[400] Chastellain, 94.

[401] _Cal. of French Rolls_, Rep. 44, App. 635.

[402] For this campaign see Elmham, _Vita_, 312-314; Monstrelet, 512, 513; _Gesta_, 153, 154; Chastellain, 95, 96; Waurin, ii.

398-400.

[403] When Henry first landed in 1424 Chastellain says that Gloucester was governor of Paris. This, of course, is a mistake, for the post was at that time held by Exeter, who, however, joined the army at Mantes. It is possible that this is merely a mistake of date and that Gloucester took Exeter's place, and if this is so, it may be that he went thither straight from the siege of Dreux, and did not take part in Henry's campaign on the Loire. See Chastellain, 79.

[404] After March 27 mention of Gloucester ceases in the French Rolls; _Cal. of French Rolls_, Rep. 44, App. 635.

[405] _Lond. Chron._, 110; _Chron. Henry VI._, 1.

[406] Harleian MS., 2256, f. 197.

[407] Rymer, IV. iv. 50.

[408] Cotton MS., Cleopatra, C. iv. f. 32.

[409] Rymer, IV. iv. 66; see Walsingham, _Hist. Angl._, ii. 342.

[410] Ashmole MS., 1109, ff. 146, 147.

[411] _Gesta_, 159, 160; Livius, 95; Elmham, _Vita_, 333; Chastellain, 112. According to Waurin, ii. 422, and Monstrelet, 530, the regency of England was given to the Duke of Exeter. Waurin also says that the regency of France was to devolve on the Duke of Burgundy, but if he refused, Bedford was to take his place, and this chronicler goes on to say that Bedford only undertook the office after Burgundy's refusal to accept the post.

[412] _Gesta_, 160.

[413] Walsingham, _Hist. Angl._, ii. 344.

[414] Hall, 114.

[415] Ramsay, ii. 78.

[416] Stubbs, iii. 94.

[417] Rymer, IV. ii. 139. By this will Gloucester was left a bed and 100.

[418] _Testamenta Vetusta_, i. 21.

[419] Rymer, IV. iii. 8.

[420] Rymer, IV. iii. 7. Ramsay, i. 246, while allowing that no chronicler gives any reason for the breach between Henry V.

and the Bishop of Winchester, suggests that it may have been due to a possible demand of the latter for some security for the money he had lent to the former. Security had been given on July 18, but there is nothing in this to explain the Chancellor's resignation. At any rate, if these two men could not agree as to this debt, it is obvious that they had no confidence in one another.

[421] Hardyng, 391.

[422] Rymer, IV. iv. 80.

[423] _Lords' Reports_, iii. 856; _Ordinances_, iii. 3.

[424] _Ordinances_, iii. 6; _Rot. Parl._, iv. 169; Rymer, IV. iv.

82.

[425] 'Ad parliamentum illud finiendum et dissolvendum de a.s.sensu concilii nostri plenam commisimus potestatem.' _Ordinances_, iii. 7. Stubbs thinks that it is probable that 'de a.s.sensu concilii nostri' alludes to the last three words, that Gloucester misconstrued the sentence, and that the Council accepted his misconstruction for their own ends (Stubbs, iii.

96, _n._ 3); but judging from their general att.i.tude to Gloucester it seems more likely that the lords intended to put a check on him all along, else why introduce words which had not occurred before? It is more than possible that they wished Gloucester to accept it in the way Stubbs reads it, and at a later date to construe them to their own advantage.

Gloucester's only chance was to try to preclude this possibility. He threw his stake and lost.

[426] Walsingham, _Hist. Angl._, ii. 345.

[427] _Ibid._, ii. 345, 346.

[428] Rymer, IV. iv. 82; _Rot. Parl._, iv. 170.

[429] Hardyng, 390.

[430] Delpit, _Doc. Fr._, No. CCCLXVII. p. 233.

[431] _Rot. Parl._, iv. 171, 172.

[432] _Lords' Reports_, v. 192.

[433] _Rot. Parl._, iv. 326.

[434] _Rot. Parl._, iv. 174; Rymer, IV. iv. 83; _Lords' Reports_, v.

192; Hall, 115; Walsingham, _Hist. Angl._, ii. 346.

[435] _Rot. Parl._, iv. 175.

[436] _Rot. Parl._, iv. 175; _Ordinances_, iii. 15, 16.

[437] _Rot. Parl._, iv. 178.

[438] _Ordinances_, iii. 18.

[439] _Ibid._, iii. 16, 17, 18; _Rot. Parl._, iv. 176.

[440] _Rot. Parl._, iv. 176.

[441] Polydore Vergil, 2.

[442] Hall, 115; Polydore Vergil, 2.

[443] Monstrelet, 533.

[444] _Ibid._, 538; Waurin, iii. 6, 7.

[445] _Beckington Correspondence_, i. 139-143. This doc.u.ment has no date, but it was evidently drawn up early in the reign.

Stubbs, iii. 102, puts it as probably occurring before the Parliament at Leicester in 1426, and points to the last clause for evidence that Gloucester's Hainault expedition was alluded to. On the other hand, this may have been dictated by a presentiment of Gloucester's intentions in Hainault, which became evident soon after the opening of the reign, if not before. Bedford probably wanted to restrain Gloucester, and Gloucester must have desired the support of his powerful brother. There is also ample evidence that Bedford was in the hands of Beaufort in 1426, certainly till after the Parliament of Leicester, and therefore would not at that time ally himself with his brother.