1415: Henry V's Year of Glory (49 page)

The new diplomats were more successful: John the Fearless swore the oath today at Rouvres. Of course, it was not a plain capitulation: discussions had been in progress at Dijon throughout June and July, and there were a number of contingent clauses and subtexts. John agreed to forgive the dauphin on certain conditions. He promised to make peace with the duke of Bar, following the duke’s rescue of the envoys of France whom John had kidnapped on their way back from Constance. He instructed his envoys to protest against those who asserted that he had an agreement to help the king of England – technically his agreement was not to hinder Henry – and to state that he was ready to march against the English as soon as he was commanded to do so.

The reason for this change of tone was partly because of the shift of opinion made against him at Constance – and there was only so
much John could achieve by bribing cardinals. He wanted the French government to put pressure on the University of Paris, forcing them to discuss Jean Petit’s
Justification
anew and to clear it of heresy, thereby undermining Dr Gerson’s case. He also wanted all his Cabochien supporters pardoned, including the five hundred previously excluded. The dauphin had no option but to agree that the duke’s demands would be met in full. Just in case the dauphin reneged on his promise, the wily John made his oath conditional on the implementation of all his terms.
⁸⁴

Wednesday 31st

The earl of March was due to ride to Cranbury today to meet the earl of Cambridge, Sir Thomas Gray and Sir Walter Lucy. But when he set out from Hamble in the Hook, he turned a different way: he went to see Henry at Portchester Castle. There he betrayed the conspirators who would have fought to make him king, telling Henry everything he knew.

It must have been a tremendous shock. Henry believed he was performing God’s work. And yet these men – unimportant in God’s eyes, as far as Henry could see – could take it into their heads to rise against his great mission and his divine status.

The implications were even more horrifying. He did not know how many other men were involved. It would have been reasonable to think that all those who stood to benefit from March’s accession would have supported him. That would have included Edward Courtenay, the heir to the earldom of Devon, and Lord Camoys, who was married to the earl’s aunt. It would have included various members of the Holland family – some of whom not only wanted revenge for the Epiphany Rising but also were related to the earl of March through his mother, Eleanor Holland. Then there were the relations of the other plotters: Lord Clifford, Lord Percy, Sir John Gray, Lady Despenser and maybe even the duke of York. What did the duke know about his brother’s plot?

As for Lord Scrope – how could he have known about this plot and not said anything? Scrope had been in Wales with Henry; he had served him and his father loyally for well over a decade. He was a member
of the privy council, and one of the trustees of Henry’s estates. The chronicler Monstrelet asserted that Scrope ‘slept every night with the king’.
⁸⁵
It was like Oldcastle’s rebellion all over again – a trusted friend had betrayed him and sought his death. Thomas Walsingham’s
Chronica Maiora
, made it clear how this betrayal was perceived by contemporaries. Being so close to the king, and so important, Scrope was presumed to have been the leader of the conspiracy; and being so often in France, it was presumed that he must have been bribed by the French. Walsingham describes him as ‘the first and chief’ plotter, and a man

in whose faith and constancy the king had trusted his whole heart … He was so much esteemed by the king that when the latter held public or private deliberations, the discussion was decided by his advice. He pretended, moreover, such gravity of demeanour, such modesty in his bearing, so much religious zeal, that whatever he said the king decided it must be done, as if he were an oracle descended from Heaven. If a solemn embassy had to be sent to France, the king thought that it should be carried out by the ability and person of Henry Scrope. But he entered into negotiations with the enemy, as a hidden foe to his lord the king, whom he soothed with false assurances.
⁸⁶

From this distance in time, and with the original records available to us, we can see that Scrope had not had any dealings with the French other than his official diplomatic ones, and was not part of the conspiracy at all. As we have seen in his will, written only a month earlier, he did not just pretend to be religious, he was deeply devout. His absence at several key meetings – most notably that at Hamble in the Hook on the 29th – shows that he was not a leader of the plot. From the evidence we have it is clear that he was inveigling himself with the conspirators in order to learn when and where they were planning to strike, just as the duke of York had done in 1400. As Scrope himself put it, if he had ‘heard a grounded purpose’, he himself would have come to tell the king.
⁸⁷

Henry ordered the conspirators to come to him at Portchester Castle; the guards who carried this message to Cranbury no doubt were instructed to accompany them. Scrope was also located and asked to speak to the king. He came that evening, possibly of his own
volition, although other members of his household were later arrested.
⁸⁸
He told the king everything he knew, naming all those whom he believed would have joined the conspiracy, including several Lollards. Henry sent an urgent message to the mayor of London warning him of the danger and urging him to keep the city safe, perhaps alarmed by the Lollard link.
⁸⁹
He also issued a commission to make enquiries into the plot, to find out who was implicated and what they hoped to achieve. The commissioners were four earls, four barons and two royal justices. They were collectively to report on 2 August, having enquired into

all kinds of treasons, felonies, conspiracies and confederacies committed or perpetrated in the aforesaid county by whomsoever and in any way, and to hear and determine the same treasons, felonies, conspiracies and confederacies according to the law and custom of our realm of England.
⁹⁰

It is difficult to appreciate what emotions the king must have experienced over the course of this one day. Any apprehension or sense of divine commitment arising from his confidence that he would be sailing on the following day must have been dashed against the shock of the conspiracy; and of course the consequent feelings must have been mixed with further frustration that he was going to have to postpone the expedition yet again. And now, with an enquiry underway and several treason trials to be held, he could not say when he would be able to set out.

