Betrayal and Death of King Richard II

The King replied, 'Good uncle,^I what companions do you mean?' My King and the lord,' said the Duke, 'they are your people who have Gloucester. come from Brest, who have faithfully served you, but have been badly paid, and know not what to take to.' And the King said that they should be paid in full; and, in fact, commanded that four good villages near London should be given up to them, that they might there live at his expense until they received their due.² Then replied the Duke of Gloucester very proudly, 'Sire, you ought first to hazard your life in capturing a city from your enemies, by feat of arms or by force, before you think of giving up or selling any city which your ancestors, the Kings of England, have gained or conquered.'³

Note 1. The phrase 'Bel oncle' will perhaps strike the reader. As a proof that nothing more than 'good uncle's meant, we meet at page 20 of the Chronicle with 'Beau Sire Dieu.'

Note 2. The Monk of St. Denys remarks, that the citizens repcatedly complained of these soldiers to the Duke of Gloucester; which so excited his anger, that he feared not to tell the King he ought not to deliver his land to (the mercy of) foreign soldiers; but, after he had restored the cities which his predecessors had so laboriously acquired, he should have taken others from the enemy where they might lodge. (Chronicles, B. xvii. c. 20.)

Note 3. Most of the French chroniclers mention Richard's marriage with the daughter of France, and his restoration of Cherbourg and Brest, as the principal causes of his downfall, (Mezeray, Juvenal des Ursins, and Gaguin, Compendium super Francorum gestibus; Paris,1500. N.B. Gaguin was ambassador to England in 1480. Moréri.) The cession of Anjou and Maine to the father of his consort Margarel was, in like manner, a main cause of the unpopularity of Henry VI.

'The King of the French knew that Brest was a favourite retreat of the English, and an object of their particular solicitude; that they spared no expense to furnish it abundantly with all sorts of necessaries, and that they often sent there arms, victuals, and recruits. They often remarked, By Saint George! the French may curse us, but they will never hurt us here, unless they can starve us out.' (Chroniques du Moine de St. Denys.) Brest and Cherbourg (Cesaris Burgus), with Calais and Bordeaux, were nearly all that remained to the English in 1305 of their ancient possessions in France, and of all their conquests by Edward III. But they were the keys of so many provinces: Calais of Picardy, Cherbourg of Normandy, Brest of Brittany, and Bordeaux of Gascony. (Gaillard, Notices et Extraits des MSS, de la Bibl. du Roi, i. 373.) There is no doubt that they were of the utmost consequence as points from which they might make at will incursions into the neighbouring territory, and as places of retreat; — for instance, the English and Navarrese knights of the garrison of Cherbourg joined the expedition against the city of Nantes in 1381, and returned thence by land to Cherbourg after the failure of the expedition.

The discontent of the people on the restoration of the two fortresses was heightened by the fact that Richard had returned them without having received back an equivalent for the aid the English had made such great sacrifices to give to the Duke of Brittany and the King of Navarre, and more especially as they (the Duke and the King) had been the first to break faith with England. Richard had only received for them a very moderate sum, which was soon spent on his useless indulgences. After the defeat of Richard's forces in 1387 by the Duke of Gloucester and the young Earl of Derby, a letter was found from the French King, in which he mentioned his expectation of being put in possession of Cherbourg and Calais; and, upon the arrival of the Count St. Pol in, 1396, it was rumoured that his object was to treat for the restoration of the latter city, concerning which the Londoners remonstrated formally with the King, who had some difficulty in appeasing them, (Froissart, B, iv. c. 56, and others.) The French nation at this period attached the utmost importance to their regaining possession of Calais.

Eustace Deschamps, a contemporary poet, has a ballad, the burden of every stanza of which is:

'You shall never have peace unless they give back Calais.'

'Paix n' arez jà s'ilz ne rendent Calays.'

(MS. 7219. Bibl. du Roi; published by Crapelet.)

