of 
the see of Winchester. Others are speedily answered 
in the light of the facts already given. The conference 
at Arras, for instance, was indeed costly ; it is said 
to have absorbed £20,000. But it was an honest 
effort on Beaufort's part, if obstinate. The reconci- 
liation between Philip and Charles VII was in no 
sense due to the conference ; it was rather a foregone 
conclusion before the conference met. In fact 
Gloucester was not merely here and on other points 
guilty of the fallacy of mistaking sequels for conse- 
quences ; the whole document, as critic and apologist 
alike can see, proves how completely he failed to 
read the significance of current events. * His personal 
attack on the cardinal is more difficult to estimate in 
detail. Part of it reads like pure malice ; it was 
absurdly spiteful to drag in the question of succession 
to the crown in connexion with the meeting of the 
council at the cardinal's house. Gloucester had 
taken upon himself to summon the lords to his own 
house more than once. On other points, where 
evidence is now lacking, the duke has the advantage 
of having been left unanswered at the time. The 
cardinal met the manifesto with a silence that was 
more dignified than politic. Possibly there were 
some matters of business not easily explained or 
justified ; a " pardon " was not a merely formal 
compliment. But there can be little doubt that in the 
main Beaufort was as honest as he was grasping. 2 
A striking reply to one complaint of Gloucester's is 

1 Stubbs, iii, 129 ; Vickers, p. 263. 

2 Sir John Fortescue's opinion to the contrary (Plummer's 
Fortescue, p. 134) is not conclusive. 


furnished by the fact that just before the presentation 
of this indictment to the King Beaufort had at the 
King's own request consented to extend from Easter 
to Martinmas the time-limit for the redemption of 
certain royal jewels pledged to him for a loan. 1 

The charge of selling favour and patronage finds The 
an echo in Hall's chronicle in the next century. Hall Card * n ars 
asserts that the bishop's cardinalate was " to his wealth< 
profit and the impoverishing of the spiritualty." 
" By bull legatine, which he purchased at Rome, he 
gathered so much treasure that no man in manner 
had money but he, and so was he surnamed the rich 
Cardinal of Winchester." 2 The reference is probably 
to the sale of the " faculties " of a legate in 1427-1429, 
but it is doubtful whether in the absence of evidence 
any reliance can be placed on such vague language. 
The question of the sources of the cardinal's wealth 
is certainly an unsolved problem, but there is no 
reason to postulate wholesale merchandise of military 
or civil honours or ecclesiastical dispensations. 
The cardinal had the revenues of his see and the 
ordinary and extraordinary salaries attaching to the 
offices of councillor and chancellor ; he lived appar- 
ently a frugal life apart from his politic outbursts of 
magnificence on the occasion of an embassy or an 
official reception ; he invested his available resources 
in the great national commodity, English wool ; he 
was, it seems, working rich silver mines in Devon and 
Cornwall ; " probably he had a share in every good 
thing." 3 He was the chief trustee of the Lancastrian 
family estates, perhaps also the trustee or banker of 
other estates and persons, and invested their property 

1 Proceedings, v, 115. 

2 Hall, p. 139. 

3 Ramsay, ii, 79, 
19 — (2210) 



in trade or loans along with his own. Practically he 
was the great financier of his age. 
Glouces- Gloucester's attack upon his rivals failed. Henry 

ter ' s f VI even welcomed the promotion of the arch- 

agSt the bishop to the cardinalate early in 1440, and granted 
release of him permission to retain his see. Gloucester then 
Orleans. toned from the men to their new policy, and fired 
his second shot. Early in June he issued a manifesto 
condemning the proposal to release the Duke ot 
Orleans 1 He dwelt upon the incapacity of the 
French King, and the certainty that the duke's 
abilities and his knowledge of English affairs would 
give him the first place at the French court. The 
English council must not count upon the dissensions 
of the French nobility or the chance of discord 
between Orleans and Burgundy. The duke was more 
likely to be the rallying point of all France, and would 
probably repudiate any oaths imposed upon him in 
England. Finally, the commandment of the late 
King must be kept. The council published a reply 
which doubtless was inspired by Beaufort as much as 
by the King. 2 They stated that the proposal to 
release the duke was the King's own intention, 
prompted by the desire for peace. His predecessors 
had failed to achieve the conquest of France ; the 
present war was an intolerable strain on both the 
King's realms, and its continuance an iniquity ; the 
French were willing to negotiate if the duke were 
himself included and employed in the negotiations ; 
and the duke's own intention was for peace. Ine 
tone of the document was admirable, but its argu- 
ments were certainly inconclusive ; the duke was yet 
an unascertained factor, and his action a matter ot 

i AshmoleMS. 856, pp. 405-412 ; Vickers, pp. 264-265. 
a Stevenson, ii, 451-460. 



" trust and hope." The experiment was, however, 
worth making, and it was made. The agreement 
for the duke's release was drawn up on July 2nd. 
His ransom— 20,000 marks to be paid down and 
30,000 to be paid within six months— was only half 
the ransom asked at Arras. Perhaps the other half 
was to be paid in services to be rendered in France. 
The duke was to be free for a year ; if successful in 
procuring peace he was to remain free and receive 
his ransom back; otherwise he was to return into 
captivity. The release was a venture of faith, and 
not altogether an honourable faith, as the duke was 
sent back in the hope of fostering civil war in France. 
But it was not the whole of the cardinal's policy. 
On the very day of this agreement the Duke of York 
was appointed lieutenant in France for five years. 
The cardinal and Gloucester were jointly responsible 
for the appointment ; it was a conciliatory step on 
the cardinal's part in answer to the charge that he 
had "estranged" York from the council. Again, 
Gloucester had asserted in his protest against the 
duke's release that England had only one ally in 
Europe, Portugal ; the cardinal proceeded to remedy 
this isolation by making treaties with Brittany and 
various German magnates. 1 Gloucester, however, 
was implacable ; when Orleans was sworn to loyalty 
in Westminster Abbey, on October 28th, Gloucester 
strode out at the beginning of the mass. Orleans 
left London for Calais on November 5th, and went 
straight to his benefactor Burgundy, abjured the 
blood-feud, and on the 26th married Burgundy's 
niece, Mary of Cleves. Beaufort's plan had succeeded 
so far. A further success had fallen to him in October. 
His nephew, Dorset, redeemed his reputation by 
1 Ramsay, ii, 26. 


capturing Harfleur after a tough siege of six 

Prosecution Gloucester's indictment of Beaufort and Kemp was 
of the referred by the King to his council, " whereof," says 

Gl^uSe / Hall > " the most P art Were s P iritual P ersons > S0 what 
for fear and what for favour the matter was winked at 
and dallied out and nothing said." 1 It was not 
forgotten. A year later the duke's enemies had their 
revenge. There is little doubt that the attack upon 
his wife, Eleanor Cobham, was intended to strike at 
his own reputation. She was accused of sorcery and 
treason. Her supposed accomplices were arrested 
first— an Oxford priest and astrologer named 
Boli'ngbroke, and a canon of Westminster named 
Southwell. On July 23rd, 1441, Bolingbroke was 
compelled to abjure his suspicious practices m 
St. Paul's churchyard in the presence of Cardinal 
Beaufort, Archbishop Chichele, and three other 
bishops. The Duchess of Gloucester, recognising her 
danger, fled to the sanctuary at Westminster ; but 
Bolingbroke's confession that he had cast her horo- 
scope, probably with the idea of finding her chance 
of coming to the throne, led to her trial before the 
two cardinals and the Archbishop of Canterbury at 
St. Stephen's, Westminster, and she was remanded 
to Leeds Castle on a series of charges of witchcraft, 
heresy, and treason. A commission of lay peers found 
Bolingbroke and Southwell guilty of treason, and the 
duchess was pronounced accessory to their crime, 
along with the notorious Witch of Eye. Eleanor was 
herself examined in October by commissaries of the 
archbishop, who excused himself from attendance 
on grounds of health. She was accused of trying to 
effect the King's death by magical arts, and was 
i Hall, p. 202. 


condemned to do public penance bareheaded in the 
streets of London, and then dismissed to confinement 
for life in castle after castle. The witch was burned ; 
the priest-astrologer died a traitor's death. Gloucester, 
never a man of moral strength, submitted in sullen 
silence to the degradation of his wife and the ruin of 
his own influence. It was a merciless revenge, 
whoever planned it, and it did its work ; Gloucester 
played but little part in public affairs during the last 
five years of his life. x 

The discrediting of Gloucester in 1441 left the Predomi- 
Beaufort party in command of the situation. At f the 
its head stood the cardinal, now sixty-six years of age Beaufort 
or more, but still taking an active and frequent part P art y- 
in the business of the council, though more and more 
inclined or compelled to leave matters in the hands 
of his partisans. His nephews, John Earl of Somerset 
and Edmund Earl of Dorset, held high military 
commands. The chancellor, Bishop Stafford, was 
an old colleague ; the Cardinal of York was a close 
ally of his brother of Winchester ; and the Earl of 
Suffolk, a regular attendant at the council, was 
related to the Beauforts through his wife, Alice 
Chaucer, a grand-daughter of the poet. Long before 
this time the Beaufort party had been recognised as 
the peace party, and their policy was brought into 
greater relief by the agitation raised by Gloucester 
in 1440. It was not yet a popular policy. With a 
strange yet not uncommon inconsistency, the English 
nation clung obstinately to the war which it had long 
ceased to support vigorously. Gloucester's cham- 
pionship of the honour of the English crown still found 
a response, perhaps an increasing response, in a 

1 Ramsay, ii, 31-35 ; Vickers, pp. 269-280. 


" vicious, sturdy, unintelligent hatred "* of the idea 
of peace with France. For a time, indeed, the 
Beaufort party had little return to show for the 
sacrifice of their most valuable pawn, the Duke of 
Orleans. The secret correspondence of 1441 between 
the Dukes of Orleans, Alen^on, Brittany and Bur- 
gundy came to no tangible result. Neither did the 
second effort of the duke. In March, 1442, there was 
a great meeting of discontented French lords at 
Nevers. They required Charles VII to grant redress 
of their grievances and to arrange a new conference 
with England, but they stopped short of applying 
force. Charles was still free to keep up his heavy 
Guienne pressure on Normandy and Guienne. The English 
in danger, had lost the whole of the Isle of France. Poitou and 
Guienne were invaded in force in 1442, and the 
Archbishop of Bordeaux hastened to England, and on 
August 21st pleaded the danger of his province 
before a full meeting of the council. Beaufort and 
Gloucester were both present. The danger in fact 
united both parties for a time. Next day an expedi- 
tion and a loan were discussed. Gloucester consented 
to give personal security " as far as any man would 
take him " for part of the loan. The cardinal was 
willing but unable to lend money ; he had none 
ready. So he offered to lend £4,000 worth of plate, 
though he insisted that if the " vessel " were melted 
down for coinage he must be repaid the cost of the 
" farceon " (i.e., fashion, design) as well as the value 
of the metal. 2 Little, however, was done beyond 
sending scanty reinforcements to Bordeaux and 
proposing to appoint Somerset to command in 
Guienne. York in the autumn sent Talbot to besiege 

1 Stubbs, iii, 130. 

2 Proceedings, v, 198, 199. 


Dieppe, but the siege failed for want of men. On The 
October 7th and 8th the council once more authorised ^ dinal 
negotiations for peace, and advised the King to tell nat i nal 
his ambassadors in any case to secure a truce, long or finance, 
short. On the 12th the cardinal's financial instincts 
were roused by a petition from the merchants of the 
staple at Calais. They asked for an assignment of 
one mark out of the wool duties in repayment of their 
loans to the crown. All the councillors gave their 
consent but the cardinal. He protested on behalf of 
the persons holding claims already assigned on the 
subsidy in question : " so by this mean no man here- 
after should trust none assignment " ; and the 
treasurer supported the old financier's protest in 
favour of justice to prior creditors. The cardinal 
objected also to the merchants' request that they 
might be dispensed from a recent statute of January, 
1442, requiring them to bring back a third part of the 
value of wools sold by them in bullion. He remarked 
that this would be to give the Flemings just what 
they wanted ; the dispensation would lead to the 
practical abolition of the statute. The cardinal's 
effort thus to secure ready money for the English 
treasury failed ; on the 18th the dispensation was 
granted in his absence on the report of the mayor of 
the staple that the Duke of Burgundy's prohibition 
of the Flemish merchants made it impossible to 
enforce the statute. On the same day the council 
had to arrange for security to be given to persons 
who had already responded to the King's appeal in 
August for a loan, and a messenger was sent to the 
cardinal to ask him what the King had decided about 
assigning security on the tenths and fifteenths and 
on the crown jewels. 1 
1 Proceedings, v, 215-221. 


