"who bore hard

His brother's death at Bristol, the Lord Scroop,"

who had been put to death by King Henry.*

But Northumberland did not at this time rise against the king. Shakspeare might have learned from his usual authorities that the earl, whether summoned or "of his own free will," came to the king; some say that Henry "gave him fair words," others that he committed him to safe custody; but all agree that Northumberland was quiet for a time; and in the parliament of 1404 he was restored to most of his dignities. No one of the chroniclers describes what took place in parliament.

"On the 18th of February the Earl of Northumberland came before the king and lords, and there, by his petition to the king, acknowledged to have acted against his allegiance, namely, for gathering of forces and giving liberties, for which he craved pardon; and the rather, for that on the king's letters he yielded himself, and came to the king at York, whereas he might have kept himself away. The king delivered this petition to the judges, to be by them considered; but the lords made protestation against it, and that the ordering thereof belonged to themselves. Accordingly they as peers of parliament, to whom only such judgment belonged, in considering well the statute of the 25 Edw. iii., touching treasons, and the statute of liveries made in this king's time, adjudged the earl's crime to be no treason nor felony, but only a trespass finable to the king. For which judgment the said earl gave great thanks to the king and lords, and at his own request he was sworn to be a true liegeman to the king, to the prince, and to the heirs of his body begotten, and to every of the king's sons and to their issue succeeding to the crown of England according to law: that done, the king pardoned the said earl his fine and ransom. §

This is not the place for legal discussions; but surely this judgment of the lords, that Northumberland's offence did not amount to "levying war against the king," must have been obtained by his influence among his peers, many of whom were probably as ill affected as he was to the king. Probably the judges were superseded, that the law might be strained.

The conspirators are now introduced in deliberation at the palace of the archbishop. Northumberland was still absent, and Bardolph, who appears to have been closely connected with him, and who, in fact, was not concerned in the present outbreak, is properly made doubtful of the prudence of rising without him; but the warlike counsels of the prelate

* See No. ccxi., p. 368, 371; and Bosw., xvi. 229, xvii. 149. Sir H. Nicholas (Scrope and Grosvenor Roll ii. 59, 121, 135) says that the Archbishop was not the brother of Wiltshire, but was a Scrope of Marham. Shakspeare copies Hall; neither Walsingham, nor Hardyng, nor Holinshed, nor Stow, agrees with Hall.

+ Hol., 26, 27. It is not stated how he was deprived of them. See also Hall, 32; and Stow, 329; Tyler, i. 181; Wals., 369; Hard., 362.

There were two, 1 Hen. iv. c.7; and 2 Hen. iv. c. 21; which, for the maintenance of peace, restrained noblemen from giving liveries or badges to knights, esquires, or others.

Parl. Hist., i. 290; which is warranted by the Rolls, iii. 524; in 5 Hen. iv. I was not aware of this case when I wrote a note on the statute of treasons, in Lardner's British Statesmen, v. 203.

Hastings and Mowbray are mentioned by Holinshed. Edward Hastings, of the family of Hastings, Lords Hastings and Earls of Pembroke ; but never, as it is said, summoned as a peer. Banks, i. 338. Thomas Mowbray was son and heir of the banished Norfolk. In 1405 he had been accused of a concern in taking away the son of the Earl of March from Windsor. Hol., 33.

prevailed. I give a part of what Pope calls his "excellent speech," the former part being unfit for insertion.*

66 'What trust is in these times ?

They, that when Richard lived would have him die,
Are now become enamour'd on his grave:
Thou, that threw'st dust upon his goodly head,
When through proud London he came sighing on,
After the admired heels of Bolingbroke,

Cry'st now, O Earth, yield us that king again,
And take thou this! Ŏ thoughts of men accurst!"
Past, and to come, seem best; things present, worst.

And Hastings urged that the king's forces

"Are in three heads; one power against the French,
And one against Glendower."

This is correct; the contest with Wales still went on, and a force was about this time sent to Calais, under Prince Thomas ;† Henry was still at war with the French, who had assisted Owen Glendower.

The scene between Northumberland, his wife,§ and daughter-in-law, is Shakspeare's creature, and of fair proportions. But the earl did now determine, as Shakspeare relates, to return into Scotland; he gave way to the solicitations of the females of his family, and, instead of joining the rebel force, betook himself to Wales. The reasoning of Lady Percy,|| plausible though fallacious, might well have prevailed with one of stouter heart. I will give only her apostrophe to her dead husband.

'By his light

Did all the chivalry of England move

To do brave acts. He was indeed the glass
Wherein the noble youth did dress themselves.
He had no legs, that practised not his gait;

And speaking thick, which nature made his blemish,
Became the accents of the valiant;

For those that could speak low and tardily
Would turn their own perfection to abuse,
To seem like him: so that in speech, in gait,

In diet, in affections of delight,

In military rules, humours of blood,

He was the mark and glass, copy and book,

That fashion'd others. And him-O wondrous him!