It was on the 27th Oct. 1393 that Richard ordered Robert Whiteney and John Melton to receive the castle and town of Cherbourg from the hands of John Golafre, captain, aud to deliver the same to the procurator of the King of Navarre. (Rot. Franc. 20 Ric. 11.)

[1397] To which the King answered very scornfully, 'What is that you say?" The Duke, his uncle, then repeated what he had before said. Upon which the King was very wroth, and said to the Duke, 'Do you think that I am a merchant or a traitor, that I wish to sell my land? By St. John the Baptist, no, no; but it is a fact that our cousin of Brittany has restored, and well and truly paid us the sum which our ancestors had lent him on the city of Brest; and, since he has honestly paid us, it is only just he should have his pledge back again.' Thus began the quarrel between the King and the Duke of Gloucester. It is true that they parted politely and with civil words, with as they were bound to do; but their distrust was by no means the less because they separated with civil words before the people; and the mistrust continued between the King and the Duke of Gloucester without any more disputes until a short time afterwards; and they continued to give each other a civil reception, but with a bad will, as is too much the case with the Duke and many others of the kingdom of England.¹

Note 1. It appears that from this time the Duke of Gloucester retired to Pleshy and his other manors; which retirement, as Rapin remarks, was the cause of his ruin, inasmuch as his absence gave his enemies every opportunity to prejudice the King's mind against him. The Duke had lately bought the manors of Westcot, Bucks, and Newenham, Gloucester, with parts of the manors of Northamstede, Herts, and of Wetherfells in Essex, of Henry of Lancaster. (Rot. Pat. 20 Ric, II. 6th July.) The Dukes of York and Lancaster, in order that they might not be mixed up with the disputes, also retired to their castles; the latter taking with him his Duchess, who had some time been the companion of the young Queen. Sir Thomas Percy also at this time surrendered his office of Steward of the Household, according to Froissart; but, if he did so, he certainly returned to office, as he was in attendance upon Richard in that capacity in 1399.

Now there was an Abbot¹ at St. Albans, twenty miles distant from London, in England, who was godfather to the Duke of Gloucester, and had held him over the font in baptism after his birth, which took place at Woodstock,² beyond Oxford. There was also a Prior at Westminster,³ near London, who was a great friend of the Duke's, and of the said Abbot of St. Albans. The Abbot of St. Albans, godfather of the said Duke, sent to seek the great Prior of Westminster, and requested him, by message, to come and speak to him without delay,⁴ for that it would be greatly to his interest.

Note 1. John de la Moote, Abbot of St. Albans, succeeded his predecessor Thomas de la Mare, who died September 15th, 1396. (Dugdale, Monasticon.) His predecessor lived to a very advanced age, and, his health having broken down in 1389, he discontinued his attendance upon Parliament. There had been a squabble between him and the Abbot of Westminster for precedence in Parliament. Walsingham mentions sarcastically, that Richard, as he was riding from Daventry to London, in 1883, which journey he accomplished in one night, borrowed the palfrey of the Abbot of St. Albans, in exchange for one of his jaded horses, which he takes care to tell us he never returned. (Hist, Ang. p. 805.) It may be that it was in remembrance of this service, that Richard presented, in 1389, Robert Dyngle, Abbot of St. Albans, (I presume the locum tenens [literally 'holding the place' i.e. locum, stand-in] of Thomas de la Mare,) with a tun of Gascon wine. (Præstita in Wardrobe Accounts.) This little circumstance may explain to us that Walsingham was not likely to have reported any conspiracy in which the Abbot of St. Albans was concerned. I suspect that Robert Dyngle is the party in question in our narrative, as the Monk of Evesham and MS. Reg. 13. c. 1, report the Earl of Warwick to have said to the King, that it was the Abbot of Westminster that then was who, with others, induced him to join in the conspiracy. John de la Moote may not have yet taken possession of the abbacy.