Question of The safety of Guienne was still unsecured at the 
Normandy be g in ning of 1443. Meanwhile the French invasion 
or Guienne. had already ended a project of English diplomacy 
in that neighbourhood. At the suggestion of the 
Duke of Orleans, John Count of Armagnac had 
offered Henry VI one of his daughters. Envoys went 
out in July, 1442, to conclude the alliance ; but the 
count, willing as he was, dared not proceed further 
with his overlord of France in arms at his doors. 
The envoys broke off the negotiations and came back 
in January. 1 The rupture has been attributed to 
the promptings of Suffolk, who objected to the alliance 
because it was approved by Gloucester. It is more 
probable that the envoys simply returned to tell the 
tale of loss and danger in Gascony. The report of the 
envoys certainly seems to have brought the council 
to the point of action. On February 6th the council 
faced the question of the hour, viz., whether Guienne 
or Normandy should be reinforced first. The 
treasurer and chancellor and two bishops thought 
both should be relieved ; but if that were impossible, 
then the province that was in greater need. The 
Cardinal of York thought the King must be content 
to do what he could, and urged the King to write to 
the bishops "to stir them to prayer." "My lord 
Cardinal of England " said that the order of the sending 
of the two reliefs must be decided by the lords 
temporal, but he thought both must be taken in hand 
only before the appointment of the two armies the 
treasurer ought to state what funds were available 
Gloucester agreed with the Cardinal of York, evi 
dently intending to confine the relief to Normandy 
where his partisan the Duke of York was still waiting 

1 Bekynton, ii, 206 foil. Bekynton was one of the envoys. 


for men and means. 1 Beaufort's policy was the 

bolder and wiser, but the circumstances of its execu- Expedition 

tion were indeed discreditable. It was marred by ° f 

nepotism from the outset. His nephew Somerset was 

made a duke, and on March 30th was appointed 

captain-general of all France and Guienne, though 

his authority was distinctly confined to regions not 

under the actual control of the Duke of York. Dorset 

was made a marquis. The Duke of York was told, in 

language which implied censure of his own inaction, 

that the King had retained Somerset " to use most 

cruel and mortal war that he can and may " ; it was 

thought " necessary that the manner and the conduct 

of the war be changed." He was merely consoled 

with the intimation that Somerset's expedition would 

be a "shield" to his own operations in Normandy, 

and that Somerset's command was limited in its 

practical range. Hardest of all, he was asked to 

wait patiently for the £20,000 due to him ; the King 

would meet his obligations " as far as reason would," 

but Somerset's equipment was a "great charge." 2 

The cardinal was not even just to York in the matter 

of finance. He was generous enough indeed in the 

amount of his own loans, perhaps out of pride in his 

nephew's promotion, perhaps out of gratitude for 

the " pardon " granted to himself in March for all 

penalties and fines which he might have incurred up 

to February 1st, 1443. Of the £13,500 drawn by 

Somerset for his first quarter's pay in April for his 

4,200 men — the largest reinforcement sent out for 

many a year — £10,000 was lent by his uncle ; another 

loan of £10,000 followed in June. The treasurer was 

still £8,000 short, and the cardinal advanced another 

1 Proceedings, v, 223, 224. 
a Proceedings, v, 259-263. 


£1 ,000 to pay for ships to take Somerset's army across. x 
But he was in his rigidest mood over the signing of 
the agreement for the second £10,000. He refused 
to lend unless the letters patent agreed exactly with 
the minute of the council. Gloucester broke out 
into sarcastic comment after his uncle left the council 
chamber ; they need not waste their time in reading 
and discussing the conditions. " Mine uncle saith 
plainly that he will lend no money unless he have 
it under the form." 2 There was no room for discus- 
sion. They could not send the men to Guienne 
without the cardinal's money. The first £10,000 was 
repaid in 1444, the second in 1445. In 1444 the Duke 
of York was paid £12,000 due to him for wages, but 
paid out of a loan borrowed from himself ; and it 
was ten years before that loan was all repaid. 

Somerset's Somerset's expedition ended in failure and disgrace. 

failure. Never an able soldier, he was unnerved by illness, and 
insisted on inserting in the articles of his commission 
in March, 1443, that he was being retained "to do 
his honest best," as though he had a foreboding of 
failure. After prolonged delays which drove the 
council to criticise and complain, he sailed in August 
not to Bordeaux, where he was wanted, but to 
Cherbourg, and wasted men and money in a fruitless 
raid into Anjou and Maine. The Duke of Brittany, 
at least a nominal friend of England, wrote to the 
council to complain that he had been compelled to 
buy Somerset out of his own territory ; and the 
council on December 12th advised the King to enclose 
the duke's letter in a despatch to Somerset and to 
require him to make restitution for this outrage. 
On the 13th Lord Sudeley, the " wardrober," was sent 

1 Ramsay, ii, 50, 53 n. 5. 

2 Proceedings, v, 279, 280. 


to notify this decision to the cardinal, who had now 
retired from the council ; and the cardinal sent back 
word that " him seemed the said advisements good." * 
It must have been a bitter confession for the old 
statesman, who had probably justified his nepotism 
to himself by a fond belief in his nephew's ability 
and discretion. Somerset had finally to fall back into 
Normandy and seek a rallying-point with his rival 
of York at Rouen. He returned to England invalided, 
and died in May, 1444, in his fortieth year. 

1 Proceedings, vi, 18, 19 ; for Brittany's complaint, see 
vi, 11-13. 




The Earl of Four days after Somerset's death the wardship and 
Suffolk. marriage of his three-year-old daughter and heiress, 
Margaret Beaufort, were given to Suffolk for nothing. 
It was rumoured that this remarkable favour pointed 
to an intention to marry the child to Suffolk's son, 
John de la Pole. * Both the favour and the rumour 
were proof of the closeness of the association between 
Suffolk and the Beaufort party. Suffolk was in fact 
the practical head of the party, or shared its headship 
with Edmund Beaufort, Marquis of Dorset. The 
party was more predominant than ever. The King, 
who came of age in December, 1442, was happier in 
problems of churchmanship and of education than in 
military or diplomatic affairs. The Cardinal of York 
had indeed begun to fall away somewhat from the 
Beaufort party, perhaps in jealousy of Suffolk's 
increasing influence or in suspicion of his policy ; but 

1 In spite of Henry IV 's attempt in 1407 to exclude the 
Beauforts from the succession, their blood flowed eventually- 
back into the royal line. The little Margaret, whether 
married first or not married to John de la Pole, became the 
wife of Edmund Tudor (son of Katharine, widow of Henry V, 
by her second husband, Owen Tudor), the mother of Henry of 
Richmond, afterwards Henry VII, and the ancestress of all 
the Tudor sovereigns of England. She was six years old 
when her great-uncle the cardinal died in 1447 ; and in 1492 
she succeeded at last in establishing her title to certain manors 
in Wiltshire and Somersetshire which he had purchased from 
Henry VI and which had been claimed and held by the 
Countess of Salisbury under the Yorkist sovereigns. See 
Cooper's The Lady Margaret (ed. Mayor), pp. 2-8, 51. 


Bishop Stafford was still chancellor, though he had Retirement 
succeeded to the Archbishopric of Canterbury after the ° f *£ e 
death of Chichele in April, 1443. The old Cardinal CardinaL 
of England, however, was no longer prominent in 
affairs of state. His last recorded attendance at the 
privy council was in June, 1443. He was a trier of 
petitions in the parliament of January, 1442, but 
his name is absent from the roll of the next parliament, 
which met in March, 1445. The cathedral city of 
Winchester was at last in possession of its bishop ; he 
had come to spend his last days in the diocese which 
for forty years he had willingly sacrificed to the 
claims of his King and country. 

After the failure of Somerset's expedition the The French 
council had no alternative but to open negotiations marriage, 
again with France. The demand for a long truce 
was waived in the desire to secure a truce of any 
duration ; and the surrender of the French title, 
which the Cardinal of England was prepared in the 
last resort to make in 1439, was now contemplated in 
earnest as the only way of retaining what the council 
determined to demand, namely, Normandy, Guienne, 
and Maine. The project of an Armagnac marriage 
which Gloucester had favoured was replaced by the 
proposal of a marriage with a niece of the French King, 
Margaret of Anjou, daughter of Rene, titular King 
of Naples, Sicily, and Jerusalem, a practically landless 
and penniless sovereign, and a former enemy of 
Burgundy. This new alliance was suggested by 
the Duke of Orleans, and the English council was 
content perforce to retain his support by accepting 
his suggestion. Suffolk, who was entrusted with the 
negotiations in February, 1444, had grave doubts or 
fears of his mission. He pleaded that his intimacy 
with the Duke of Orleans, once his prisoner, made 


him an object of suspicion at home ; and his reference 
to " language sown " against him in London indicates 
that the marriage was unpopular or that the nation 
was afraid of the possible concessions involved. 1 
Gloucester, though silent at the council, was not 
innocent of agitation in the city. The King over- 
ruled Suffolk's objections, and granted him an 
indemnity against any charge that might be brought 
against any of his proceedings in the matter of the 
embassy. The indemnity was no superfluous precau- 
tion. The French stood out for homage for Nor- 
mandy and Guienne ; and Suffolk came home from 
the betrothal of Margaret at Tours in May with 
nothing more to show than a truce with France for 
two years and, by way of dower, an empty claim of 
Rene* to a kingdom in Spain. Probably he hoped 
that the truce would grow to more in the process of 
later negotiation ; but the sequel was to bring disgrace 
as well as defeat. Suffolk, now made a marquis for 
his services, went back to fetch the bride. The 
Surrender French pressed this time for the surrender of Nor- 
of Maine, mandy and Maine in return for some additions to 
Guienne. Afraid of losing even the marriage, Suffolk 
in a moment of weakness secretly promised to concede 
Maine. He brought back the young Queen in April ; 
the concession of Maine he seems to have kept still 
secret in the hope that it might be made independently 
in the course of the negotiations v/ith a French 
embassy which was to follow him to London. The 
embassy came in July, but the only result was a slight 
prolongation of the truce. The journal of the French 
embassy reveals Suffolk plausible and confident, the 
King gracious to the point of imbecility. The Cardinal 
of York was present at most of the conferences. 
1 Proceedings, vi, 32. 


Beaufort appears once, but in the background. 
On July 21st the envoys of France and Brittany 
" went to visit the Cardinal of England who had 
arrived " in London, " and made their reverence to 
him, and he spoke good words of peace to them." 1 
The marriage and the prospect of peace were the 
triumph of his policy ; his influence was betokened 
by the fact that a precious jewel of his was set in the 
Queen's betrothal ring ; of the surrender of Maine, 
however, he was probably innocent and ignorant. 
That surrender lay between Suffolk and the King. 
The King's personal desire for peace at any cost had 
been an increasingly important factor in the situation, 
and the Queen also was now working in the interests 
of her family and kindred in France. In December 
the King signed an agreement to surrender Maine to 
Rene on behalf of Charles VII, without any reference 
to the secret undertaking of Suffolk ; and in April, 
1446, parliament, after repealing the clause in the 
Treaty of Troyes which forbade peace without the 
consent of the estates of both realms, was told by the 
chancellor on behalf of the lords that the peace was 
the King's own original idea and wish. The whole 
question is a tangled affair. Suffolk may have been 
either playing for his own predominance at court or, 
on the contrary, sacrificing his reputation in the 
prosecution of a policy which the country at once 
needed and hated. The responsibility for the last 
concessions may have rested with the King or it may 
have been put upon the King. It certainly did not 
rest with Beaufort. It was one thing to abandon 
a hopeless claim to the crown of France ; it was an- 
other thing to give away an ancient possession of the 
English crown. Private interest, too, would forbid 
1 Stevenson, i, 137, 138, 


the sacrifice ; Maine had been granted to his nephew, 
Dorset, for life in April, 1443. The year 1446 was 
marked by a further concession, the surrender of all 
ecclesiastical revenues in Normandy claimed by 
French subjects. This concession was Suffolk's own ; 
and it left Normandy practically an empty name. 
Death of The next year saw the end of the two great rivals 

Gloucester. w j 10 s ^ 00( j now j n the background, Beaufort in 
diocesan retirement, Gloucester in silent but not 
silenced opposition. The story of Gloucester's tragic 
end is sooner told than explained. Plans were laid 
for his impeachment in the parliament which was 
to meet at Bury St. Edmund's on February 10th, 
1447. On the 18th he arrived with an imprudent 
display of armed retinue, and was promptly arrested. 
On the 23rd he died. The circumstances of his death 
were undoubtedly suspicious, but contemporary 
friends made no accusation of murder. On the other 
hand, there is little doubt that Suffolk and the Queen 
were bent upon crushing, if not upon removing, the 
one man who would be certain to make scandal of 
the loss of Maine ; and it is probable that it was only 
his timely death under the shock of his arrest which 
saved him from judicial murder. His old antagonist 
can scarcely be even suspected of having had a hand 
in his death, or even in his prosecution. " The 
cardinal had nothing to fear from him and nothing to 
gain by his death." 1 Such complicity would have 
been at once a crime and a blunder, a mere wantonness 
of revenge, and a mad imperilling of the house of 
Lancaster and of the Beaufort interest which was 
bound up with that house. 

