[Footnote 311: See Sloane, p. 27. King's, p. 11, b.

The same gap between "nominati" and "fratris," &c.]

[Footnote 312: The volume in the King's Library is made up of a great variety of doc.u.ments independent of that history and of each other.]

The Sloane MS. 1776,[313] appears to consist of four portions, though the same hand copied the whole.

[Footnote 313: The Sloane MS. is a.s.signed in the Catalogue to Higden. By Sir H. Ellis, it is attributed, though not correctly, to a Chaplain of Henry V; a small portion only having been the work of that eye-witness of the field of Agincourt. By Mr. Sharon Turner, it is attributed, without a shadow of reason, to Walsingham. Mr. Turner, however, has, though in a very inadequate manner, attempted in one part of his new edition to rectify the error, leaving it altogether unacknowledged where the correction is most needed, in the pa.s.sage where he grounds upon its testimony his severe charge against Henry's character. See Turner, third ed. vol. ii. p. 373 and p. 398.]

The first portion extends from the commencement to page 40.

The second from page 40 to the end of the account of Henry IV. at page 49.

The third from the commencement of the reign of Henry V. page 50, to his second expedition to France, mentioned in page 72.

The fourth from that point to the end, at page 94, b.

1. The first portion embraces that part of the reigns of Richard II.

and Henry IV. which falls within the range of the chronicle of the Monk of Evesham; ending with an account of the marriage of Edmund Mortimer with a daughter of Owyn Glyndowr, and two cases of sacrilege.

2. The second carries on the history of Henry IV. to the beginning of his thirteenth year, and contains the pa.s.sage which charges Henry V.

with the unfilial attempt to supplant his father on the throne. These first two parts must be examined together, and in detail; the last (p. 427) two will require only a few remarks, and may then be dismissed.

That the history which commences at p. 50 of the Sloane MS. was the work of an ecclesiastic who attended Henry V. in his first expedition to France, is made evident at a much earlier point of the narrative than the translation of it by Sir Harris Nicolas, in the Appendix to his "Battle of Agincourt," would enable us to infer. The pa.s.sage "After having pa.s.sed the Isle of Wight, swans were seen," should have been rendered, "After _we_ left the sh.o.r.es of the Isle of Wight behind, swans appeared." The writer was at the battle of Agincourt, stationed with the baggage, and with his clerical a.s.sociates praying for G.o.d's mercy to spare themselves and their countrymen.

That he was not the same person who wrote the history of Richard II.

and Henry IV, now found in the same fasciculus, seems to be placed beyond doubt; his style is very different, and his tone of sentiment directly at variance with what is found in the preceding portion. He is a devoted admirer of Henry V, a characteristic which no one will ascribe to the writer of the preceding page.[314]

[Footnote 314: In p. 48, b, the writer speaks of "Sir John Oldcastle, Lord Cobham," being sent as a military commander to aid the Duke of Burgundy. In p. 50 the same person is spoken of as Johannes _de Veteri Castro_. In the former parts the word used for the _enemy_ is "_aemuli_;" the Chaplain employs "_adversarii_."]

This writer had composed his history before the year 1418; for of Sir John Oldcastle he says, "that he broke prison after his condemnation, and lurked in caves and hiding-places, _and is still lurking_."[315]

This portion of the MS. offers evidence in almost every page that its author was an eye-witness of what he describes. Probably no (p. 428) doubt will be entertained that it is the genuine production of an ecclesiastic in attendance on the King. But his work evidently ceases at page 72, where he offers a prayer that the Almighty "would give good success to his master, then going on his second expedition, and grant him victory as he had twice before; and fill him with the spirit of wisdom, and heavenly strength, and holy fear."

[Footnote 315: Lat.i.tavit et lat.i.tat.]

After the close of the Chaplain's narrative, the MS. loses almost all its interest: it carries on the history through the first years of the reign of Henry VI, and is evidently only part of what the volume once contained.[316]

[Footnote 316: From this point the ma.n.u.script proceeds, in the very words of Elmham, to describe Henry's second expedition.]

The two former portions of the volume now claim our careful examination; and, of these two, especially the second.