Richard had not been so liberal a contributor us his predecessors to the abbey of St. Albans, Dugdale reports a donation of his of one hundred shillings to the convent and monastery, and fifty pounds towards the repairs of the Tynemouth Gate. (Monasticon, ii. 218.) It was the Abbot of St. Albans who, with the Bishop of Chester and the Abbot of Waltham, were appointed by Henry to perform the last offices to the supposed remains of Richard at Langley. (Walsingham, Ypod. Neust.)

Note 2. The MS. reads 'Howstoc,' and Stow's translation (MS. 6219. Harleian) 'Howstok.'There can be no doubt of the place intended, as the Duke was well known as Thomas of Woodstock, Pierre Salmon, secretary to Charles VI, calls it 'Houdescot, près de la cite Doncsenefort.' (Vie de I'Salmon, par Crapelet, p. 64.) The Editor's name has been frequently written Houliame by the French.

Note 3. 'Brother John Wortyng, Prior of the abbey of Westminster, Brother John Lakynghithe, Bailiff of the same abbey, and Brother Peter Combe, Sacristan, owe the King £21 per annum for the Priory of Folkestone in the hands of the King on account of the war existing between the King and those of France,' (Pipe Rolls, 23 Rich. 1I) After Henry's banishment, Richard gave two of his candelabra and six silver-gilt shields, which were formerly the property of John of Gaunt, to the Abbot and Convent of Westminster, (Pell Issue Rolls, June 30, 1399.)

Note 4. The expressive phrase of one of the Rouen MSS, 'without providing provender-bags for the horses,' will not escape the reader's attention; but perhaps nothing more may be meaut than 'sans faire demoures (demeure),' i.e. 'without delay.'

And when the Prior arrived at St. Albans, he was received at a great feast held at the chambers of the Abbot, where he found the Duke of Gloucester seated at dinner; and the Abbot and Prior scated themselves at the bottom of the Duke's table. After dinner, at the collation, the Abbot began and said to the Prior, 'So may God and St. George aid you! tell us, did you not have last night a vision of anything in the world?' 'Yes,' said the Prior. 'Then tell us now, Prior,' said the Duke, 'the truth of your vision.' Then fell the Prior down upon his knees before the Duke in the presence of the Abbot, and besought the Duke and the prelate that they would pardon him what he was about to tell of his vision, for he would much rather be silent than reveal it. The Abbot said to the Prior, 'Speak out boldly, my lord forgives you.' The Prior then said, 'By St. George, my lords, it was revealed to me last night (forgive me) that the kingdom would be lost by our Lord the King Richard.' Then said the Abbot, 'By the Virgin Mary, the like was revealed to me also, and I will give you, my lord and godson, a reason why I beg that you will not be displeased, because we have told our visions at your request; for you can see how matters go when a king begins to give away his cities, which his ancestors have acquired by war, for gold or silver, as the King our Lord has begun to do; that is to say, that he has restored two fortresses into the hands of his enemies, which were useful and profitable to the kingdom of England; for you very well know that he has restored Brest to the Duke of Brittany, and Cherbourg to the King of Navarre, which were useful and profitable for our kingdom of England in making war'¹ Then answered the Duke to the Abbot and to the Prior that it should be effectually remedied, and that shortly: he afterwards added, 'I beg, between yourselves, that you will not fail to be at Arundel this day fortnight to dinner, and there we will dine together.'

Note 1. It must be confessed that the numerous expeditions and victories of Edward III had engendered not only a spirit of restlessness amongst a great portion of the people of England, but also a desire to enrich themselves with the spoils of their enemies. About the middle of the fourteenth century there was scarcely a female who could be styled a gentlewoman that had not in her house some portion of the spoils of furniture, silk, plate, or jewels, from Caen, Calais, or the cities beyond the sea (Walsingham, Hist. Angl. p. 168); and at the taking of Barfleur so much valuable booty was acquired, that the boys of the army set no value on gowns trimmed with fur. (Froissart.) Probably the following picture, drawn by a native of France at the accession of Charles VI1. is not much over-coloured.