1 Church Qu. Review, xii, 391. On the circumstances of 
Gloucester's death see Stubbs, iii, 141, 142 ; Ramsay, ii, 75, 
76; Vickers, pp. 295-305. 


Six weeks later, on April 11th, came the passing of Death of 
the cardinal himself. Nothing in his whole life has Beaufort, 
been more maligned than the manner of its end. 
A century later Hall raked up a story attributed to 
Dr. John Baker, " his privy councillor and his chap- 
lain." According to this tale the cardinal as he lay 
dying lamented the failure of his ambition and the 
uselessness of all his wealth. " Why should I die, 
having so much riches ? If the whole realm would 
save my life, I am able either by policy to get it, or 
by riches to buy it. Fye, will not death be hired, 
nor will money do nothing ? When my nephew of 
Bedford died, I thought myself half up the wheel, 
but when I saw mine other nephew of Gloucester 
deceased, then I thought myself able to be equal with 
kings, and so thought to increase my treasure in hope 
to have worn a triple crown. But I see now the 
world faileth me, and so I am deceived, praying you 
all to pray for me." 1 The thoughts attributed to 
Beaufort after Gloucester's death are sufficient to 
discredit the entire saying. But Shakespeare lent 
his genius to a yet worse misrepresentation of the 
cardinal. Readers of Henry the Sixth will scarcely 
need reminding of the scene of " black despair," in 
which the cardinal passes away in an agony of 
remorse for the murder of Gloucester, unable to give 
the King at his bedside even a dumb sign of any 
conscious hope of forgiveness. 2 Far different indeed 
is the simple tale of an eye-witness preserved in the 
chronicle of the monastery of Croyland. 3 There we 
read how the cardinal, as the end drew near, sum- 
moned the clerks of the neighbourhood, both secular 

1 Hall, pp. 210, 211. 

2 Henry the Sixth, Part II, Act iii, Scene 3. 
8 Gale, Hist. Croyland. Contin., p. 516. 

20— (2210) 



of Beaufort. 

of letters. 

and regular, to the great hall of his palace of Wolvesey 
at Winchester. It was the day before Palm Sunday. 
Lying there on his couch, he had the burial service 
and the requiem mass said in his presence ; in the 
evening his will was read before his household, and 
he added the second and last codicil. Next morning 
the Prior of St. Swithin's celebrated mass for him ; 
his will was read once more, and he confirmed it with 
an audible voice, and then said good-bye to them all, 
and so passed away. 

Hall remarked a century later that Beaufort was 
" surnamed the rich Cardinal of Winchester and 
neither called learned bishop nor virtuous priest." 1 
Of his virtue we know nothing beyond the two facts 
that he had a child born to him in his early manhood, 
and that, on the other hand, no scandal was 
breathed against him in later days when any known 
departure from the path of morality would have 
given his enemies a welcome opportunity of attack. 
Probably he was not a man of piety in any deep sense ; 
certainly he seems to have lived a sober and clean life 
as a bishop. Of his learning we know but little, and 
that disappointing. Gloucester was both a student 
and a generous friend of students ; Beaufort was 
neither. At the Council of Constance he met the 
famous humanist, Poggio Bracciolini, then acting as 
a secretary in the papal service, and busily engaged in 
his faithful search for lost classics, and in a moment of 
literary enthusiasm invited him to England. Poggio 
found but little happiness in England. Prelates and 
nobles who invited him to dinner sat at table for hours 
till the poor scholar had to get up and bathe his eyes 
in cold water to prevent his falling asleep. The few 
men of learning whose acquaintance he made were 

1 Hall, p. 139. 


more dialectical than deep. The few libraries that 
he visited yielded not a single discovery in the way 
of classical manuscripts. Meanwhile, the bishop's 
interest in literature waned or was crowded out, and 
the scholar's hope of a benefice that would give him 
funds and leisure for study was rewarded first by the 
gift of a parish church worth but 120 florins, and then 
by a richer benefice which brought with it a cure of 
souls and necessitated the surrender of his former 
preferment. In 1422 Poggio went back to Italy, and 
his connexion with his disappointing patron ended 
in the exchange of a few friendly letters. He corre- 
sponded for years with two of the cardinal's household, 
Nicholas Bildeston, doctor of law, afterwards Arch- 
deacon of Winchester, and Richard Pettworth, master 
of arts, both of whom employed Poggio to buy them 
Italian books. * But the cardinal took no active part 
in the English revival of letters. The masters of 
Oxford appealed to him in 1424 to intervene in 
defence of the judicial privileges of the university ; 
but they appealed to him in virtue of his position at 
the privy council, as they appealed to the primate 
and to the council itself. The only special feature of 
their letter to the bishop was that they referred to 
the "philosophical saying" that "novelty is full 
of danger where antiquity is not itself at fault." 2 
Bedford and Chichele in their life-time and Thomas 
Beaufort, Duke of Exeter, by his will endowed 
"chests" for purposes of scholarship at Oxford; 
but the only enrichment of study out of the cardinal's 
wealth came from his executors, who made a grant 

1 Shepherd, Life of Poggio, pp. 124, 136 ; Voigt, 
Wiederbelebung des classischen Alterthums, ii, 253-256. 

2 Anstey, Epistolae Academicae Oxon., i, 14, " novitas plura 
parit pericula ubi antiquitas non peccavit." 



His bene- 

of 500 marks towards the building of the divinity 
schools out of the money left to their discretion.* 
Canterbury was more fortunate. There the cardinal 
himself helped to build and stock the chapter library. 2 
Hall was, however, wrong in hinting that the 
cardinal was as ungenerous as he was rich. His 
benefactions during the latter part of his life were 
large. He obtained a licence to unite the impover- 
ished hospital of Sandon to the hospital of St. Thomas 
in Southwark. He gave £1,000 to the rebuilding of 
Winchester London Bridge. At Winchester he spent still more 
liberally. His arms in the vaulting of the nave of the 
cathedral bear witness to his share in that conversion 
of the old Norman work into perpendicular Gothic 
which had been begun by his predecessor, William 
Wykeham. He erected a marble shrine behind the 
feretory with an ivory casket to contain the relics of 
St. Swithin. He gave a silver statue of the Virgin 
for the high altar. He enriched the chief street of the 
city with a beautiful cross. The stone effigy of a 
cardinal which rests on his tomb dates from the time 
of Charles II ; but the chantry chapel m which the 
tomb lies was itself his work as well as his monument. 

But it was upon the hospital of St. Cross that the 
bishop lavished his best. The old foundation of 
Bishop Henry of Blois in the twelfth century was 
a home for " brethren " of the poorest class. Bishop 
Henry of Beaufort in the fifteenth added a new 

» Maxwell Lyte, His*, of Univ. of Oxford, pp. 317, 323 ; 
Anstey, Munimenta Academica, i, 333; n ab/ ' d d 
auditors reported in 1453 that the sum had been all expended 
but 50s. 4d., Mun. Acad., n, 735, 736. 

' Tt°was once more exquisitely beautiful even than it is now 
Britton, the antiquary, noted a century ago " that a horse load 
of the pinnacles in the canopy had fallen down. 

Hospital of 
St. Cross. 


foundation to be called " the almshouse of noble 
poverty," consisting of two chaplain-priests, thirty- 
five brethren, and three nursing-sisters, the brethren 
to be " noblemen or members of our family," gentle- 
men brought to poverty or grown old in his service. 
It was a thoughtful as well as a generous endowment. 
Unfortunately, some of the manors which were to 
revert to the new foundation went astray in the wars 
of the Roses, and others were reclaimed by the crown 
in 1461 on the accession of the house of York ; and 
in 1486 Bishop Waynflete reduced the Beaufort 
foundation to one priest and two brethren. * Under 
the scheme of 1901 nine of the twenty-seven sets of 
rooms are reserved for brethren of " the almshouse 
of noble poverty," the rest for the brethren of the 
original hospital of St. Cross. Visitors are still shown 
the cardinal's chair, his wooden candlesticks and 
salt-cellars, his pewter dish, the tall chimneys which 
he added to the old hospital in 1420, and the noble 
tower of his own restoration, on which his statue still 
remains. " In the centre was the Virgin, and by her 
side the cardinal ; but we observe that though he is 
on his knees, he is too grand to take off his hat to her." 2 

The cardinal's will, dated January 20th, 1447, is Last will 
still extant. 3 His chief executors were his old asso- lament 
ciate, Cardinal Kemp of York, and his nephew, the 
Marquis of Dorset ; but his kinsfolk received but little 
of his wealth. Ample provision was made for masses 
to be said at Winchester, Canterbury, and elsewhere, 
in remembrance of himself, his father and mother, 
his sovereigns (Henry IV and Henry V, but not 

1 Godwin, de Praesulibus, p. 242 ; Warren, St. Cross 
Hospital, p. 83. 

2 L'Estrange, Royal Winchester, p. 247. 

3 Nichols, Royal Wills, pp. 321-341 ; Testamenta Vehtsta, 
pp. 249-251. 


Richard II), Bedford, his brothers and sister ; but 
his funeral was not to be too pompous. He be- 
queathed £400 to prisoners in London and in his 
manor of Southwark " for their liberation," 2,000 
marks to his poor tenants in seven counties, gold 
and plate to his daughter Johanna, and gifts to various 
servants and clerks. To the King he left " a tablet 
with relics which is called the tablet of Bourbon, 1 
and a cup of gold with an ewer which belonged to the 
illustrious prince his father, and offered by him on 
Easter eve, and out of which cup he usually drank 
and for the last time drank, humbly praying him to aid 
my executors in whatever can tend to the good of my 
soul, as God knoweth I have always been faithful and 
zealous to him in all which related to his prosperity, 
wishing to effect whatever could tend to his welfare in 
soul and body." The residue of his goods were to 
" be applied to works of charity and pious uses 
according to the discretions and consciences of the 
executors, such as relieving poor religious houses, 
marrying poor maidens, succouring the poor and 
needy, and in other similar works of piety such as 
they may most deem will tend to the health of my 
soul." The records of Lincoln College, Exeter 
College, St. Paul's Cathedral, the Dean and Chapter 
of Wells, all show bequests of money or ornaments 
received from the executors under this discretionary 
clause. 2 An interesting trace of this clause is found 
in a letter of Queen Margaret in 1448 asking the 

1 For particulars of this tablet, see Excerpta Historica, 
pp. 43, 46, 47. It was perhaps pledged to Beaufort for a loan, 
and never redeemed. 