It has been already intimated, that the first part of the MS. contains that portion of the history of Richard II. and Henry IV. which is embraced by the memoirs of the Monk of Evesham. A careful examination of both, and a comparison of each with the other, have induced the Author to conclude (with what degree of probability he must leave others to decide) that the writer had the work of the Monk before him, and copied from it very largely, but made such alterations as we should expect to find made by a _foreigner_, and one whose feelings were _opposed to the Lancastrian party_; a supporter rather of the cause of Richard, and the French, and the other enemies of Bolinbroke's house. The Monk's work bears every mark of being the genuine production of one who witnessed Henry IV.'s expeditions to Wales, and who was in all his sentiments and prejudices an Englishman and a Lancastrian. The Author fears he may be considered too minute and tedious on this point; but, since the circ.u.mstance of the (p. 429) writer of the ma.n.u.script bear immediately upon the authenticity of the charge, he trusts he shall be excused a detail which, except for that consideration, would be superfluous.

1. They both record the execution of a Welshman, who preferred death to treachery. The Monk adds this comment: "_We English_ too [possumus et _nos Angli_] may derive an example here; to preserve our fidelity, &c. even to death." The MS. thus expresses its comment: "_All English servants_ may contemplate an example of fidelity towards their own masters from the conduct of that Welshman."

2. Thus too, in mentioning the introduction of the fashion into England of wearing long sleeves like a _bagpipe_, the two MSS. of the Monk most clearly write "Bagpipe." Of the MSS. in question, the Sloane writes Bagebyte, the Reg. "Babepipae;"--evidently the writer in neither case knowing the meaning of the English word which he attempted so unsuccessfully to copy.

3. In relating the capture of Lord Grey, the Monk adds, "which we grieve to say." The MS., without any such, expression of sympathy or sorrow, says that "he fell into the snare which he had prepared for others."[317]

[Footnote 317: In the MS. the word is "lac.u.m,"

probably a mistake for "laqueum."]

4. The Monk merely records the return of Isabel to France; the MS.

reflects strongly on her return _without her dower_, and her feelings of repugnance against receiving any boon from Henry, whom she regarded as _Richard's enemy_.

5. Speaking of the battle of Homildon, the Monk says, "Of _our countrymen_ only five were slain;" and adds, "We praise thee, O G.o.d, because thou hast been mindful of us." The MS. says, "_And of the English_ scarcely five were slain;" but adds no word of praise.

6. The Monk says, "From this time Owyn's cause seemed to grow (p. 430) and prosper, _ours_ to decrease." This is omitted in the MS.

7. Whereas the Monk (describing the character of Richard in the very words--and many are unusual words--adopted by the MS.) records that Richard was in the habit of sitting throughout the night till the morning in drinking, and "other occupations not to be named:" the MS.

omits the latter phrase. The Monk says there were _two_ points of excellence in Richard's character; the MS., though confining itself to the two specified by the Monk, calls them "very many," "_plura_."

8. In recording the commencement of Owyn Glyndowr's rebellion, the Monk, speaking of it as "an execrable revolt," says that the Welsh elected Owyn against the principles of peace [contra pacem elegerunt].

The MS. says that the Welsh elected a respectable and venerable gentleman to be their leader and prince.

Our attention is now especially called to some points in which the MS.

seems to be so full of historical mistakes and improbabilities as to render any statement of a fact, especially of an improbable fact, not supported by other evidence, suspicious.[318]

[Footnote 318: The Author on the whole is rather disposed to think that, whilst the Monk records accurately what fell within his own knowledge, both he and the author of the Sloane MS. in this part borrowed from some common doc.u.ment, probably more than one; for in some points they vary from each other in a way best reconciled by that supposition.

Thus, whilst the Sloane MS. tells us that Richard II. on his landing came to a place _called Cardech_, from which he started for Conway, the Monk (not differing from him in other points) says that he came to the castle of Hertlowli. They both have fallen into the error of making the Earl of Salisbury accompany Richard, whereas he had undoubtedly been sent on before from Dublin to Conway. They are both equally wrong about the relative positions of Flint and Conway, and make the parties all cross and recross _the bridge_ at the castle of Conway, where a n.o.ble suspension bridge is now thrown over the arm of the sea. After the period, however, at which the Monk's narrative closes, the writer of the ma.n.u.script seems to be seldom free from error.]

1. Froissart (who appears to be well acquainted with the (p. 431) proceedings of Bolinbroke till he left the coast of France, but to have been altogether mistaken as to his proceedings from that hour,) states, with the greatest probability, that Bolinbroke left Paris under plea of visiting his friend the Duke of Brittany, and having been well received and a.s.sisted by him, set sail from some port of Brittany [intimating that his embarkation was (as was natural) carried on in secret, for he "_had only been informed_" that it was from Vennes].[319] The MS., on the contrary, with the greatest improbability, roundly a.s.serts that Bolinbroke went to Calais, obtained money from the treasurer, though against his will, and seized all the ships which he could find in the port. The improbability that Bolinbroke should have excited the suspicions of the authorities of Calais not in his interest, from which a single boat in a few hours could have carried the news of his hostile attempts to Richard's friends in England, and the absurdity of making him seize all the ships in the port of Calais to carry over his handful of friends, can impress the reader with no favourable idea of this writer's accuracy.