'Violating continually the treaties of peace, they issued from their maritime retreat, from that corner of land at the extremity of the world ; and infesting, now Aquitaine, and now the coasts of France, they forcibly entered the suburbs, taking the inhabitants prisoners, taking away the small and large cattle; and, selling fire to the corn, they burnt alike that which was already harvested, as well as that which was in sheaves in the fields, and that which was still under foot.' (Chronicles of the Monk of St. Denys.)

We read, however, that at an earlier period, towards the close of the ninth century, the Normans had been guilty of the same, or greater, excesses towards the Franks, Such was the terror that they inspired, that the Franks fled at their approach, carrying away with them their treasures. The barbarians discovered their retreats in the forests, in caverns, and even in the mountains of Auvergne ; and the people saw no hope of mercy but from the aid of heaven. We read in the litanies of the times these doleful words: — 'From thunder and lightning, from sudden death, and from the sword of the Normans, Good Lord, deliver us.' (Les Reines de France, par Mlle, A. Telliez.)

[Around 25th July 1397] Afterwards he [Thomas of Woodstock 1st Duke of Gloucester [aged 42]] sent to the Earl Marshal,¹ who was captain of Calais, to the Earl of Warwick, and to the Archbishop of Canterbury [aged 44],² and desired that they would come to Arundel on a certain day; and he also sent to the Earl of Arundel to say that he would come to dine there with him, and that he would bring with him all the other lords. The Earl of Arundel [aged 51] returned him answer, that he would be right welcome, and all the lords it would please him to bring with him in his company. It is true that the Duke of Gloucester arrived at Arundel the eighth day before the month of August in the year thirteen hundred fourscore and sixteen,³ as well as the Earl of Derby, the Earl Marshal, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Abbot of St. Albans, and the Prior of Westminster. As these lords were seated at dinner, there arrived the Earl of Warwick [aged 59];⁴ and when he joined the company of the lords, the Duke of Gloucester said to him, 'My brave man, you must take the same oath as we have taken:' and the Earl replied, 'My lord, what do you wish me to swear?' The Duke said, 'You will swear as we have done, if you please, to be true and faithful to the realm, and also to be true and faithful to each other.'

Note 1. Thomas of Mowbray [aged 29], Earl of Nottingham, the first hereditary Earl Marshal, shortly afterwards created Duke of Norfolk. He was then absent from Calais on furlough. His leave of absence is dated Oct, 3, 1396, extending for one year. The assigned reason is, that he might travel into Picardy for matters relating to the safe custody of the city. (Rymer, Fœdera,) Chastelnin's version calls him 'fustre cappitaine de Calleys.' I have not been able to obtain a satisfactory explanation of this word, The Earl could boast of royal descent by his mother Elizabeth, daughter and heiress of John Lord Segrave by Margaret Plantagenet, daughter and heiress of Thomas de Brotherton, Earl of Norfolk and Marshal of England, youngest son of Edward the First by his second consort, Margaret of France, (Dugdale, Baronage.)

Note 2. Thomas Fitzalan, third son of the Iate Earl of Arundel, he had been Bishop of Ely, and Chancellor, during the prosecution of Richard's favourites. He was afterwards translated to York, and succeeded Archbishop Courtenay in the see of Canterbury in August 1397, according to the Monk of Evesham, but in 1395 according to Spelman, (Concilia).

Note 3. As Brest was not given up till June 1397, this is undoubtedly a wrong date. It should have been August 1397, and I think it very probable that it was so in the original MS. The Monk of St. Denys in his chronicles corrects the error, 'At the head of the factions (anno 1397) was the King's uncle, the Duke of Gloucester, the Earl Arundel, and the Earl Warwick, who, as we have related, conspired the preceding year against the King.' (Chronicles of the Monk of St. Denys, chap. v. b. xviii.) (It must never be forgotten that the year commenced at Easter.) The London Chronicle places Gloucester's arrest on the 21st of July. The conspiracy was revealed before the middle of the month, and probably before the meeting at Arundel; for, on the 13th of July 1397, an order wns made out for the arrest of Gloucester, Arundel, and Warwick, (Rymer, Fœdera.) This order, agreed upon at Windsor, does not appear to have been issued, as a second order was made and published from Westminster on the 28th of the month, (Fœdera.)