2 For Lincoln College, see Hist. MSS. Commission, 1st 
Report, ii, 131, 132 ; for Exeter, Maxwell Lyte, p. 318 ; for 
St. Paul's, Hist. MSS. Comm., 8th Report, 635 b, and 9th 
Report, i, 54 ; for Wells, 10th Report, iii, 201, 278. 


executors " at reverence of us and for the merit of 
our uncle's soul " to make a grant to a young man 
and his sweetheart recommended by a yeoman of the 
guard as " poor creatures and of virtuous conversation 
purposing to live under the law of God in the order 
of wedlock." * 

The first codicil (April 7th) contained bequests of 
£1,000 to the prior and convent of Christ Church, 
Canterbury, and £200 to " the Church of Lincoln," 
both bequests for " the work and fabric " on condition 
of remembering the donor's obit ; £100 for Richard 
Pettworth, an old servant ; plate for the King, and 
an instruction to give the King a year to redeem 
crown jewels pledged for the repayment of the car- 
dinal's loans. The second codicil contained a gift 
of tapestry for the Queen, gifts and remissions of 
debts to Lord Tiptoft and Archbishop Stafford, and 
various small presents to the cardinal's nephew, 
William Swynford, Thomas Burneby, a page of the 
Queen, and Sir Edward Stradling, husband of the 
cardinal's daughter Johanna or Joan. 

The Beaufort of Shakespeare's Henry VI has Beaufort 
scarcely a single merit to redeem his faults. Gloucester 
styles him " scarlet hypocrite," 

Lascivious, wanton, more than well beseems 
A man of thy profession and degree. 

Salisbury, his nephew by marriage, accuses him of 
swearing " like a ruffian," 

More like a soldier than a man o' the Church. 
Somerset, his own brother's son, declares that 

His insolence is more intolerable 

Than all the princes in the land beside. 

1 Letters of Queen Margaret (Camden Soc. No. 86, 1863), 
p. 102. 

(i) asaman 


" The haughty cardinal," " proud prelate," " im- 
perious churchman," such are the constant epithets by 
which he is identified. The dramatist is here little 
more than a vivid elaborator of Hall, who described 
the cardinal concisely as " more noble in blood than 
notable in learning, haut in stomach and high in 
countenance, rich above measure of all men, and to 
few liberal, disdainful to his kin and dreadful to his 
lovers, preferring money before friendship, many 
things beginning and nothing performing." x Behind 
the chronicler lies the unwritten Yorkist version of 
the character of the sturdy Lancastrian who blocked 
the path of the rival house, and, further back still, 
the last tirade of Gloucester in 1440, left unanswered 
and taken too readily as unanswerable. It is little 
wonder that Beaufort's memory has lain under a 
cloud for more than two centuries and a half. 

The cardinal's personal character it is neither easy 
nor important to judge at this distance. His staunch- 
est modern admirer must frankly admit " that he was 
ambitious, secular, little troubled with scruples, apt 
to make religious persecution a substitute for religious 
life and conversation ; that he was imperious, 
impatient of control, ostentatious, and greedy of 
honour." 2 If it is mere imagination to speak of 
" arrogant Winchester " as one 

Whom Henry our late sovereign ne'er could brook, 
it is simple truth to say that little or no trace has 
survived of any such affection for the cardinal as 
a Bedford could command and a Gloucester could 
win. The only touch of personal sympathy lies in the 
refusal of Henry VI to accept a gift from the cardinal's 
executors : " My uncle was very dear to me, and did 

1 Hall, p. 210. 
» Stubbs, hi, 143. 


much kindness to me while he lived ; the Lord reward 

him. But do ye with his goods as ye are bounden ; 

I will not take them." * The cardinal awakened more 

admiration than respect, more fear than love. Under 

Henry IV and Henry VI, if not under Henry V, he 

had to fight for his position or his policy. A political 

poem written about 1449 imagines the dead cardinal 

as saying 

I closid we have our welevette hatte 

That kev'yd us from mony stormys brew'n. 2 

Neither was he " merciful in his political enmities," 
to judge from his attitude towards Gloucester. 

It is, however, by his merits as a statesman that he (2) as a 
deserves to stand or fall. Little of a student, some- statesman, 
thing of a sportsman, 3 more of a soldier, he was above 
all a statesman. 4 The gratitude of Henry VI scarcely 
proves that Beaufort was as " ready to sacrifice his 
wealth " as he was to expend his " labour for the 
King " ; 5 but even Hall, prejudiced though he was, 
had to acknowledge that the cardinal was " a great 
stay to the King and the realm." For nearly half a 
century his activity was one main thread of English 
history. During the first half of that period he was 
largely concerned as chancellor or councillor in " the 
great Lancastrian experiment " of constitutional 
monarchy, which had come so near achieving com- 
plete success when it was shattered by the premature 
death of Henry the Fifth. The infancy of Henry 

1 Blakman, De virtutibus Henrici VI, p. 294. 

2 Excerpta Hist., p. 161. 

3 While he was facing the first parliament of his chancellor- 
ship in 1404, he sent two gentlemen to Ireland to purchase 
fourteen goshawks and tercelets, Pat. Roll., Henr. iv, 1404. It 
is an interesting reminiscence of his brief visit to Ireland in 

4 For an estimate of his churchmanship see pp. 189, 190. 
8 Stubbs, hi, 144. 


the Sixth brought the problem of a regency. Beau- 
fort's solution of the problem was the strict enforce- 
ment of the supremacy of the council. It is fair to 
argue that this was the wrong solution at a time 
when national disorder demanded the practical 
monarchy of a regent. l Even here an apologist of 
Beaufort might fairly urge that when Gloucester was 
the only available regent, the divided authority of the 
council was a less evil than the unrestricted power 
of such an uncertain member of the royal house. 
Yet it would scarcely be fair to dismiss Beaufort's 
attitude at this crisis as a "constitutional pose." 2 
In insisting on the supremacy of the council, he was 
not merely righting for a place for himself beside or 
against Gloucester ; he was honestly endeavouring 
to keep the balance of power until the child-King 
could come to his own. It was unfortunate for 
England that the problem of government was com- 
plicated by personal issues. It was unfortunate for 
Beaufort that his public services during this period 
were involved with private interests which threw 
doubt upon the sincerity of his statesmanship. The 
difficulty of the problem in England is illustrated by 
the fact that Bedford, who was pressed into under- 
taking the task in 1433, relinquished the burden with 
undisguised relief in six months. Upon Beaufort fell 
the brunt of the difficulties at home, and after 
Bedford's death in 1435 the chief responsibility of the 
problem in France. He felt keenly the failure which 
a poorer statesman would not have recognised. The 
fragmentary inscription upon his tomb, 

Tribularer si nescirem misericordias tuas 
(" I should be in anguish, did I not know thy mercies "), 

1 E.g., Vickers, p. 209. 

2 Vickers, p. 308, cp. p. 118. 


was not the despairing cry of a belated penitent ; it 
was the pathetic confession of a strong man who had 
striven hard, sometimes mistakenly, but in the main 
honestly, to do the best for his King and country, and 
had striven in vain. The dynasty which he had 
worked to guide and secure was trembling on the 
verge of civil war. The cardinalate which he had 
welcomed, partly as a stepping-stone for his own 
advancement, partly as a footing for his efforts in the 
cause of England, had proved to be neither. His own 
career as a possible candidate for the Papacy he had 
ruined on the day when he put the needs of his 
countrymen in France before the claims of a papal 
crusade in Bohemia. His connexion with Rome 
awakened suspicion in England when he most needed 
support ; and all the force of his character had to be 
expended in carrying through a policy of peace 
involving surrender while the nation was still bent 
upon the prosecution of the war which had once been 
his own main purpose. Again and again he lived to 
lose what he had won or to undo what he had achieved. 
Circumstances proved too strong for a strong man 
who fell short of being a great man. With a Glouces- 
ter working recklessly for his own hand, with a young 
King who remained a child in years of manhood, 
neither victory abroad nor peace at home was possible. 
Bedford was taken away from the evil to come. 
Beaufort remained to make a brave effort for the 
honour and welfare of crown and realm, and to see 
both imperilled by forces beyond his control. It is 
only in our own day that history has gone behind the 
pathos of his end to recognise the value of his work. 


Aachen (Aken), 4 
Acquessonfort (? Oxford), 4 n. 
Admiral of England, 3, 12 
Agincourt, 27, 48, 49, 50, 53, 68 
Aix, 4 

Albert, Duke of Austria, 252 
Albergati, Nicholas, Cardinal of 

St. Cross, 203, 205, 213, 214, 

235, 242-245, 247, 248 
Alencon, Duke of, 278 
Alexander V, Pope, 20, 21, 62, 

Aliens, at court, 13 ; in trade, 

130, 131, 138, 142, 143 
Alien priories, 15, 99, 236 
Almaine (Germany), 4, 163 
Alnwick, William,' 138; Bishop 

of Norwich, 207, 210, 261 
Amiens, 116, 165, 247 
Anjou, 92, 282 ; see Margaret, 

Anne of Burgundy, Duchess of 

Bedford, 29, 116, 165, 166, 

206, 212, 215 
Aquitaine, 1, 21, 29, 30, 41, 43, 

114, 236, 259 
Armagnac, Counts of, 26, 280 
Armagnacs, the, 26, 29, 40, 41, 

52, 53, 246, 247 
Arragon, 52 
Arras, 218 ; conference at, 192, 

194, 24L248, 256, 257, 259, 

260, 264, 270, 272, 275 
Artois, 2, 43, 246 
Arundel, Richard, Earl of, 3, 5, 

Arundel, Alice, daughter of 

Earl of, 5, 18 
Arundel, Thomas, Archbishop 

of Canterbury, 3, 5, 7, 11, 

17-20, 22, 24-26, 29-32, 37, 

Arundel, Thomas, Earl of, 24, 

30, 31 
Arundel, John, Earl of, 218, 

Aussig, 150 

Austria, 252 
Auxerre, 167, 195, 213 
Avignon, 19 

Badby, John, 24 

Baker, Dr. John, chaplain to 
Beaufort, 289 

Bamberg, Bishop of, 151 

Barrow, William, Bishop of 
Carlisle, 115 

Basel, council of, 192, 213, 214, 
233-237, 239, 241, 242, 251- 
253, 259, 260 ; English dele- 
gates to, 236, 237 

Bath (and Wells), Bishops of, 
see Wells 

Bauge, 96 

Beauchamp, Elizabeth, 269 

Beaufort, lordship of, 2, 43 

Beaufort, Edmund, Earl of 
Mortain, 171, 236, 249 ; Earl 
of Dorset, 253, 271, 275-277 ; 
Marquis, 281, 284, 288, 293 

Beaufort, Henry 

(1) Outline of his career : 
Origin and name, 1,2; legiti- 
mation, 2, 3, 18 ; education 
and early preferment, 3, 4 ; 
Chancellor of Oxford, 5, 6, 7, 
23 ; Bishop of Lincoln, 4, 5, 
7, 8, 11, 16 ; supporter of 
Henry IV, 8-10 ; Chancellor 
of England, 10-16 ; Bishop of 
Winchester, 16 ; rivalry with 
Archbishop Arundel, 7, 17-19, 
22, 24, 26, 29, 31 ; association 
with Prince Henry, 6, 7, 22-28, 
31-33, 140 ; proposed abdica- 
tion of Henry IV, 27, 28, 32, 
140 ; second chancellorship, 
34-60 ; question of war with 
France, 39-41 ; preparation 
for war, 41-46; French em- 
bassy at Winchester, 46, 47 ; 
news of Agincourt, 48-51 ; 
visit of Sigismund, 51-55; 
resignation of chancellorship, 




