« ZurückWeiter »
whom 2000 were Gascons; and John of Gaunt's army, which went across France, from Calais to Bordeaux, in 1373, was composed of 3000 horse and 10,000 archers. See Note LI., infra.
NOTE XLIII.-p. 149.
Dr. Lingard (iii. 362) falls into a great error respecting this negotiation, concerning which we have but little information. He says that Henry demanded the crown in reversion, and the Regency during Charles's life, with the hand of Catherine. He is inisled by a protocol of 1419 being misplaced in Rymer ix. 521. The date and the place, Mantes, should have kept him right. Henry never reached Mantes till after the fall of Rouen, July 1419. The demand in that protocol was never made till the negotiation with Duke Philip after Jean-sans-Peur's death. It is equally clear, from the whole state of the facts, that Henry never could have brought forward such a demand at that time, before he had made any considerable progress in the country. Another proof of this being a mistake is derived from the names of the envoys mentioned in the proposition of the 24th of October, really 1419, but supposed by Lingard to be 1417, and erroneously classed by Rymer under the protocols of that year. It mentions the names only of Gilbert Umfraville and John Boteler, and neither of these persons is among the number of those set forth as the envoys in the introductory part stating the powers ; but Gilbert Umfraville and a Boteler (James, not John) are employed in the negotiation connected with the Treaty of Arras, 1419 (Rym. ix. 517). Lastly, though it is certain that Henry could not be at Mantes on the 24th of October, 1417, it is equally clear that he was there on the 17th and 27th of October, 1419, for we have two instruments of these dates at Mantes (Rym. ix. 806, 808).
Note XLIV.—p. 150. Dr. Lingard (iii. 362) states as an undoubted fact that the expedition was undertaken in consequence of an understanding between the Scotch Cabinet and the Lollards, and he cites as his authority T. Wals., Fordun, and T. Elm. The two latter are wholly silent on the subject of any such understanding. T. Wals. (446) alone asserts that Cobham addressed the Scots with promises of large sums of money, and that he met Douglas at Pontefract. We have already shown the absurdity of this story. T. Liv. is wholly silent on any such charge against the Lollards, much as he hated what he terms their “nefarious superstition" (7). It must be observed, too, that Henry himself had some time before received intimation of an attempt from Scotland, against which he warned those whom he left in charge before he sailed in August 1417. He expressly states that this attempt had been set on foot by the Duke of Orleans, who was then a prisoner of war, and whom he therefore desires to be kept in close custody at Pontefract (Let. of Henry V. apud T. Liv., ed. Hearne, p. 99). It is indeed by no means certain that the Scotch expedition took place before Cobham's death. Fordun's inaccuracy, as well as his contempt of dates, is proverbial. He confounds together the campaigns of 1415 and 1417 (ii. 448). T. Liv. (56) mentions Exeter's return so as to make the Scotch inroad appear later. , Lingard (iii. 362), from being unacquainted with Scotch antiquities, says of the inroad, “It proved a foul raid,” which tells nothing. The fact is, it was called ever after the foul raid,” meaning, the disgraceful incursion. In Hearne's edition of the 'Scotichronicon, it is in a note called “ folle raid,” and Harl. MS. (iv. 1186) is cited.
The Statute Roll is certainly the highest evidence of a statute, except where the actual statute remains in the repositories of Parliament, in which case any question arising on the accuracy of the enrolment must be settled by appeal to the original. Now the Statute Roll exists from 1278 (1 Ed. I.) to 1468 (8 Ed. IV.), with the exception of the statutes from 9 to 24 Henry VI., both inclusive; and it contains the statutes made during those two centuries. The Statute Roll from 8 Ed. IV. to 4 Henry VII. was made up, but it is not extant. After 4 Henry VII. it ceased, and from that time the enrolment in Chancery supplies its place—this enrolment having been begun 1 Ric. III. and continued to the present time.
