Humphrey Duke of Gloucester Part 22

[600] _Ibid._ iv. 267-274.

[601] _Ordinances_, iii. 169. The date of this gift is May 22, 1425.

[602] See the tone of Bedford's letter to the Pope urging the divorce of Jacqueline from the Duke of Brabant. Stevenson, _Letters and Papers_, ii. 388, 389.

[603] See Ashmole MS., 59, ff. 57-60, where Lydgate voices the universal sympathy for Jacqueline, and also the action of the London women below.

[604] Commonly called Lord Cobham, because both his father and grandfather had been summoned to Parliament, though he himself never was. See Nicolas, _Historic Peerage_, and G. E.

C., _Peerage_, under his name. He is possibly the Reginald Cobham who commanded part of Gloucester's retinue in 1417, and served under him in the Cotentin.

[605] Monstrelet, 571; _Chron. Henry VI._, 7.

[606] Harleian MS., 2256, f. 198vo. Mons had already pet.i.tioned Burgundy to take Jacqueline under his protection, that is, a.s.sume control over her. _Cartulaire_, iv. 465.

[607] Monstrelet says June 13, an obvious mistake. _Cartulaire_, iv.

475.

[608] Monstrelet, 573: Waurin, iii. 182, 183. In a letter written to Jacqueline from Calais, on his homeward journey, he had promised her to return to Hainault speedily. See _Particularites Curieuses_, 112.

[609] Waurin, iii. 183.

[610] Monstrelet, 574; St. Remy, 477.

[611] _Rot. Parl._, iv. 277.

[612] _Ibid._

[613] Monstrelet, 576, describes Burgundy's measures, 'tout en abstinence de sa bouche, comme en prenant peine pour lui mettre en haleine.' See also Waurin, iii. 190; St. Remy, 477.

[614] Monstrelet, 577.

[615] Besides the attempt to settle the dispute by arbitration before the campaign to Hainault which we have already mentioned, Bedford had been in constant communication with his brother, in the hope of bringing the incident to a close.

See Stevenson's _Letters and Papers_, Appendix to Introduction, 1. pp. lx.x.xii and lx.x.xv; Devon, _Issue Roll_, 390.

[616] This Bull was published on May 1 at Rome; _Cartulaire_, iv.

296. Stevenson, _Letters and Papers_, ii. 412-414, gives the date as April 24.

[617] Planche, _Preuves_, IV. pp. lii, liii, Doc.u.ment No. XLVI.

Stevenson, _Letters and Papers_, ii. 412-414, gives the date of this decision as September 24.

[618] Monstrelet, 577; St. Remy, 477. Waurin, iii. 196, says that both dukes were angered at this decision.

[619] Stevenson, _Letters and Papers_, ii. 407-409.

[620] Monstrelet, 577; St. Remy, 480.

[621] Dynter, iii. 465.

[622] Rastell, 258; Waurin, iii. 200-204; Fabyan, 595. Monstrelet, 578, gives the number of men as 500; Pierre de Fenin, 604, gives 1000; and St. Remy, 480, estimates the expedition at 1500 men.

[623] _Ordinances_, iii. 167. The appointment is dated February 26, 1425.

[624] Beaufort himself confessed to this action of his when answering his opponent's charges at the Parliament of Leicester; Cotton MS., Julius, B. ii. ff. 74vo, 75vo; Hall, 131, 132.

[625] _Ordinances_, iii. 174-177.

[626] _Lond. Chron._, 114; Cotton MS., Cleopatra, C. iv. f. 34; Cotton MS., Julius, B. ii. f. 72.

[627] Gregory, 159; Fabyan, 595.

[628] Gregory gives the date as September 29, but this is obviously a mistake, for _Eng. Chron._, 53, and Cotton MS., Vitellius, A. xvi. f. 83, both give October 29. It was the custom at this time to elect the Mayor on the feast of St. Simon and St. Jude (October 28), but falling as it did this year on a Sunday the ceremony was postponed till the Monday. See _Chronicles of London Bridge_, 235. Cf. Harleian MS., 2256, f. 198vo.

[629] Gregory, 159; _Eng. Chron._, 53, 54; Fabyan, 595, 596. See also Monstrelet, 578, and _Chronicles of London Bridge_, 235.

[630] _Short Eng. Chron._, 59. The authorities above cited all emphasise Gloucester's popularity in London. For this, see also _Chron. Henry VI._, 7.

[631] October 31.

[632] _i.e._ battle.

[633] Hall, 130; Fabyan, 596; MSS. of the Duke of Sutherland, _Hist.

MSS. Report_, v. App. p. 213. Cf. Holkham MS., p. 28.

[634] Ramsay, i. 361, a.s.serts that Gloucester was the aggressor.

[635] Ramsay, i. 362, note 3. The suggestion that this was a commendable action, however, originates with the Bishop of Winchester himself. See Cotton MS., Julius, B. ii. f. 80.

[636] This is stated by Ramsay, i. 362, note 1, but he gives no authority for the statement, nor can I find any.

[637] _Ordinances_, iii. 178.

[638] Gregory, 160.

[639] _Ordinances_, iii. 179.

[640] _Ibid._, iii. 197.

[641] _Ibid._, iii. 210.

[642] Gregory, 160; Harleian MS., 2256, f. 200; Hall, 130.

[643] Fabyan, 596.

[644] _Lords' Reports_, iv. 863.

[645] These instructions to the messengers of the Council are to be found in _Ordinances_, iii. 181-187. Cf. Fabyan, 596.

[646] _Rot. Parl._, iv. 296.