57-60 ; intervention at coun- 
cil of Constance, 60, 64, 73, 
75-78 ; candidate for the 
Papacy, 80-84 ; offer of car- 
dinalate and legatine office, 
84-89 ; with Henry V in 
France and in England, 91- 
98 ; dispute between Glouces- 
ter and the council over the 
protectorship, 104-113; re- 
lease and marriage of Scottish 
King, 119-123 ; third chancel- 
lorship, 124 ; conflict with 
Gloucester in London, 128- 
134 ; arbitration by the lords, 
135-142 ; appointed cardinal 
and legate, 147, 148 ; papal 
crusade against Hussites, 
149-161 ; with Bedford in 
France, 162-167 ; difficul- 
ties of his position in Eng- 
land as cardinal, 169-192 ; 
war and diplomacy in France, 
178, 193-204, 213-217, 219- 
221,225,233,238; execution 
of the maid, 205-209 ; coro- 
nation of Henry VI, 175, 176, 
209-212 ; conferences at 
Arras, 242-249 ; at Calais and 
Oye, 253-265 ; policy of the 
Beaufort party, 266,267,277- 
284 ; attacked by Gloucester, 
267, 275 ; retirement of the 
Cardinal, 285, 287 ; death of 
Gloucester, 288, 289 ; death 
of the Cardinal, 289, 290 ; his 
benefactions and his will, 
292-295 ; his character, 290, 
291, 295-297 
(2) Ecclesiastical affairs : 
His churchmanship, 36, 61, 
62, 86, 285 ; Gregory XII and 
the schism, 20-22 ; repression 
of Lollardism, 24, 37-40, 46, 
137, 145, 146, 154 ; his 
appearances in convocation, 
16, 24, 37, 41, 61, 98, 145, 
146, 157 ; the Church of 
England and the Papacy, 85, 
147-149, 151, 152, 189, 190; 
his crusades against Hussites, 
93-95,149-161 j general coun- 
cils, Pisa, 20, 21 ; Constance, 
64, 76, 77, 80-83, 84 ; Pavia 
(Sienna), 114-116; Basel, 

234, 235, 237, 252, 253 ; his 
pilgrimages, 58, 60, 73, 78, 
81, 144, 191 

(3) Home and foreign affairs : 
His statesmanship, 13, 14, 23, 
29, 32, 33, 36, 112, 113, 199, 
200 ; his work at the privy 
council, 12, 24, 25, 44-46, 56, 
57,99,100,113,114,238-251 ; 
in parliament, 9, 12-15, 22-24, 
28, 34-37, 39, 40, 42, 43, 
49-52, 55, 56, 93, 96, 106, 109, 
116-118, 121, 126-128, 137, 
177-179, 183-188, 202, 218, 
225-227 ; questions of trade 
and commerce, 74, 75, 129- 
131, 143, 253, 264, 265, 279 ; 
his loans, 15, 32, 58, 78, 96-99, 
113, 114, 116, 125, 126, 166, 
185-187, 202, 216, 230-232, 
250, 268, 273, 278, 281, 282, 
294 n., 295 ; his " pardons," 
58, 59, 188, 251, 269, 272, 281; 
his work as a statesman, 

Beaufort, Joan, Countess of 
Westmoreland, 2, 101 n., 
172 n., 294 

Beaufort, Joan (Jane), wife of 
James I of Scotland, 1 19, 120, 
122, 123, 160, 251, 269 

Beaufort, John (i), Earl of 
Somerset, 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 12, 
16, 24, 27 

Beaufort, John (ii), Earl of 
Somerset, 266, 277, 278; 
Duke, 281-284, 295 

Beaufort, Thomas, 2, 12 ; Chan- 
cellor, 22, 24, 28, 29; Earl 
of Dorset, 30, 44, 48, 50, 53 ; 
Duke of Exeter, 56, 91, 95, 
101-103, 106, 108, 113, 137, 

Beauvais, see Cauchon 

Bedford, county, 12 

Bedford, John of Lancaster, 
Duke of, 25, 44-46, 48, 54, 
57, 91, 92, 95, 96, 99-103, 107, 
116, 124-127, 134-137, 162, 
165-167, 194, 201, 203, 205, 
209-211, 214-219, 221-230, 
233, 235, 238, 247, 248, 291, 

Bekynton, Dr. Thomas, 111, 
252 n., 256, 261, 280 



Benedict XIII, Pope, 19, 21, 52, 

62, 68, 124 
Berkshire, 25 
Beverley, 96 

Bewforth, Bewford (= Beau- 
fort), 3, 4 
Bildeston (Billeston), Nicholas, 

154, 196, 197, 257, 291 
Blanche of Artois, 43 
Blanche of Lancaster, wife of 

John of Gaunt, 1, 43 
Blanche, daughter of Henry IV, 

Bohemia, 36, 63, 64, 93, 94, 

150-154, 161, 163 
Bokyngham, John, Bishop of 

Lincoln, 4 
Bolingbroke, Roger, 276 
Boniface IX, Pope, 2, 5 
Bordeaux, 278, 282 ; Arch- 
bishops of, 20, 21 ; 278 
Bourbon, Duke of, 201, 204, 

214, 225, 241 
Bourbon, Tablet of, 294 
Bourchier, Thomas, Bishop of 

Worcester, 239, 240 
Bourges, Archbishop of, 46, 47 
Bowet, Henry, Archbishop of 

York, 29, 31 
Brabant, John, Duke of, 99, 

116, 124, 201 
Brandenburg, Frederick, Mar- 
grave of, 151, 153, 155 
Braybroke, Robert, Bishop of 

London, 8 
Bretigny, treaty of, 40, 43, 92, 

Brie, 196 
Bristol, 130 

Brittany, 10 ; Duke of, 92, 195, 
220, 221, 224, 238, 275, 278, 
282, 287 
Brounfleet, Sir Henry, 236 
Brouns, Thomas, Dean of Salis- 
bury, 236 ; Bishop of Roches- 
ter, 239, 240 
Bruges, 73, 74, 204 
Brugges, William, 115 
Bubwith, Nicholas, Bishop of 
London, 17 ; of Bath and 
Wells, 24, 65, 74, 80 
Buckingham, county, 11 
Bulls, papal, 5, 20, 21, 59, 84, 
94, 145, 146, 148, 154, 156, 
173, 181, 187, 252, 273 

Burgundy, 25, 55, 57 

Burgundy, John, Duke of, 23, 
26, 40, 41, 43, 52, 54, 61, 75, 

Burgundy, Philip, Duke of, 92, 
93, 95, 100-102, 116, 124-127, 
165-167, 178, 194, 195, 198, 
201, 204-206, 213-222, 233- 
235, 241, 242, 244-251, 257, 
260, 266, 270, 272, 275, 278, 
279, 285 

Burgundy, Duchess of, see 

Burneby, Thomas, 295 

Burnell, Lord, 24 

Caen, 148 ; University, 233 
Calais, 10, 23-25, 30, 48, 49, 52, 
54, 57, 73, 97, 148, 184, 200, 
203, 204, 214, 216, 217, 223, 
224, 230, 234, 238, 239, 250, 
254-262, 264, 265, 270, 279 

Cambridge, University of, 234 ; 
Chancellor of, 20 ; Peter- 
house, 3 ; St. Michael's, 57 

Candia, Peter of, 20, see 
Alexander V 

Canterbury, 130, 199 ; treaty 
of, 54, 56, 68, 69, 71 ; Christ 
Church, 292, 293, 295 ; pil- 
grims, 147 ; archdeaconry of, 
146, 147 ; archbishopric of, 
88, 89, 174, 180, 238, 268; 
Archbishops of, see Cour- 
tenay, Arundel, Chichele, 

Cardinals, as a body, 20 ; at 
Constance, 66-70, 72, 76, 77, 
82-84. See Albergati, Beau- 
fort, Cyprus, D'Ailly, Kemp, 
Kilwardby, Langham, St. 

Cardinalate, the, see Beaufort 

Carlisle, Bishops of, see Barrow, 

Carmarthen, 12 

Castile, 1, 57, 93 

Catteriek, John, Bishop of St. 
David's, 65 ; of Lichfield and 
Coventry, 65, 67, 69, 70, 74, 
76, 77, 80, 90 

Cauchon, Pierre, Bishop of 
Beauvais, 206-208 

Caudray, Richard, 172 

Champagne, 196 



Chancellorship, of Oxford, 5-7, 
26 ; of England, 10, 13, 35, 
55 ; see Edmund Stafford, 
Henry Beaufort, Thomas 
Beaufort, Langley, Kemp, 
John Stafford 
Charles VI, King of France, 26, 

30, 40, 41, 91-93, 106 
Charles VII, King of France ; 
as Dauphin, 40, 91, 92, 116, 
117, 123; as King, 165-168, 
195, 196, 198, 205, 209, 220, 
221, 225, 235, 241, 247, 258, 
266, 270, 272, 274, 278, 287 
Chartres, 212 
Chaucer, Alice, 277 
Chaucer, Thomas, 19, 22, 28 
Cherbourg, 148, 253, 282 
Chertsey, Abbot of, 183 
Chester, Bishop of, see Lichfield 
Chichele, Henry, Bishop of St. 
David's, 40, 41, 59; Arch- 
bishop of Canterbury, 39, 
44-46, 61, 71, 86-89, 91, 96, 
99, 100, 105, 108, 110, 130, 
134, 137, 145, 147-149, 152, 
156, 157, 159, 176, 188-190, 
268, 276, 284, 291 
Chichester, bishopric of, 57 ; 
Bishops of, see Polton, Syden- 
Chirk, 268 

Church of England ; proposals 
of disendowment, 14, 15, 23 
taxation of clergy, 15 ; non 
residence, 23, 146 ; confirma 
tion of bishops, 51, 79 ; self 
government, 87 ; papal dues 
20, 67, 99 ; benefices, 59, 108 
146, 148, 291 ; wealth, 157 
See Convocation 
Cironensis, John, suffragan 

bishop, 62 
Cleves, Mary of, 275 
Clifford, Richard, Bishop of 

London, 37, 65, 80, 81 
Coimbra, Peter, Duke of, 134 
Coldingham, 160 
Cologne, 10 ; Archbishop of, 94, 

Colonna, Oddo, see Martin V 
Colonna Prosper, 146, 147 
Colvile, Sir John, 236 
Commerce, 25, 26, 57, 74, 75, 

Compiegne, 198, 201 
Constable, of England, 96, 176 ; 

of France, 241, 261 
Constance of Castile, 1, 2 
Constance, council of, 44, 51, 
52, 60, 63-72, 76, 77, 80-85, 
189, 290 
Convocation, 16, 23, 24, 61, 98, 
235 ; papal schism, 20 ; 
French war, 39, 41, 56; 
Lollardism, 36, 37, 145, 146, 
157 ; anti-Hussite crusade, 
156, 157, 173 
Corbeil, 214 
Corbie, 165 
Cornwall, 273 
Cossa, Baldassare, 63 ; see 

Councils, general, and the 
Papacy, 64, 67, 77, 114, 234- 
236, 252, 259, 260. See Pisa, 
Rome, Constance, Pavia, 
Sienna, Basel, Ferrara 
Council of England, the great, 
13, 45, 174, 182, 239 ; the 
privy, 17, 24, 25, 44, 56, 57, 
104, 105, 108, 110, 112-114, 
118, 141, 143, 182, 189, 191, 
199, 200, 226, 227, 238, 268, 
271, 276, 277, 298 
Courtenay, William, Chancellor 
of Oxford, Archbishop of 
Canterbury, 5 
Courtenay, Richard, Chancellor 

of Oxford, 26 
Coventry, 130 ; bishopric, see 

Cravant, 125 
Crecy, 50 
Cromwell, Lord, 130, 138, 223, 

226, 232 
Croyland, 289 

Crusades, against Moslems, 36, 

79, 101 ; against Hussites, 

93-95, 150-153, 155-165, 167, 

168, 173, 197 

Cyprus, Cardinal of, 242-244, 

247, 248 
Cyrene, 62 

D'Ailly, Cardinal of Cambrai, 

68, 81, 82 
Dauphin, the, see Charles VII 
Dax, Bishop of, 236 
Denmark, 242 



Despenser, Henry, Bishop of 

Norwich, 158 
Devon, 273 
Dieppe, 279 

Domicellus, domicella, 2 n., 257 
Dover, 46, 98 n., 114, 161, 165, 

Duties, customs, 57, 58, 98, 113, 

114, 130, 268, 279 
Durham, 120 ; Bishop of, see 


Easter, 51 

Eleanor, Duchess of Gloucester, 

125, 276 
Elizabeth, of Lancaster, 1 
Eltham, 133, 134, 139 
Ely, Bishop of, 250 
English " nation " at Constance, 

65-72, 77, 80 
Eugenius IV, Pope, 205, 213, 

234, 235, 239-242, 245, 252, 

Exeter, 130 ; diocese, 62 ; 

Bishop of, see Edmund Staf- 
Exeter College, Oxford, 294 
Exeter, Duke of, see Thomas 