But that statutes were made in early times which do not appear on the Statute Roll seems undeniable, although it is admitted that the Royal assent given to a petition does not certainly show a statute to have been made. The learned Introduction to the Statutes printed by the Record Commissioners 1810-11 lays this down, and perhaps not too broadly (p. xxxvii.). Nevertheless the Commissioners apply to the Rolls of Parliament as one source from which to find statutes not entered on the Statute Roll (p. xxxix.). It would in any case be a strong thing to reject as a statute a prayer of the Commons formally assented to by the King and the Lords, especially when it is admitted that there hangs great obscurity over the distinction between an Ordinance and a Statute. “Whatever has at any time been written on this sub. ject,” say the Commissioners, “is contradictory and indistinct” (p. xxxii.).
The Rot. Par., extending from Ed. I. to Henry VII., 1278 to 1503, were first printed by the House of Lords, 1767, in six folio vols., but without any index. A copious index, printed in 1832, has now made more accessible that most important repository of our constitutional history, though neither the book nor the index are as correct as might be desired, and the book certainly does not contain all the Rolls extant. A remarkable instance of the omission of a statute clearly made in Parliament, but apparently to be found only in the Rot. Par., is given in a subsequent part of the text (p. 237).
NOTE XLVI.—p. 165. Few things in Henry's history are more discreditable to him than the manner in which he conducted these negotiations. When the French offered a cession of districts of which he had just obtained possession by force, he always urged the objection that these he already held, and these he would keep. Surely it is no invention of modern times, that until the conquests obtained by the sword are ratified by treaty, the temporary possession during war does not permanently confer a rightful title, any more than it gives a permanent security.
But his duplicity, in treating both with the Dauphin and the Burgundian, is worse. While he had any prospect of attaining his object, he never thought of picking holes in the title of either. It was only when his unreasonable demands were refused that he bethought him of that resource, and he did so with respect to both. At Alençon the conference had gone on for about a fortnight; and the objection which, if it meant anything, went to deny the right of the Dauphin to treat at all, was never even alluded to till the day before the conference broke up, when the negotiation was at an end.
There is some mystery in the part borne by two persons named Severac and Guitard at Alençon. They were none of the French envoys, yet they appear to have been in communication with them, though fully more in connection with the English embassy. It was they who told the English envoys that the Dauphin had secretly instructed his representatives to make the offer of Anjou, Touraine, Artois, and Flanders (Rym. ix. 640). Juv. des Urs. (366) manifestly parades his chief's patriotism by suppressing all mention of this instruction, and making the proposal come from
Henry; and so far the protocol bears him out, that the Dauphin's envoys decline it when made. Possibly they set on these two individuals to beguile Henry into granting a truce, on which they seemed much bent, perhaps with a view to the siege of Rouen then going on. The English envoys affirm that they are aware of the Dauphin having given authority to insert a condition in the treaty binding him not to make peace with the Burgundian ; and they add that the Dauphin had entreated Henry to come under a like obligation (Rym. ix. 644). He did give instructions to that effect, of which we have a copy in Rymer (646). They are dated the 14th November. Yet he had, as appears by the letter to him from the French King, written to that prince on the 26th October—that is, to the Burgundian himself—and had granted passports to his envoys 5th November (Id. 632). But it is a signal proof of the perfidy which marked this negotiation, that the general instructions to his envoys who were to treat with the Dauphin are dated the very same day (26th October) with his letter to the Burgundian ; and that in those instructions distinct reference is made to joining the Dauphin with his forces against the Burgundian, part of whose dominions Henry contemplated obtaining (Rym. ix. 630). Juv. des Ursins' silence on the Burgundian's conduct in the negotiation proves that he thought it did him credit as a good Frenchman, and that he had refused dishonourable terms. His Armagnac prejudices appear to have so far biassed him to a suppression of the truth.
NOTE XLVII.—p. 189. The account in the text follows that of Monstrelet rather than the statement of other writers. It is more circumstantial, and, except in one particular, seems quite consistent with probability. That particular is the representing so much urgency on the part of the Dauphin's adherents, and the reluctance of the Burgundian, after a considerable time, to go to Montereau, intimating a sus