and disordinately spent by religious and other spiritual persons, should be seized into the king's hands, since the same might suffice to maintain, to the honour of the king and defence of the realm, 15 earls, 1500 knights, 6200 esquires, and 100 almshouses for relief only of the poor, impotent, and needy persons, and the king to have clearly to his coffers 20,000l., with many other provisions and values of religious houses which I pass over. This bill was much noted, and was feared among the religious sort, whom surely it touched very near, and therefore, to find remedy against it, they determined to essay all ways to put by and overthrow this bill; wherein they thought best to try if they might move the king's mood with some sharp invention that he should not regard the importunate petitions of the 18.7*

commons.

Then follows Chicheley's speech, which having been paraphrased by Shakspeare, and copied into the "Parliamentary History," passes for genuine, as though it had been reported by Hansard.

The pedigree has puzzled everybody. I find in Betham's genealogical tables (No. 252), that Pepin was descended from Blithild, as stated; but I do not find that Hugh Capet had any ancestress of the name of Lingare, or Charlemain such a daughter. Charles, Duke of Lorraine, had a daughter, Ermengarde, married to the Duke of * Hol., 65.

Namur. I do not know whether Queen Isabel came from her.*

The quotation from Numbers,† is also from Holinshed, and the speeches of Westmoreland and Exeter, but with some variation. Westmoreland was warden of the Scottish marches, and, according to Holinshed, "moved the king to begin first with Scotland." He quoted the old saw, in favour of that course of policy. Exeter replied to him, reversing the proverb, and urging that it was proper to begin with France; "if the king might once compass the conquest of France, Scotland could not long resist . . for where should the Scots learn policy and skill to defend themselves, if they had not their bringing up and training in France."

Shakspeare has, apparently of his own mere motion, put into the mouth of the king a correct historical argument founded upon the invasions of England by the Scots, in the time of Edward III. There is another passage in which Shakspeare has gone beyond the page before him. In Chicheley's energetic exhortation, he says to Henry :

Go, my dread lord, to your great grandsire's tomb From whom you claim; invoke his warlike spirit, And your great uncle's, Edward the Black Prince ;

* See Bosw., 273, 4. † Numb. xxvii. 8. ‡ Hol., 66.

Who on the French ground play'd a tragedy,
Making defeat on the full power of France;
While his most mighty father, on a hill
Stood smiling, to behold the lion's whelp
Forage in blood of French nobility."

It has been observed that this allusion is taken from Holinshed, when speaking of the battle of Crecy.*

The dramatist, however, places his scene at Kenilworth, in which he also copies Holinshed, only throwing together the transactions of that place and Leicester. It is probable that Henry kept his court at Kenilworth during the Leicester parliament, and the older Chronicles, as well as Holinshed, place him there when he received the "merry message" of the Dauphin. Unaccountable as this anecdote is, there is better authority for it, than for the interference of the clergy; for it is mentioned by Otterbourne, Elmham, and others. I know not whether Paris balls (Holinshed's term as well as that of Otterbourne) necessarily imply balls used in tennis, which in fact required great strength and activity; but the context rather points to a sort of ball which is played with by children. Yet some contemporary writers call them

* Hol., 639; Bosw., 272.

+ Misit pilas Parisianas ad ludendum cum pueris; Otterb., 274; and see Nicolas, p. 9.

tennis-balls as Shakspeare does.* The sender of this insulting present is by Otterbourne called Charles; but Charles (afterwards VII.) was not yet the dauphin: the present dauphin was Louis, who died in the lifetime of Charles VI. It is remarkable that this prince, who is supposed to have ridiculed, in this singular method, the youth and trifling character of the King of England, was himself under nineteen years of age, whereas Henry was now twenty-five; aud he was, moreover, according to French historians, a youth of much profaneness and depravity.†

The story is itself improbable; it has been truly observed, that while the King of France made offers to Henry, which were liberal, though not quite equal to his demands, it was not likely that his son should thus exasperate him.‡ I would here observe, that while Shakspeare would apparently have us look upon Henry's claims as perfectly justified, modern historians are apt to treat them as altogether unrighteous, and dictated by an inordinate ambition; and of this opinion, I fear, is Sir Harris Nicolas, who has so ably described the king's warlike achievements. Now it appears to me that though the claim to the crown could not be sustained, Henry had a just cause of war with * See Nicolas, p. 11.

+ Sismondi, xiii., 456; from Des Ursins, 285.

Hume, and Nicolas, 9.

France, from her breach of the treaty of Bretigny; and a just right to demand, at the least, all that had been lost since the renewal of hostilities on the part of France, for the provinces taken from his predecessors had not been ceded by any treaty of peace. England had been wrongfully dispossessed of them, and had never renounced her right to recover them. And in this view, the argument by which it is contended that the right of Edward III. had descended, not to the House of Lancaster, but to the representatives of Lionel, Duke of Clarence, has no weight. The personal claim might be in them; but surely the rights acquired by treaty were in the sovereign of England for the time being.*

The second act brings us to Southampton, the place of Henry's embarkation for France. We are here introduced to the Duke of Bedford, whom we formerly knew as Prince John of Lancaster: and we have now the arrest and condemnation of the Earl of Cambridge,† Lord Scrope,‡ and Sir Tho

* See Tyler, ii., p. 84, &c. He shows that Henry was urged by his people, and that there was by no means an ill opinion of his claims even in foreign countries.

Richard Earl of Cambridge, second son of the Duke of York, with whom we meet in the play of Richard II., and brother to Edward, the Duke of York of this play.

Henry, third Lord Scrope of Masham; nephew of Archbishop Scrope.