O miracle of men!-him did you leave

(Second to none, unseconded by you),
To look upon the hideous god of war

In disadvantage; to abide a field

Where nothing but the sound of Hotspur's name

Did seem defensible.;-so you left him:

Never, O never, do his ghost the wrong,

To hold your honour more precise and nice
With others than with him."

The commentators have noticed a mistake of the poet in styling Prince John Duke of Lancaster. He had not that title until after the accession of Henry the Fifth, Bosw., 44.

+ I know not why Hastings says that he knew not who commanded this force. Act ii. Sc. 3.

This was his second wife, Maude, sister and heir of Anthony Lord Lucy, and widow of Gilbert Umfraville, Earl of Angus. Hotspur's mother was Margaret, daughter of Ralph Lord Neville of Raby, Collins, ii. 265.

October 8th, 1403, after the battle of Shrewsbury, a warrant was issued for the apprehending this lady, on what ground I know not; see Tyler, i. 248.

Of the celebrated address to sleep, Shakspeare has the whole merit. Surrey and Warwick are historical persons, likely to be with the king. The mention of Glendower's death is a mistake taken from Holinshed; he lived till 1415.§

A passage in this scene exhibits Shakspeare's carelessness as to facts and circumstances, even those which he had recorded or invented. In referring to Richard's prediction of Northumberland's defection from Henry, who ascended the throne with his help, the king now says"Though then, Heaven knows, I had no such intent." Malone observes, correctly, that Richard's speech was made after Henry had already accepted the crown.¶

The scene in Gualtree forest,** where the archbishop pitched his rebellious camp, unaccompanied by the irresolute or perfidious Northumberland, is taken from Holinshed.tt Here Westmoreland "subtilely devised how to quail their purpose." His demand of the reason of the armament is put by the poet into appropriate language; for the answer of the archbishop, Shakspeare had not only to draw upon his imagination.

"The archbishop answered that he took nothing in hand against the king's peace, but that whatsoever he did tended rather to advance the peace and quiet of the commonwealth than otherwise; and where he and his company were in arms, it was for fear of the king, to whom he could have no free access, by reason of such a multitude of flatterers as were about him; and, therefore, he maintained that his purpose to be good and profitable, as well for the king himself as for the realm, if men were willing to understand a truth; and, herewith, he showed forth a scroll in which the articles were written, of which you have heard."

Thus paraphrased and enlarged :

"Nor do I, as an enemy to peace,

Troop in the throngs of military men;
But rather show a while like fearful war,

To diet rank minds, sick of happiness,

And purge the obstructions which begin to stop
Our very veins of life. Hear me more plainly.

I have in equal balance justly weigh'd

What wrongs our arms may do, what wrongs we suffer,

And find our griefs heavier than our offences.

We see which way the stream of time doth run,
And are enforced from our most quiet sphere

By the rough torrent of occasion;

And have the summary of all our griefs,

When time shall serve, to show in articles,

Which, long ere this, we offer'd to the king,

And might by no suit gain our audience:

When we are wrong'd, and would unfold our griefs,
We are denied access unto his person,

*Act iii. Sc. 1.

+ Fitzalan, Earl of Arundel and Surrey. Banks, ii. 693.

Richard de Beauchamp; Shakspeare invariably styles him Nevil. (Bosw. iii.) The title afterwards, as we shall see, came to that family by marriage. Banks, iii. 722.

§ See Bosw., xvi. 310; and xvii. 113.

See No. ccxi. p. 376.

¶ See Bosw., lii. Johnson notices another piece of carelessness. Warwick was not present on the occasion; see Richard the Second, Act v. Sc. 2.

** Act iv. Sc. 1.

tt P. 37. See Hall, 34; Stow, 332; Otterb. 254.

Even by those men that most have done us wrong.
The dangers of the days but newly gone,
(Whose memory is written on the earth
With yet appearing blood,) and the examples
Of every minute's instance (present now),
Have put us in these ill-beseeming arms;
Not to break peace, or any branch of it,
But to establish here a peace indeed,
Concurring both in name and quality"

Shakspeare has made a better case for the insurgents than history warrants; for we are told that their complaints were communicated to the nobility, and even "set up in the public streets of the city of York; but not that they were offered to the king, or that the insurrection was occasioned by the rejection or neglect of them.

*

The articles themselves were not seen by Shakspeare, for they are not in any book to which he resorted; nor are they in the older chronicles upon which those books were founded. It is, therefore, unnecessary to say more of them than that they set forth the deposition and murder of Richard+ by Henry, and the new king's oppression of clergy and people. This document, in fact, raised a mortal quarrel, not susceptible of settlement at a peaceful audience.