Eye, the Witch of, 276 

" Fairborn," 2 

Falmouth, 10 

Fastolf, Sir John, 247 

Ferrara, 252 

Filastre, Cardinal, 70, 75, 76, 

81, 82 
Fitzhugh, Robert, 197 j Bishop 

of London, 236 
Flanders, 25, 26, 29, 57, 75, 77, 

92, 184, 194, 213, 249, 253, 
262, 264 

Fleet Prison, the, 46 

Fleming, Richard, Bishop of 
Lincoln, 114, 115 

Flemish merchants, 25, 74, 75, 
279; in London, 129-131, 
249, 250 

Florence, 45 

Forrester, John, 69 

France, 10, 11, 13, 16, 21, 26, 
29 ; question of war with, 
39-46, 49 ; progress of war 
under Henry V, 48-50, 54, 91- 

93, 100 ; under Henry VI, 124, 

ai — (2210) 

125, 162, 165-167, 194, 200, 
201, 204, 212, 218, 222-224, 
228 ; negotiations for peace, 
179, 191, 196, 197, 202, 203, 
213, 214, 219-221, 223, 253, 
254, 277, 279, 285-287 ; con- 
ferences at Arras, 241-248, 
270, 272 ; at Oye, 254-265, 
270 ; English " realm of 
France," 93, 114, 175, 196, 
210-212, 222, 225, 229, 236, 
237, 243, 244, 247-251, 255, 

Frankfort, 155 

French " nation " at Constance, 

Garter, Order of the, 53, 68, 

161, 174 
Gascony, 243, 280 
Gaunt, John of Gaunt, see 

Genoese ships, 54, 74, 75 
German, idea of Church reform, 
64 ; " nation " at Constance, 
65-70 ; see Sigismund 
Germany, Princes of, 94, 95, 
101, 115, 150, 152, 153, 155, 
Ghent, 204, 215 
Glastonbury, Abbot of, 236 
Glendower, Owen, 10, 11, 12 
Gloucester, Thomas, Duke of, 3 
Gloucester, Humphrey, Duke of 
44, 46, 54, 91, 96, 117; posi- 
tion as protector, 101-108, 
113, 118, 126-128, 143, 199, 
200, 202, 227 ; marriage with 
Jacqueline of Hainault, 116, 
124-126, 146, 147 ; conflict 
with Chancellor Beaufort, 
128-142, 298 ; opposition to 
Beaufort as cardinal, 88, 89, 
161, 169, 172, 174-189 ; foreign 
affairs, 193, 197, 203, 214-216, 
228, 229, 238, 249, 254, 263, 
277, 278, 280, 282, 286 ; rela- 
tions with Bedford, 111, 112, 
223, 224, 226, 228, 229, 239 ; 
attack on Beaufort's career 
and policy, 121-123, 267-276 ; 
ruin of his wife, Eleanor, 276, 
277 ; his death, 288, 289 
Gloucester, Duchess of, see 
Jacqueline, Eleanor 



Gravelines, 257, 258, 263 

Gray, William, Bishop of Lon- 
don, 176 

Greek Church, 252 

Gregorv XII, Pope, 19-22, 62, 

Guienne, 14, 29, 46, 243, 255, 
261, 262, 266, 268, 278, 280, 
285, 286 

Guildford, 220 

Guisnes, 262 

Hainault, 1, 99, 111, 118, 124- 
128, 131, 135, 138 

Hallam, Robert, Bishop of 
Salisbury, 20, 65-70, 72, 75, 

Hammes, 261 

Hampshire, 25 

Harneur, 48-50, 53, 54, 97, 276 

Hase, Sir Henry, 115 

Hendman, Thomas, Chancellor 
of Oxford, 5 

Henry IV, 7-9 ; his difficulties, 
9-13, 32-35; relations with 
his sons, 18, 19, 22, 27-30, 32, 
140 ; attitude towards papal 
schism, 19-22 

Henry V, 6, 7, 16, 22 ; relations 
with his father and brothers, 
18, 19, 22, 27-30, 32 ; with 
Beaufort, 6, 7, 18, 22-27, 
31-33, 57-60, 89, 91, 140; his 
character and aims, 32, 34, 
36, 44, 45 ; war with France, 
40-47, 48-51, 54, 91-93, 96, 
97, 100 ; relations with Sigis- 
mund, 52-55, 65, 68-72, 78, 
99; with council of Constance, 
70-79 ; his churchmanship, 
23, 24, 36, 37, 44, 79, 85, 
88-90, 96, 101, 188, 189; 
foreign policy, 100-102, 119, 
247, 248, 267, 271 ; provision 
for regency of Henry VI, 101- 
104, 109, 112; his will, 101, 
113, 230, 269 

Henry VI, 100 ; his guardian- 
ship, 101-103, 109, 126, 133, 
135, 139, 174, 183, 269 ; 
coronation in England, 175, 
176 ; in France, 199-201, 205, 
210-212 ; government at 
home, 219, 223, 225, 229, 239, 
249, 251, 256, 263, 268, 271- 

274, 276, 279, 280, 284 ; atti- 
tude towards Papacy, 235, 
237, 239, 240, 252 ; his mar- 
riage, 285-287 ; personal rela- 
tions with Beaufort, 294-297 

Henry VII, 284 n. 

Henry of Blois, Bishop of Win- 
chester, 292 

Hesse, Landgrave of, 152 

Heyworth, William, Bishop of 
Lichfield, 180 

Holland, 99 

Holy Land, the, 58, 73 

Homildon, 12 

Honfleur, 233 

Hungerford, Lord, 130 

Huntingdon, county, 12 

Huntingdon, John Holland, Earl 
of, 200, 218, 234, 268 

Huss, John, 63, 67, 93 

Hussites, 150, 152-154 ; see 

Inns of Court, 130, 140 
Ireland, 8, 27, 57, 117, 297 n. ; 

Irish church, 145 
Isabel, Queen of France, 91-93, 

Isabella of Portugal, Duchess of 

Burgundy, 194, 215, 253, 254 

256-261, 264, 266, 267, 270 
Italian merchants, 25, 45, 54, 

74, 75 
Italian " nation " at Constance, 

66, 67, 70, 80 
Italy, 242, 252, 291 

Jacqueline of Hainault, 
Duchess of Gloucester, 99, 
100, 111, 116, 124-127, 135, 
146, 216 

Jacqueline (Jacquette) of Lux- 
emburg, Duchess of Bedford, 
215, 216, 218 

James I, King of Scots, 119-123, 
158, 160, 161, 173, 251, 269 

Jeanne d'Arc, 162, 165, 166, 
179, 198, 204-210 

Jerome of Prague, 63, 93 

Jewels, Crown, 46, 58, 98, 185, 
232, 268, 279; Beaufort's, 
185-187, 268 

Joan (Johanna), daughter of 
Henry Beaufort, 5, 290, 294, 



Joan of Navarre, wife of Henry 

IV, 10, 46, 48, 171 

Joan (Jane), Queen of Scotland, 

see Beaufort, Joan 
John the Hermit, 259 
John I of Portugal, 194 
John XXIII, Pope (Baldassare 

Cossa), 63, 64, 66, 67, 85 

Katharine, of Burgundy, 41 
Katharine, daughter of Charles 

VI of France, wife of Henry 

V, 40, 41, 43, 91-93, 100, 111, 
127, 284 n. 

Katharine, daughter of Charles 

VII of France, 254 
Katharine Swynford, 1, 2, 4, 

11, 293 

Kemp, John, Bishop of London, 
108, 130; Archbishop of 
York, 143, 176, 220, 229, 234, 
242-246, 253-256, 258-263, 
267, 268, 270, 271 ; Cardinal, 
274, 276, 277, 280, 284, 293 

Kilwardby, Robert, Archbishop 
of Canterbury, 180 

Labourers, Statute of, 132 ; 

agitation in London, 132, 141 
Lagny, 212 
Lancaster, house of, 29, 32, 50, 

112, 118, 214, 254, 288; 

estates of, 7, 230, 269, 273 
Lancaster, Edmund, Earl of, 43 
Lancaster, Henry of, see Henry 

Lancaster, John of Gaunt, Duke 

of, 1-4,7,16,43, 134,215,293 
Lancaster, John of, see Bedford 
Lancaster, Thomas of, Duke of 

Clarence, 18, 19, 27, 29, 30, 

91, 95 
Langdon, John, Bishop of 

Rochester, 234, 236, 239 
Langham, Simon, Archbishop 

of Canterbury, 180 
Langley, Thomas, Bishop of 

Durham, 16, 17, 24, 31, 45, 

66, 73, 104, 113, 121, 137, 176 
Lannoy, Hugh de, 195, 219, 253, 

Leeds, castle, 276 
Legate, office of papal, 20, 84, 

86-89, 148, 150, 156, 168, 

172, 173, 190, 273 

Leicester, county, 11 ; town, 
37, 39, 41, 130, 135 

Leinster, 8 

Lichfield and Coventry (Ches- 
ter), bishopric, 4 ; Bishops 
of, see Catterick, Heyworth 

Li6ge, Bishop of, 94 

Lille, 219 

Lincoln, 2, 11 ; cathedral, 3, 
295 ; dean and chapter, 16 ; 
Bishops, see Bokyngham, 
Beaufort, Fleming 

Lincoln College, Oxford, 294 

Lodi, Bishop of, 235 

Lollardism, at Oxford, 5, 22, 25, 
64, 154 ; in Parliament, 23, 37 ; 
under Henry V, 36, 37 ; under 
Henry VI, 137, 179 ; political 
and social tendencies, 37-40, 
46, 49 

London, 22, 29, 30, 41, 44, 46, 
48, 50, 95, 96, 114, 129-135, 
170, 171, 219, 241, 246, 249, 
277, 286, 294 ; mayors of, 
44,46, 48, 110, 130, 132, 134, 
135, 140, 171 ; merchants of, 
25, 46, 58, 130, 131, 138, 142, 

London, diocese, 62 ; Bishops 
of, see Braybrook, Bubwith, 
Clifford, Kemp, Gray, Fitz- 

London Bridge, 50, 133, 134, 
139, 140, 292 

London, Tower of, 116, 129, 132- 
134, 138-141, 175 

Longueville, Prior of, 208 

Louis (Ludwig) of Bavaria, 
Count Palatine, 10, 71, 85, 

Lucca, 45 

Lumley, Marmaduke, Bishop of 
Carlisle, 181 

Luxemburg, Duchy of, 99 

Luxemburg, John of, 198, 206, 

Luxemburg, Louis of, Bishcp 
of Therouanne, 210, 214, 215 ; 
of Rouen and of Ely, 250 

Luxemburg, Peter of, Count of 
St. Pol, 215 

Luxemburg, Jacquette of, see 
J acqueline 

Maid of God, see Jeanne d'Arc 



Maine, 92, 233, 255, 282, 285-288 

Mainz (Mayence), Archbishop 
of, 94, 95, 152, 154 

Mantes, 90 

March, Edmund, Earl of, 106, 
108, 116-118, 126 

Margaret of Anjou, Queen of 
England, 194, 285-288, 294, 

Margaret Beaufort, 284 

Margaret of Scotland, 123 

Marshal, the Earl, 108, 127 

Martin V, Pope, 59, 64, 84, 85, 
90, 93, 115, 124, 145-151, 
154-157, 167, 168, 183, 190, 
191, 196, 197, 202, 203, 205 

Meaux, 100, 261, 262, 270 

Mechlin, 151 

Melun, 93, 213 

Meulan, 91, 92 

Milan, 21 

Milford Haven, 9 

Mont St. Michel, Abbot of, 167 

Montereau, 92 

Morgan, Philip, Bishop of Wor- 
cester, 108, 114, 130, 137 

Mortimer, Sir John, 116-118 

Mowbray, Thomas, Duke of 
Norfolk, 7 

Naples, King of, 63, 285 

" Nations," at the universities, 
64, 65 ; at the council of 
Constance, 65-71 ; at Basel, 
235, 236 

Navarre, Princess of, 257 

Navy, English, 56, 97, 163; 
see Admiral 

Nevers, 241, 247, 278 

Nevill, Robert, Bishop of Salis- 
bury, 151, 152, 171 

Newark, 59 

" Nicholl " {i.e. Lincoln), 9 

Nogent, 43 

Norfolk, Duke of, 137, 176, 200, 

Normandy, 57, 91, 92, 97, 102, 
166, 194, 228, 230, 236, 243, 
248, 251, 255, 261, 262, 265, 
266, 278, 280, 283, 285, 286, 