Note 4. Thomas, son of Thomas Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick, by Catherine, daughter of Roger Mortemer, first Earl of March. Perhaps the Earl was the more readily induced to join the conspirators, as he would naturally be incensed at the loss of the honour of Gower, recovered at this time by the Earl Marshal. See Otterbourne, Scriptores Veleres, p. 189.

It is true that the Earl Marshal, who was captain of Calais, revealed to King Richard all their counsel, and informed him of the day when they were to begin to put it into execution. And when the King heard the news from the Earl Marshal, who was of their accord and undertaking in appearance, and not in fact; he said to the Earl, 'Take care what you say, for if I find it true, I will pardon you; but if I find it otherwise, assuredly you shall repent it.' To which the Earl Marshal replied, 'If you find it otherwise, let me be quartered and sent to the four ends of England: and be upon your guard, I beseech you.' And shortly after, these very words were plainly declared in open parliament, when the Earl of Arundel was condemned to death. And this matter being thus heard, the King¹ went to dine in London in the house of his brother the Earl of Huntingdon,² in the street behind the church of All Hallows, on the banks of the river Thames, and which was a right fair house.³ After dinner the King made the matter known to his council, who were of accord that the King should mount to horse with his

Note 1. King Richard was then residing at Eltham, where he left his Queen and most of his suite, (Froissart, B, iv. ch, 57.)

Note 2. John of Holand, half-brother to King Richard by his mother Joan, who, before her marriage with the Black Prince, was the widow of Thomas Earl of Kent, He was then Chamberlain of England, and was shortly afterwards created Duke of Exeter. He had married Elizabeth, daughter of John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, and was thus brother-in-law to the Earl Derby. Thomas Earl of Kent, afterwards Duke of Surrey, was his nephew,

Note 3. In the Pipe Rolls, 1 Hen IV, mention is made 'of a cerlain house of John Holand, knight, brother to the King, (which formerly belonged to Michael de la Pole, Earl of Suffolk,) situate in Lumbarde strete, London, which lately came into the King's hands by the judgment of Parliament against the said Michael; which said house the King, on the 7th day of April, in the IIth year of King Richard II, gave to the aforesaid John Holand by inheritance during the King's pleasure, as is mentioned in the IIth of King Richard Il.' This magnificent palace, situate in the parish of All-Hallows the less, was called Cold Harborough, and also Poultney's Inn, by which name it was known in the time of Henry VI, It was so named from Sir John Poultney, four times Lord Mayor of London. The year following, 1398, Edmund Earl of Cambridge (second son of the Duke of York) had this house, and was there lodged. (Stow, B.206. See also the Preface.)

Item, the morrow when the Duke was seated on the throne, where King Richard had been accustomed to sit, he sent one of the dukes to tell a knight, called Sir Baldwin Pigot,¹ to summon the lords of the of Carlisle's favour of council and the commons. It is true that the Bishop of Carlisle, who was of the order of St. Benedict, rose from his seat and demanded leave to speak; which when he had obtained, he said as follows: My lords, consider well before you give judgment upon what my lord the Duke has set forth, for I maintain that there is not one present who is competent and fit to judge such a sovereign as my lord the King whom we have acknowledged our (liege) lord for the space of twenty years and more, and I will give you my reasons; there never was, nor is in this world, any false traitor nor wicked murderer, who, if he be taken prisoner by the hands of justice, is not, at the least, brought before the judge to hear his sentence. My lords, you have well and truly heard the accusations that my lord the Duke has made against King Richard; and it appears to me that you are about to give judgment, and to condemn King Richard, without hearing what he has to answer, or even his being present. Moreover, I say that my lord the Duke has more erred and offended against King Richard, than has the King against him; for we know full well that my lord the Duke was banished ten years by the council of the realm, and by the consent of his own father, for the great crime which he and the Duke of Norfolk committed; and he has returned to the country without the King's permission: and moreover I say he has done still worse, for he has seated himself on the throne, where no lord ought to sit other than the lawfully crowned King of England; wherefore I declare that you ought to bring King Richard in presence of the full Parliament to hear what he has to say, and to see whether he be willing to relinquish his crown to the Duke or not.' Then the Duke of Lancaster commanded that they should lay hands on the Bishop, and convey him to prison to St. Albans.² And, after the Bishop was led away to prison, the Duke demanded sentence upon King Richard: upon which the Recorder of London said, 'My lords, it is ordered by all the prelates, by all the lords of the council, and by the commons of England, that The sentence John of Bordeaux, who has been called Richard King of England, be sentenced and condemned to be imprisoned in a royal castle; that he have the best bread and the best meat that can be found for gold or silver; and, if any should raise war for his deliverance, he should be the first that should suffer death for that attempt.'³ Thus was he falsely sentenced by the said Parliament.