Shakspeare, however, has still the authority of Holinshed for Westmoreland's mode of putting down the insurrection.

"When he had read the articles, he showed in word and countenance outwardly that he liked of the archbishop's holy and virtuous intent and purpose, promising that he and his would prosecute the same in assisting the archbishop, who, rejoicing thereat, gave credit to the earl, and persuaded the earl marshal (against his will, as it were) to go with him to a place appointed for them to commune together. Here, when they were met with a like number on either part, the articles were read over, and, without any more ado, the Earl of Westmoreland, and those that were with him, agreed to do their best to see that a reformation might be had according to the same. The Earl of Westmoreland, using more policy than the rest, Well,' said he, then our travail is come to the wished end, and where our people have been long in armour, let them depart home to their wonted trades and occupations; in the mean time, let us drink together in sign of agreement, that the people on both sides may see it, and know that it is true that we have light upon a point.' They had no sooner shaken hands together, but that a knight was sent straightways from the archbishop, to bring word to the people that there was peace concluded, commanding each man to lay aside his arms, and to resort home to their houses. The people, beholding such tokens of peace as shaking of hands and drinking together of the lords in loving manner, they being already wearied with the unaccustomed travel of war, brake up their field, and returned homewards; but, in the mean time, whilst the people of the archbishop's side withdrew away, the number of the contrary part increased, according to order given by the Earl of Westmoreland, and yet the archbishop perceived not that he was deceived, until the Earl of Westmoreland arrested both him and the earl marshal, with divers others."

Lingard doubts whether the archbishop was a party to them, iv. 404. See them in Anglia Sacra, ii. 362.

Yet some time afterwards, it is said, the malcontents made use of a report that Richard still lived. Hol. 43. But I do not find this in Walsingham or Otterbourne.

This is from Walsingham, 373.

§ Hol., as above.

In the play, the words which misled the insurgents are put into the mouth of Prince John.

"Westm. Pleaseth your grace to answer them directly,
How far-forth you do like their articles?

"P. John. I like them all, and do allow them well;
And swear here, by the honour of my blood,
My father's purposes have been mistook;
And some about him have too lavishly
Wrested his meaning and authority.-

My lord, these griefs shall be with speed redressed;
Upon my soul they shall. If this may please you,
Discharge your powers into their several counties,
As we will ours; and here, between the armies,
Let's drink together friendly, and embrace,

That all their eyes may bear these tokens home
Of our restored love and amity."

Probably, no man ever read the remainder of this scene without disgust at the perfidy and equivocation of the prince, who, having kept up his own force while the other was dispersed, arrested the rebel leaders, alleging that he had engaged to redress their grievances, but not to respect their persons.

Shakspeare has been blamed by "the great moralist" for not expressing his "indignation at this horrid violation of faith." Malone observes truly that he merely followed the historians, and surely this is a justification, though the commentator thinks it not so, because "it is the duty of a poet always to take the side of virtue." It was not Shakspeare's business to make moral reflections, nor was there a person in the drama to whom he could have assigned them, but he might have put a more energetic and indignant remonstrance in the mouth of the injured prelate.

In another version of the story,† the king's generals persuade the rebel leaders to surrender unconditionally, thereupon their troops disperse themselves.

Nothing seems clear but that the archbishop, Mowbray, and the others, fell into the hands of the king without any action fought, and that they were put to death; not, however, as Shakspeare says,‡ by the authority of Prince John, but by that of one of the king's judges. The Chief Justice Gascoyne, it is said, § refused to condemn a bishop; but one Fulthorpe, or Fulford, was made a judge for the occasion, and condemned Scrope, who was beheaded without a trial,¶ protesting loudly * Johnson, in Bosw., 164.

Act iv. Sc. 4.

Otterb., 255. Hol, refers also to this.

June 8, 1405. Clement, at Maidstone, in Anglia Sacra, i. 369; Tyler, i. 209. Clement calls him Fulthorpe; but Godwin (p. 690), though he writes on Clement's authority, gives the name Fulford; and I know the amiable family of Great Fulford, in Devonhsire, considers the questionable honour as belonging to that ancient house (Burke's Commoners, iii. 158). But I believe, with Lysons (Devon. p. 171.), that they are mistaken. It is said that, when the Pope took up the cause of Scrope, as a son of the church, Henry sent the prelate's armour to Rome, asking "whether that was his son's coat ?"

There was a sort of trial after his death. When the king, in parliament, desired the temporal peers to declare the archbishop and the earl traitors, they replied that, according to the representation given by Prince John, their offence seemed to be treason; but, in order that there might be no error, they desired that the case should be submitted to another parliament, to which all peers should be summoned. See Lingard, iv. 404; and Rolls, iii. 606.