[Footnote 319: The Monk of Evesham makes no mention of Bolinbroke's proceedings before he landed in England.]

2. No fact is more undeniably certain than that Henry IV. made his eldest son (our Henry V.) Prince of Wales and Duke of Cornwall in the parliament held immediately upon his accession; whereas the MS.

declares that Henry V. was so created in the year of the Emperor of Constantinople's visit to England, and in the parliament which (p. 432) began at the feast of St. Hilary, during which Sautre was burned for a heretic;--that is, a year and a quarter later.

3. The MS. account of Hotspur's rebellion is quite inconsistent with facts, and altogether, in other respects, as improbable as it is singular. The MS. says that Hotspur,[320] about Candlemas, was commissioned to go against the Welsh rebels; but when he reached the country with his forces, and found it to be mountainous, and fit neither for horse nor infantry, he made a truce with Owyn, and went to London to take the King's pleasure upon it. The reception he met with at court drove him to his own country; and the King, as soon as he heard of Percy gathering his people, collected those whom he believed to be faithful to him, and hastened to meet him near Shrewsbury.

Whereas the fact is, that Henry Percy had been resident as Chief Justice in North Wales, Constable of Caernarvon, &c. at least three years; had besieged Conway with his own men; had routed the rebels at Cader Idris, and most zealously persevered in his attempts to suppress the rebellion; and had returned from the Princ.i.p.ality at least a year and a half before the Candlemas (1403), at which the MS. says that he was first commissioned to go there.

[Footnote 320: This account of Hotspur's mission to Wales is the first circ.u.mstance mentioned by the ma.n.u.script after the chronicle of the Monk of Evesham ends.]

The next point to which the attention of the reader is solicited will perhaps be considered by many to involve a greater improbability than the Author may himself attach to it. Every one who has ever read, or heard, or written about the "Tripart.i.te Indenture of Division" made between Glyndowr, Mortimer, and Northumberland, fixes it, as (p. 433) Shakspeare does, before the battle of Shrewsbury.[321] The scene in the house of the Archdeacon of Bangor is too exquisite for any one to desire it to be proved a fable. But (as the Author believes) this MS.

is the only doc.u.ment extant which professes to record the words of that treaty; and yet this doc.u.ment fixes it to a date long after the Percies lost that "sorry field." It is represented to have been made in the February of the year of Pope Innocent's election: if before that election, it was made in 1404; if after it, in 1405. And certainly the tradition is general that Northumberland, after his flight to Scotland, visited Wales.

[Footnote 321: The Sloane MS. says that it was on the 28th day of February; the King's MS. a.s.signs it to the 18th.]

Another point deserving consideration is the account of the conspiracy of Mowbray and the Archbishop of York. That account is drawn up in a manner most unfavourable to Henry IV. The MS. boldly also records the miracle wrought in the field of the Archbishop's execution, and states that various miracles attracted mult.i.tudes to his tomb daily. It also affirms that, on the very day and hour of the Archbishop's execution, Henry IV. was struck with the leprosy.[322]

[Footnote 322: There are similar statements in Maydstone, Ang. Sac. vii. 371.]

Perhaps too it may appear strange to others, as the Author confesses it has appeared to himself, that, up to the very last chapter of this history of Richard II. and Henry IV, no mention whatever is made of Henry of Monmouth, except in the unaccountable anachronism of his creation as Prince of Wales. It is curious that an historian should state that the young Duke of Gloucester was sent for from Ireland, and not allude to the circ.u.mstance of the Prince being in prison with him, and being sent for back at the same time.[323]

[Footnote 323: The MS. and Monk here agree.]

We are now arrived at the very last chapter, the chapter (p. 434) containing the charge on which Henry of Monmouth's character has been so severely, and, if that charge be true, so justly arraigned. The chapter professes to record the transactions of the thirteenth year of Henry IV. The question is one of such essential importance as far as Henry's good name is at stake, and (as the Author cannot but think) in point too of the philosophy of history, involving principles of such deep interest to the genuine pursuer of truth, that he would not feel himself justified were he to abstain from transcribing the whole chapter.