Note 1. Query, Sir Baldwin Freville, who claimed, unsuccessfully, the office of champion in right of the castle of Tamworth. It appears to me that, by the word 'lendemain,' the following day was not strictly intended, as MSS. O and Y read 'lendemain le xiii^e et xiiii^e jour' respectively. It is probable that the Bishop of Carlisle's speech was delivered on Thursday, Oct. 23, when the Earl of Northumberland, by direction of Henry, asked the lords spiritual and temporal, in secret committee, 'what should be done with Richard lately King, saving his life, which King Henry wished: by all means to be held sacred?' The sentence of perpetual imprisonment, agreed upon that day, was confirmed by Henry in Parliament, and by the lords spiritual and temporal, on Monday Oct. 27th. The commons took no part in the sentence. Hall is of this opinion. He remarks, 'When it was demanded by the King's friends what should be done with King Richard, the Bishop of Carlisle, which was a man both well learned and well stomacked, rose up and said,' &c, (Rot. Parl. iii. 426-7.) On the 28th Oct. a warrant was addressed to the Abbot of St. Albans, enjoining him to deliver the person of the Bishop of Carlisle to the hearer, that he might appear the Wednesday following before the King and council. The Bishop had heen before committed to the custody of the Abbot of St. Albans, but was liberated on the 18th of Oct. (Rot, Claus. 1 Hen. IV.)

Note 2. It will be noticed that the Bishop of Carlisle was a Benedictine. If the author of the chronicle was a religieux of St. Denys, which was a Benedictine abbey, this may account in part for his eulogy of the Bishop. The Monk of Evesham remarks, that with difficulty his friends procured permission for his retirement or imprisonment. He speaks of his private character in no flattering terms; and adds, that he and the Bishop of Worcester (Tydeman) were the private companions and principal advisers of King Richard, passing with him the greater part of the night in idleness the year round, 'de quo multi multa loquuntur.' ['about whom many people say many things'] Of the Bishop of Worcester he remarks, that henceforth he renounced his jests and drolleries, devoted himself to his bishopric, and never after was seen at the King's bench, (Vita R. Ric. ed. Hearne, 168.) The Bishop of Carlisle was tried by special commission for communication with the insurgent lords in Jun, 1400, was found guilty, and committed to the Tower on the 10th of the month, (Fœdera.) He was pardoned on the 28th of November, restored to Henry's favour, accepted valuable preferment from him, and was returned a member of the Lower House of Convocation in 1406.

Note 3. Although Rapin states that all historians agree that this sentence was passed, I believe the latter clause is not supported by any other document. The MS, of the Bodleian Library, No. 2376, of part of which Mr, Webb has given a translation (Archaeol. XX. 280) does not mention it, but states expressly that Henry granted Richard his life; whereas the effect of this clause would have been, as Rapin remarks, to pass upon him a sentence of death, granting him his life only upon a contingency over which he could have no controul. It is remarkable that the commons did not join in the sentence against Richard. See Rot. Parl. iii. 426-7.