Northampton, countv, 12 ; town 

Northumberland, Henry Percy 
(1), Earl of, 19 

Northumberland, Henry Percy 
(2), Earl of, 57, 108, 114 

Norwich, Prior of, 236 ; Bishop 
of, see Despenser, Wakering, 

Noyon, Bishop of, 210 

Nuncios, papal, 145, 146, 157,158 

Nuremberg, 152 

Obicis, John de, papal collector, 

Oldcastle, Sir John, Lord Cob- 
ham, 36-38, 49 

Olmiitz, John, Bishop of, 154 

Orleans, 162, 172 

Orleans, Louis, Duke of, 26, 30 

Orleans, Charles, Duke of, 102, 
214, 220, 221, 224, 225, 238, 
243, 245, 253-257, 259-262, 
264, 266, 267, 270, 271, 274- 
277, 285 
i Oxford, county, 12, 25 
I Oxford, Earl of, 254 
j Oxford, University of, 3, 4, 12, 
20, 25, 66, 149, 234, 291, 292, 
294 ; chancellorship of, 5-7, 
12, 20 ; Lollardism, 5, 6, 22, 
36, 64, 155 ; visitation, 5, 
25, 26; colleges, see Exeter, 
Lincoln, Queen's 

Oye, 257, 258, 261, 266 

Papacy, the ; see Bulls, Church 
of England, Councils, Legate, 
Provisions, Rome, Schism 

Paris, 26, 52, 54, 95, 162, 165- 
167, 194, 195, 200, 201, 210- 
212, 233, 241, 249 ; Univer- 
sitv of, 63, 66, 125, 206, 211, 
212, 234 ; Archbishop of, 210 

Parliament, 32; of 1399, 9; 
of 1401, 9, 11, 19; of 1402, 9, 
12, 19; of Jan., 1404, 12, 13; 
of Oct., 1404, the " unlearned" 
or " lay " parliament, 14, 15 ; 
of 1406, 17, 38 ; of 1407, 19, 
20 ; of 1410, 22-24, 25 ; of 
1411, 28, 29 ; of 1413, 34, 35, 
40 ; of April, 1414, 37, 38}; 
of Nov., 1414, 42 ; of 1415, 
49 ; of March, 1416, 50, 51 ; 
of Oct., 1416, 55, 56 ; of 1417, 
58 ; of 1419, 93 ; of 1420, 
93, 95 ; of 1421, 96, 97 ; of 
1422, 104, 105; of 1423, 116- 



118, 121 ; of 1425, 126-128, 
139; of 1426, "parliament 
of bats," 135-137 ; of 1428, 
106, 107, 149; of 1429, 175- 
178 ; of 1431, 179, 202, 203 ; 
of 1432, 183-187; of 1433, 
222-226; of 1436, 249; of 
1442, 285 ; of 1445, 285 ; of 
1446, 287 

Patay, 162, 164 

Pavia, council of, 114, 115 

Payne, Peter, 154 

Percies, the, 12, 13; see North- 

Peter of Candia, see Alex- 
ander V 

Peterhouse, Cambridge, 3 

Pettworth, Richard, 291, 295 

Philippa of Lancaster, 1, 134, 194 

Picardy, 204, ; 233 

Piracy, 25, 39 

Pisa, councirof, 20, 21, 62, 66 

Plymouth, 74 

Poggio Bracciolini, 290, 291 

Poitou, 255, 278 

Poland, 242 

Pole, John de la, afterwards 
Duke of Suffolk, 284 

Polton, Thomas, Bishop of 
Chichester, 114, 115; of 
Worcester, 180 

Pontefract, 1 1 

Portugal, 100, 134, 194, 242, 275 

Prague, 63, 153 ; University of, 
64, 154 

Prcsmunire, Statute of, 86, 147, 

148, 180, 181, 185, 187; writs 
of, 181, 183, 184, 186 

Priories, alien, 15, 99, 236 
Protector, title and powers of, 

106-107, 112, 141, 143, 298 
Provence, 43 
Provisions, papal, 4, 86, 90, 

146, 151, 188, 239, 240 
Provisors, Statute of, 86, 147- 

149, 181, 187, 188 

Queen's College, Oxford, 3, 6 
Quhair, The King's, 120 

Randolph, Friar, 138 
Ratcliff, Sir John, 162, 164 
Reform of Church, 63-66, 69, 

70, 72, 76, 78, 79, 90 
Rene of Anjou, 285-287 

Revenues of England, 97, 99, 

128, 130, 131, 202, 226, 227 
Rheims, 165, 210 ; Archbishop 

of, 256, 259 
Richard II, 2, 3, 5, 7-9, 11 ; 294 
Richemont, Arthur de, 195, 220 
Rochester, 162, 168 ; Bishops 

of, see Brouns, Langdon 
Roelt, Sir Paon, 1 
Romans, King of the, see Rupert, 

Rome, general council at, 63 ; 

court of, 161, 180, 183, 191, 

213, 235, 250, 273 ; English 

agents at, 89, 90, 114, 115, 

151, 189, 197, 239 
Roses, Wars of the, 1 13, 1 18, 293 
Rouen, 194, 201, 202, 204-209, 

212, 283 
Rupert, King of the Romans, 

12, 19 
Rutland, 12 

Saatz, 94 

St. Alban's, battle of, 1 18 ; 

council at, 135 ; monastery, 

7,8, 115, 160, 171 ; Abbot of, 

8, 115, 170 
St. Angelo, Cardinal of, 237 
St. Bride, 258, 259 
St. Cloud, 26, 29 
St. Cross, Cardinal of, see Alber- 

St. Cross, Hospital of, 292, 293 
St. David's, Bishops of, see 

Chichele, Catterick 
St. Eusebius, Cardinal of, 147, 

177 ; see Henry Beaufort 
St. George, feast of, 53, 161, 174, 

St. Gertrude, 261 
St. Mary, Church of, Calais, 148 ; 

Hospital of, London, 10 ; 

Church of, Southwark, 120 
St. Michael (Michael-house), 

Cambridge, 57 
St. Omer, 216-218, 257, 260 
St. Ouen, Rouen, 207, 208 
St. Paul's, London, 8, 22, 46, 

48, 50, 172, 276, 294 
St. Stephen's, Westminster, 276 
St. Swithin, 257, 292 ; Prior of, 

Winchester, 290 
St. Thomas (Becket), 258 
St. Thomas, Hospital of, 292 



St. Vaast, Abbey of, Arras, 242 

Salisbury, diocese of, 62 ; Dean 
of, 151, 236, 239 ; Bishops of, 
see Hallam, Nevill 

Salisbury, Thomas Montague, 
Earl of, 135, 172, 173, 204 

Salisbury, Richard Nevill, Earl 
of, 172 n., 176, 210, 295 

Salvayn, Roger, 73, 74 

Sandon, Hospital, 292 

Savoy, 94 ; Duke of, 167, 195, 
198, 220 

Schepye, John, Dean of Lincoln, 

Schism, the papal, 12, 19-22, 45, 
51, 54 

Scone, 120 

Scotland, 11, 12, 93, 251 ; alli- 
ance with France, 119, 123, 
160, 161, 203 ; King of, see 
James I ; Queen of, see Joan 
(Jane) Beaufort 

Scrope, Henry, Lord, 20, 47 

Scrope, John, Lord, 130 

Shakespeare, 39, 113, 142, 289, 
295, 296 

Shrewsbury, Abbot of, 20 

Sicily, 242, 285 

Sienna, council of, 115 

Sigismund, King of the Romans; 
alliance with England, 44, 
52-56, 61, 65, 68, 71, 72, 80 ; 
Council of Constance, 52, 55, 
63, 65, 67-73, 76-78, 80-83 ; 
later relations with Henry V, 
93-95, 99, 100, 116; with 
England and the Papacy, 
150, 201, 204, 234, 235, 237, 
251, 252 

Sluys, 50 

Solubriensis, William, suffragan 
bishop, 62 

Somerset, Earl of, see John 

Souch (Saatz), 94 

Southampton, 47, 58, 98, 268 

Southwark, 120, 133, 292, 294 

Southwell, Thomas, canon of 
Westminster, 276 

Spain, 52, 203, 242, 286 ; Sword 
of, 232 

Spanish " nation " at Constance 

Stafford, Humphrey, Earl of, 
138, 254 

Stafford, Edmund, chancellor, 

Bishop of Exeter, 10, 12, 19 
Stafford, John, Bishop of Bath 

and Wells, treasurer, 130, 137, 

142, 176, 210; chancellor, 

222, 277 ; Archbishop of 

Canterbury, 285, 295 
Stradling, Sir Edward, 5, 295 
Stratford, Old, 12 
Sudeley, Lord, 282 
Suffolk, William de la Pole, 

Earl of, 135, 210, 220, 223, 

225, 251, 277, 280, 284, 285 ; 

Marquis, 286-288; see Pole, 

John de la 
Suffragan bishops, 62 
Sullac, Prior of, 114 
Suola, Conzo de, papal nuncio, 

156, 158 
Surronensis, John, suffragan 

bishop, 62 
Swynford, Katharine, 1, 2, 4, 

Swynford, Sir Hugh, 1 
Swynford, Sir Thomas, 11 
Swynford, Sir William, 269, 295 
Sydenham, Simon, Dean of 

Salisbury, 151 ; Bishop of 

Chichester, 152 

Tachau, 152, 153, 196 
Talbot', Lord, 162, 209, 218, 233, 

Taunton, castle, 19 
Thames, the, 31, 139 ; see 

London Bridge 
Therouanne, Bishop of, see 

Louis of Luxemburg 
Tickhill, chapel, 3 
Tiptoft, Lord, 130, 295 
Tours, 286 
Treasurer of England, 98, 114, 

129, 130, 232, 280, 281 
Treasury, the, 108, 128, 232 
Treves, Bishop of, 94, 95 
Troyes, treaty of, 93, 96, 203, 

242, 247, 287 
Tudor, Edmund, 284 n. 

Ulm, 75, 76 

Universities, at council of Con- 
stance, 66, 67 ; see Aix, Caen, 
Cambridge, Oxford, Paris, 
Prague, Vienna 



Venice, 45 
Verneuil, 125 
Vienna, University, 154 
Vincennes, 101 
Vique, Bishop of, 259 

Wakering, John, Bishop of 
Norwich, 65, 80, 108 

Wales, 5, 11, 12, 13, 25, 117, 
251, 268 

Wales, Prince of, see Henry V 

Waltham, Abbot of, 170 

Walthamstow, 12 

Warwick, Thomas, Earl of, 3 

Warwick, Richard, Earl of, 57, 
65, 101, 102, 106, 108, 127, 
135, 176, 183, 200, 208-210, 
219, 220, 225, 250, 266 

Wavrin, Jean de, 94, 134 

Waynflete, William of, Bishop 
of Winchester, 293 

Wells, deanery of, 4 ; chapter, 
4, 294 ; Bishops of (Bath 
and) Wells, see Bub with, 

Welsh students at Oxford, 12 

Wenzel, King of Bohemia, 64, 94 

Westminster, 31, 45, 50, 53, 96, 
130, 135, 174, 176, 203, 228, 
235 ; Abbey, 48, 96, 170, 175, 
275, 276 ; Abbot of, 65 

Westmoreland, Ralph Neville, 
Earl of, 24, 25, 39, 45, 108 

Westmoreland, Countess of, see 
Joan Beaufort (1) 

Whethamstede, John, Abbot of 
St. Albans, 115 

Willoughby, Lord, 218 

Wiltshire, 25 

Winchester, 46, 54, 130, 243, 

285, 290, 292 ; cathedral, 10, 

257, 292, 293 ; diocese, 62 ; 

bishopric, 16, 180, 187, 188, 

269 ; Bishops of, see Henry of 

Blois, Wykeham, Beaufort, 

Windsor, 53, 100, 120, 130, 161, 

Witch of Eye, the, 276 
Wolvesey, 46, 290 
Wool trade, 57, 75, 130, 131, 

148, 204 n., 253, 273 
Worcester, prior of, 65 ; Bishops 

of, see Morgan, Polton, Bour- 

Wurzburg, Bishop of, 151, 154 
Wycliffe, John, 63, 67 
Wycliffites {Wicklefistce), 64, 

155, 157 
Wydeville, Sir Richard, 129, 132 

138, 139 
Wykeham, William of, Bishop 

of Winchester, 10, 15, 292 

York, 119, 130 ; Abbot of, 236 ; 

Dean of, 65, 80 ; Archbishops 

of, see Bowet, Kemp 
York, (1) Richard, Duke of, 12 
York, (2) Richard, Duke of, 118, 

126, 210, 249, 250, 268, 275, 

278, 280-283 
Ysambard, friar of Rouen, 209 

Zealand, 99 


Printed by Sir Isaac Pitman & Sons, Ltd., Bath. 