August

Thursday 1st: the Feast of St Peter ad Vincula

THE FEAST OF
St Peter ad Vincula – St Peter in Chains – was also known as Lammas Day, or the day on which the ‘loaf mass’ was celebrated. It was the formal beginning of autumn, and with it the start of the season of harvesting and agricultural celebrations. Whole families – old and young alike – took themselves into the fields to reap the corn. Peasants working for manorial lords could look forward to three months of better food: white bread rather than rye, roast meat and fresh ale. Girls working in the fields were singled out for their prettiness and crowned as harvest queens by their fellow workers. Across the country, merchants and traders began packing up their wagons and carts to attend the many fairs that took place over the subsequent three months. People had a chance to buy rarer and more exotic things, such as dyes, silks, spices and perfumes. The fairs also gave market traders the opportunity to sell goods such as wool and hides in bulk to exporting wholesalers.
¹

At Southampton, the celebrations of the season were of little importance to Henry. Whereas the invasion had previously dominated his waking hours, now he had to cope with the reality of betrayal. According to the earl of March and Lord Scrope, the conspirators had discussed proclaiming the earl of March king today – the very day on which Henry hoped to set sail. It was the anniversary of the death of the late duke of York, the supposed father of the earl of Cambridge, and the man whom Richard II had designated as the heir to the throne.
²
Was that the reason for the conspirators’ timing? Was this a Yorkist plot? Did Lord Scrope really want to stop the invasion? So many doubts and questions must have pained Henry
as he went about his business. And all he could do was wait for the findings of the inquiry.

Lord Scrope was probably the first person to be interrogated by the commissioners. A lengthy letter of confession was drawn up and presented on his behalf. After a humble preamble in which he acknowledged that his life lay in Henry’s hands, he implored the king to show mercy, on the grounds that he had never offended him in any way before, nor ever would again, and because, he said, Henry had shown mercy ‘so abundantly’ to every man in the realm. Following this he reiterated in great detail the whole process by which he had come to hear of the plot, putting into writing what he had verbally communicated to Henry at Portchester Castle the previous night. He mentioned his first conversation with Walter Lucy about the earl of March, and gave a day-by-day account of his communications with the plotters from the time of his meeting Sir Thomas Gray on the morning of 21 July. He was quite candid about how he had advised them – of how they should be lost whatever course of action they took against the king. Repeatedly he had told the earl of March and Walter Lucy what folly it would be to follow the earl of Cambridge. According to his account, after the 25th the plotters had had nothing more to do with him; he did not even know about the meeting at Cranbury. He ended his testimony stating that if he had heard ‘a grounded purpose’ or plan connected with the plot, he would have come straight to Henry and declared all he knew to him; but the earl of March had beaten him to it. He ended by repeating that not telling Henry sooner was ‘the first trespass that ever I fell [into]’ and he prayed ‘to all my lords’ that they should be merciful on him, clearly indicating that he expected to be judged by his peers.
³

The earl of Cambridge was probably also interviewed by the commissioners today. In the first and most badly damaged of his three surviving letters, he confessed to his plan of taking the earl of March into Wales. He also confessed to his plan to exchange the earl of Fife for the fake Richard II and Henry Percy – and mentioned Sir Robert Umphraville, Sir John Widdrington and Sir Thomas Gray as being complicit – although he was keen to point out that Lord Scrope knew nothing of this part of the plot. He added that Davy Howell had offered to hand over castles in Wales to the plotters if there was a rising in the north. Unfortunately much of this letter is lost, and so it is difficult to tell the
full extent of information that it originally contained; but a revised version was drawn up, perhaps by the earl himself, which included further incriminating details.
⁴
For example, he claimed that Scrope had approved of the plan to take the earl of March into Wales, and that he (the earl of Cambridge) had had the form of proclamation drawn up in which Henry V was referred to as ‘Harry of Lancaster, usurper of England’. Interestingly, Cambridge actively tried to remove any blame being attached to certain other people. He did not try to implicate the earl of March, nor Walter Lucy. Twice he asserted that Scrope was ignorant of certain aspects of the plot. He did name other people who might have helped them, such as Sir John Heron, but he stated that he only heard this from Sir Thomas Gray.
⁵

In view of the circumstances it is unlikely that Henry had much to do with the routine business of government conducted by the officers at Southampton today. A charter confirming Queen Joan’s estates was drawn up for her security during the king’s absence. Thomas More, a long-standing Lancastrian officer, was granted a licence to alienate land so he could endow a perpetual chantry for Masses to be sung for his soul. And John Grawe, a royal bailiff of Kirkton in Lindsey, was pardoned for non-production of 78s of the king’s rent, which had been taken from him by highwaymen.
⁶

Friday 2nd

Sir Thomas Gray was led before the commissioners to be interviewed. His was by far the fullest and most damning of all the confessions drawn up. The surviving portion is badly fragmented but even what survives shows that he was ready to reveal all – even down to the wavering between the various strategies. He stated that he had heard from the earl of Cambridge that Sir Robert Umphraville, Sir John Widdrington and Lord Clifford were involved, and he confessed that he had personally spoken with Walter Lucy about the possibility of putting the earl of March on the throne. He repeatedly stressed that the earl of March was assenting to the plot, right up to the end; and stated this as a matter of personal knowledge, not just hearsay. He even suggested that the earl of Arundel was assenting to the idea, as well as Lord Scrope; but otherwise his only line of accusation against
Scrope was to suggest that he (Scrope) had said that it was ‘best to break the voyage’. As for the meetings that took place, these all correlate with Scrope’s own testimony.

Following the extraction of these confessions, the trials could take place. Twelve Hampshire men, selected from an empanelled total of thirty-six, were appointed to the jury. In the castle of Southampton, in the king’s presence, they listened to the cases against each man. The constable of the castle, Sir John Popham, led the accused from the dungeon and into the hall where the jury was sitting. The charge was read out – that all three accused men had