66
Constitutional History.
[chap.
absurdity of such a demand insured its own rejection : the lords
did not wish for a multiplication of their rivals ; the commons
in a wiser moment would scarcely have desired to give strength
to the element which, as represented by the Percies and their
opponents, had nearly torn the kingdom to pieces. The prince
Henryafiks of Wales stoutly opposed the proposal, and it was rejected. The
for life. king asked to be allowed to collect an annual tenth and fifteenth
every year when no parliament was sitting’. This was refused,
but he obtained a gift of 20,000 marks and grants of tenths,
fifteenths, subsidies, and customs which lasted for two years2.
Notwithstanding the Lollard movement, two years of steady
government had benefited the country. Still the petitions of
the commons testify much uneasiness as to the governance, both
internal and external, of the realm8, and the economy of the
The national court which they tried to bind with stringent rules. It was
ι4to. remembered that in Richard’s time the subsidy on wool had
brought up the national income to £ 160,000; although the
subsidy on wool could not now be calculated at more than
£30,000, there were hopes that it might rise again4. Half the
tenth and fifteenth granted in 1410 reached the sum of £18,692,
and, although the charges upon it amounted to more than
£20,000, still the sum was not much smaller than it had been
in the prosperous days of Edward IIIs. A statute of this
1 Wals. ii. 238; cf. Otterboume, p. 268.
2 A fifteenth and a half, and a tenth and a half ; Dep. Keeper’s Rep. ii.
App. ii. p. 184; Rot. Parl. iii. 635 ; Eulog. iii. 417; Wals. ii. 283. The
clergy of Canterbury met to grant an aid, Feb. 17, 1410; Wilk. iii. 324.
The York clergy granted a tenth, May 23 ; ib. p. 333. A tenth and a half-
tenth is mentioned in the Ordinances, i. 342. Commissions were issued
for raising a great lean the same year ; ib. p. 343.
s Rot. Parl. iii. 623-627.
4 Rot. Parl. iii. 625. The statement made is that the subsidy on wool
in the fourteenth year of Richard brought in £160,000 over and above
other sources of revenue. It was estimated at £30,000 in 1411 ;
Ordinances, ii. 7. It was £53,800 in 1400 ; Ramsay, p. 102 : and the
whole customs in 1411 amounted to £40,600 ; ibid.
s The half-tenth and fifteenth is £18,692 19s. 8¾<1. ; Ordinances, i. 344,
345. The charges, £20,639 15s∙ ɪb- P∙ 347 ɪ these include the sea-
guard, the East Marph, the West March, Wales, Guienne, and Roxburgh.
The estimate for Calais in time of peace was £18,000, in time of war
£21,000 a year ; that oflreland about £4,500 ; ib. p. 352. The Issues of
the year ending at Michaelmas, τ410, amount to £91,004 19s. ld.; Ramsay,
Antiquary, vi. 104.
XVIIi.] Prominence of the Prince. 6j
session directed a penalty to be exacted from the sheriffs who
did not hold the elections in legal form, and made the conduct
of the elections an article of inquiry before the justices of
assize’. On the 2nd of May the king’s counsellors were named,
and all except the prince took the oath required2.
318. The administration of Thomas Beaufort, like that of his Theprince
predecessor, lasted only two years; and during this time it is takes the
very probable that the prince of Wales governed in his father’s oil, 1410.
name. From the month of February, 1410, he appears as the
chief member of the council3, which frequently met in the
absence of the king, whose malady was increasing and threaten-
ing to disable him altogether. The chief point of foreign
policy was the maintenance of Calais, which was threatened by
Burgundy, and had thus early begun to be a constant drain on
the resources of England. At home the religious questions Arundei
involved in the suppression of the Lollards and the réconcilia- Oxfordfa
tion of the schism were complicated by a renewed attack of ɪ411'
archbishop Arundel on the university of Oxford4. In an
attempt to exercise his right of visitation, he was repulsed by
the chancellor Courtenay and the proctors. The archbishop,
availing himself of his personal influence with the king, com-
pelled these officers to resign ; but, as soon as the university
could assert its liberty, they were re-elected, and it was only
after a formal mediation proffered by the prince that the con-
flicting authorities were reconciled. It is more than probable
that Arundel’s conduct led to a personal quarrel with the
prince, who was his great-nephew ; he does not seem to have
attended any meeting of the privy council during this period,
1 Statutes, ii. 162 ; Rot. Part. iii. 641.
2 Rot. Part. iii. 632.
3 The prince’s name appears as first in the council from December 1406 ;
Ordinances, i. 2g5 ; cf. p. 313. A petition is addressed by Thomas of
Lancaster to the prince and other lords of the king’s council, June 1410 ;
ɪb. 339. A parliamentary petition, granted by the king, ‘ Tespectuatur
Per dominum prineɪpeɪn et consilium Rot. Parl. iii. 643. A council was
held at the Coldharbour Feb. 8, 1410 ; ib. i. 329. The Coldharbour was
given to the prince, Mar. 18, 1410, and he was made captain of Calais
the same day ; Rymer, viii. 628. He had the wardship of the heirs of
Mortimer ; ib. pp. 591, 608, 639.
1 Wals. ii. 285.