Each in crown 8vo, cloth gilt, with frontispiece, 3s. 6d. net. 

This is a new series of Historical Biographies of great English- 
men, of which "Cardinal Beaufort' 7 is the first, edited by 
W. H. Hutton, B.D. The foUowing volumes will appear this 



The life of Castlereagh embraces one of the most stirring 
and momentous periods in the history of Great Britain. It 
includes the union of England and Ireland, the establishment of 
the British dominion in India, the overthrow of Napoleon. 
With all these events Castlereagh was closely connected. He 
and Cornwallis brought about the Irish Union ; at the Board 
of Control he gave effectual support to the measures adopted 
by the Marquess Wellesley in India ; as War Minister from 
1807 to 1809 and as Foreign Minister from 1811 to his death 
he took part in the stirring events which accompanied the 
overthrow of Napoleon. The Congress of Vienna saw the 
influence of Great Britain, as represented by Castlereagh, at 
his height. From 1815 to the time of his death, Castlereagh 
was prominent in guiding Great Britain through a troublous 
period at home, and in maintaining her influence abroad. It 
is only after the lapse of well nigh a century that the immense 
value of Castlereagh's labours is beginning to be appreciated. 

Archbishop Parker 

By W. M. KENNEDY, B.A., Trinity College, Dublin 

Parker's Primacy being, perhaps, the most important in the 
history of the Church of England, it is surprising that no Life 
has been called for, setting out the difficulties of his task and the 
successful issue of his work. The present author has gone over 
all the documents and printed books of the period. The rise 
of the Reformation is traced. Two chapters deal at length 
with the opening months of Elizabeth's reign, which still afford 
room for a reconsideration of positions. Full treatment is 
given to the beginnings of Parker's Primacy and the develop- 
ment of the Via Media. The concluding chapters deal with 
the rise of Separatism and the end of Parker's work. Reference 
is made to his scholarship and writings, and the Appendices 
deal with the Advertisements and Parker's Consecration. 



SIR ISAAC PITMAN & SONS, LTD., have pleasure in 
announcing the early publication amongst others of the 
following books : — 

Bond, F.R.I. B.A., and the Rev. Dom Bede Camm, O.S.B. 
With 100 full-page collotype plates, and upwards of 300 other 
illustrations. In demy 4to, cloth gilt, 2 vols., 32s. net. 

LONDON: PASSED AND PASSING. A Pictorial Record of 
Destroyed and Threatened Buildings. Containing about 70 
illustrations by Hanslip Fletcher. In demy 4to, handsome 
cloth gilt, £1 Is. net. 

FRANCE OF THE FRENCH. By E. Harrison Barker. In 
imperial 16mo, cloth gilt, gilt top, with 32 full-page plate 
illustrations. 6s. net. 

THE FIRST GEORGE. By Lewis Melville. In two vols., 
demy 8vo, cloth gilt, gilt top. With 18 illustrations, including 
two in photogravure. 24s. net. 

THE LIFE OF SIR ISAAC PITMAN. Inventor of Phonography. 
By Alfred Baker. With about 50 illustrations, portraits, 
and facsimiles. In demy 8vo, cloth gilt, 7s. 6d. 

Ingpen. Containing about 450 letters with 42 illustrations. 
In 2 vols., demy 8vo, cloth gilt, gilt top. 21s. net. 

THE INNER LIFE OF THE NAVY. By Lionel Yexley, Editor 
of The Fleet. With illustrations. In demy 8vo, cloth gilt, 
10s. 6d. net. 

Strachey, Editor of The Spectator. In demy 16mo, cloth 
gilt, 2s. 6d. net ; leather, 3s. 6d. net. 

THE BOOK OF ISAIAH. Translated from a text revised in 
accordance with the results of recent criticism. With Intro- 
ductions, Critical Notes and Explanations, and two Maps. 
By G. H. Box, M.A. Together with a Prefatory Note by 
S. R. Driver, D.D., Litt.D., Canon of Christ Church, and 
Regius Professor of Hebrew, Oxford. In demy 8vo, cloth 
gilt, 7s. 6d. net. 

Edition. With a Preface by the Rev. Father G. Tyrrell. 
In crown 8vo, cloth gilt, 3s. 6d. 

THE DOWNGRADE OF DISSENT. By a Nonconformist Minister. 
In crown 8vo, cloth gilt, 3s. 6d. net. 

For the Publishers' complete list of Literary, Business, and 
Educational announcements write to No. 1 Amen Corner, E.C., 
for a copy of their Autumn List. 



A Study of Clough, Arnold, Rossetti 
and Morris 


{Author of " Tennyson : His Art and Relation to Modern Life" 
and " The Poetry of Robert Browning") 
In demy 8vo, cloth gilt, 6s. net. 

" The book is a brilliant and remarkable study. The present 
volume by virtue of its moral insight, the range and depth of 
its appreciation, its noble and eloquent candour, and, above all, 
its swift and exact insight into the distinctive qualities of four 
poets of real significance, is worthy — and we can give it no higher 
praise — to stand side by side with the aids to interpretation 
from the same vivid and picturesque pens of the vanished 
masters who gave us, in the one case, ' In Memoriam,' and 
' Idylls of the King,' and, in the other, ' The Ring and the 
Book ' and ' Dramatic Lyrics.' " — Standard. 

Servia and the Servians 


Late Minister to the Court of St. James's. 

In demy 8vo, cloth gilt, 16s. net. With sixteen illustrations. 

" Not only are the Servians presented to us in a most attrac- 
tive light, but the book itself is very fascinating. Mr. Mijatovich 
arranges his material clearly and consecutively, and writes 
with much enthusiasm and grace. It is excellently produced 
and fully illustrated."— Morning Leader. 

New Zealand Revisited 

Recollections of the Days of My Youth 

By the Rt. Hon. SIR JOHN E. GORST 

In demv 8vo, cloth gilt, gilt top, with sixteen illustrations. 
12s. 6d. net. 

" Full alike of shrewd remarks on the present position of 
things and of reminiscences of the very different times of forty 
years ago." — Western Mail. 



Boswell's Johnson 

Newly Edited with Notes by 

With over 560 illustrations, including twelve 

In two vols., crown 4to, leather, 21s. net ; cloth 18s. net. 

" These sumptuous volumes contain a wealth' of portraits, 
facsimiles, and views of Johnson's England, and especially 
his London, such as no previous edition of the work has 
attempted to show. Our own experience in this matter is 
that, though we have known our ' Boswell ' for the best part of 
a lifetime, we know it a great deal better since we read it in 
the light of these annotated pictures." — Church Times. 

Farmer George 


With 53 illustrations, including two coloured plates 

In two vols., demy 8vo, cloth gilt, gilt top, 24s. net. 

" A splendidly prepared book on George III, dealing especially 
with his domestic life. Mr. Melville has made the book a mine 
of information about George, his family, and his ministers." 
— Dublin Irish Times. 

A Great "Punch" Editor 

Being the Life, Letters, and Diaries of 
Shirley Brooks 


With 8 illustrations and 22 initial letters from 

in one vol., demy 8vo, cloth gilt, gilt top, 18s. net. 

" It is singularly accurate, very full, put together in a most 
workmanlike way, and full of things which to persons of taste 
are delightful and precious. Those who wish to understand 
the literary period of which it treats must read it." — British 



Each in large crown 8vo, cloth richly gilt, gilt top, 
7s. 6d. net. 


Castles and Chateaux of Old Touraine 

And the Loire Country 

With 70 illustrations reproduced from paintings made 
on the spot, and maps, plans, etc. 

" One of the most delightful travel books that we have come 
across for some time." — Country Life. 

Castles and Chateaux of Old Navarre 

And the Basque Provinces 

With 63 illustrations (some in colour), maps, plans, etc 

" The book is well worth reading, not merely as a travel 
handbook, but for its sympathetic, social and historical review 
of a very interesting section of the French people." — Irish 

In the Land of Mosques and Minarets 

With 75 illustrations, in colour and black and 
white, maps, plans, etc 

" A comprehensive account of Morocco, Algiers, and Tunis, 
and of Mussulman government, religion, art, culture, and 
French influence. Picturesquely illustrated."— Times. 

" The drawings and pictures reproduce the character of the 
people and the scenery with exceptional accuracy."— Onlooker. 



A Record and Review 

By the Rev. A. LESLIE LILLEY, M.A. 

In demy 8vo, cloth gilt, 6s. net. 
" This book will be invaluable. From its pages can be gained 
a clear and truthful account of the ideas of the men who have 
brought about the present crisis. Mr. Lilley is admirably 
suited, both by knowledge and sympathy to be the medium 
through which the modernist position may be made known to 
the English public." — Church Times. 

The Gospel and the Church 


Translated by Christopher Home 


With a Prefatory Memoir by the Rev. Geo. Tyrrell. 

In crown 8vo, cloth gilt, 3s. 6d. 

It is believed that in view of the large attention which the 

Modernist movement is receiving a new edition of the Abbe 

Loisy's remarkable book would be welcome. Perhaps what 

most commends this volume is its great lucidity and simplicity, 

beneath which there is concealed a wealth of thought and 


The Church in Modern England 

A Study of the Place in Christendom 

and the Distinctive Mission to the 

World of the Anglican Communion 

By the Rev. F. CLAUDE KEMPSON, M.B. 

In crown 8vo, cloth gilt, gilt top, 2s. 6d. net. 

" The great merit of the book is that Mr. Kempson neither 

confines himself narrowly to the state of things existing in 

England, nor forgets that in these local conditions, historically 

and actually regarded, is to be found the true statement of the 

problems which he attacks." — Church Times. 

The Future Life and Modern Difficulties 


In crown 8vo, cloth gilt, gilt top, with diagrams, 3s. 6d. net. 

" The author shows the simplest educated reader that there 
is nothing whatever in scientific discoveries to weaken our faith 
in Christianity." — The Record. 



Liberal Theology and the Ground of 

Essays Towards a Conservative Restatement 
of Apologetic 


In crown 8vo, cloth gilt, 3s. 6d. net. 
"His well reasoned book — standing out for fundamental 
truths— endeavours to make plain, not only our faith, but the 
ground of our faith's reasonableness ; and evidences the author's 
command of a clear and agreeable diction with which to expound 
the means of opposing to intellectual doubt a satisfying Christian 
philosophy." — Globe. 

The Religion and Worship of the 

An Introduction to the Study of Judaism 
from the New Testament Period 

By the Rev. W. O. E. OESTERLEY, D.D. 
Rev. G. H. BOX, MA. 

and the 

In demy 8vo, cloth gilt, gilt top, with 8 illustrations, 
10s. 6d. net. 
"It is not often that a large book can be written on a large 
subject in the field of religion, which is so entirely new and fresh 
as this important volume. ... Its novelty and freshness lies 
in its point of view. It is a study of Judaism by Christian 
scholars of the Church of England, written for a Christian public, 
and it is a sympathetic, even a loving study." — Church Times. 

The Evolution of the Messianic Idea 

A Study in Comparative Religion 
By the Rev. W. O. E. OESTERLEY, D.D. 

In crown 8vo, cloth gilt, 3s. 6d. net. 

" Dr. Oesterley's new work deserves the serious consideration 
of students. . . • Is likely to prove very useful to a wide circle 
of readers. It is stimulating, earnest, frank, and full of 
interesting information." — A thenceum. 

" The work is very stimulating and will not only enhance 
the author's reputation but bring much new light to readers of 
the old and the new Testaments." — Primitive Methodist Quarterly 


Henry Beaufort,