Rating: Reviewed by: David Kenneth, 28 Nov 2018A Strange Plot Against Henry V Explained This is a curio of a book, first published in 1988, but then its subject is a curious subject, a half-baked plan to depose Henry V on the eve of his first French campaign while he was in Southampton, and replace him with his incompetent cousin, the earl of March. The plot, such as it was, was doomed to fail, except perhaps in the mind of its instigator, Richard earl of Cambridge, but that does not mean Henry V did not take it seriously, as the speedy manner in which the plotters were tried and their exemplary sentences reveal.T.B. Pugh has little to go on regarding the plot itself as there was so little to it, but he strives to contextualise the events of June to August 1415 within the political crises encountered by the early Lancastrian kings following the usurpation of 1399. Indeed, much time is given to the various revolts during the reign of Henry IV, and their failures, showing not only that a plot against Henry V was unlikely to succeed against a now secured dynasty, but that the possibility of the Welsh rising or of a Percy-Scottish invasion had reality only within the fevered mind of Cambridge.Pugh provides interesting biographies of the four protagonists, Richard earl of Cambridge, Edmund Mortimer fifth earl of March, Henry third lord Scrope of Masham, and Sir Thomas Grey of Heton. Pugh establishes how Cambridge was not only the most culpable of the accused and the instigator of the plot, but also how his relative poverty as a landless earl and grandson of Edward III drove him into a plan to replace Henry V with the brother of his first wife, Anne, Edmund Mortimer, as a means of obtaining the wealth and status to which he felt himself entitled. If Cambridge was arrogant and rash, then March was a fool, whose incapacity in the eyes of the king probably saved his neck and his estates when he threw himself at Henry V's feet and revealed the plan on 31 July. March had legitimate resentments in view of the exorbitant fines imposed upon him for his marriage without consent of Henry V, but by becoming Cambridge the putative kingmaker's candidate for the throne, he endangered all the Mortimers had built up for an unrealistic hope of becoming king. Henry Scrope is by far the least guilty of the plotters, being little involved, warning Cambridge and March of its danger and little likelihood of success, and, as a pious and orthodox Christian, refusing to become involved once it was clear Cambridge intended to ally with outlaw Lollards in the Welsh marches to ferment rebellion. Indeed, Masham's association was really with March, to whom he had leant much money, and it may be to preserve that investment for his family that he did not reveal to king or courts how deeply March was implicated. As to Grey, it was poverty and insolvency that made him Cambridge's closest associate, although his association with the Mowbrays and affinity with the Percies meant he was ill disposed to the House of Lancaster, and in his plea for mercy he is by far the angriest in his denunciation of his co-conspirators, knowing that his life was forfeit but fearing that nobility would save Cambridge and Masham, although his accusations against the latter are based more upon spiteful revenge than truth.Two interesting aspects that Pugh touches upon are sadly only briefly explored. The first is how Masham was in effect found guilty of misprison of treason, an offence not yet fully established in law, and, contra to previous practice, received a capital sentence rather than the usual brief imprisonment and fines for a felony. What makes this important, is that while the charges against Masham, and the others, were clearly contrived to suit a summary sentence willed by the king (the allegations included intention to murder Henry and his three brothers, an impracticality in view of John of Bedford remaining in London as keeper of the realm), this ad hoc manner of trying peers outside of parliamentary sittings, and of trying misprison as a capital charge became the model for such proceedings into the reign of Henry VIII (Anne Boleyn's trial is cited as an example). It is also of note, that while Cambridge, Masham, and Grey were found guilty before a Southampton jury on 2 August, only Grey was executed that day, the earl and baron having to await a hearing and sentencing before their peers on 9 August, because the judges insisted upon the right of lords to be tried before their peers, as had been conceded by Edward III. The second point relates to an unintended consequence of Henry V requiring a swift trial of the accused, which, as the trials were held outside of parliament, meant no act of attainder was passed against Cambridge, so that when his brother died a few weeks later on the field of Agincourt, his own four year-old son, Richard, was able to inherit the dukedom of York without encumbrance. Similarly, because Henry decided not to act against March, even though he was more implicated in the plot than Masham, when he died in 1425, his heir was his nephew, the same Richard of York, who thereby through inheritance from his two uncles became the senior noble after the Lancastrian princes and the richest landholder after the king. It was this wealth, and, after the deaths of Clarence (1421), Bedford (1435), and Gloucester (1447), his position as head of the peerage and heir presumptive (before 1453) that was to make possible both his challenge to the feeble Henry VI, which resulted in his being recognised as heir and regent in 1460, and then the usurpation of his son as Edward IV in March 1461. If Henry V had not been so determined to deal with the plotters before he left for France, and had waited for parliament before trying the peers, then not only would Cambridge have been attainted, but it is likely that March too would have been tried for treason as the evidence against him was revealed, with the result that Richard duke of York would never have been in a position to challenge Henry VI, and with March attainted, his huge wealth could have been taken by the crown well before the absorption of the duchy of York in 1461. But, Henry V only had eyes on France in 1415, and by acting swiftly he was only concerned to further secure his rear by destroying the persons, not the families, of those who had plotted against him.Pugh closes his work with a chapter on Henry V's place in History, which has little to do with the Southampton Plot, but is more a revisionist rebuff to K.B. Macfarlane and his now notorious encomium of Henry as England's greatest ruler. Pugh's case is well made, pointing out not only how lucky Henry was in the Agincourt campaign that the French gave battle, but also how the huge costs incurred in 1415 and from 1417 in France, and the responsibilities of regent of France after the treaty of Troyes, permanently weakened the Lancastrian financial position. Indeed, it can be asserted that it was Henry's determination to fund his campaigns that indirectly led to the Plot, as he exploited his feudal powers to impose upon March a huge fine for marrying without his consent and he failed to endow Cambridge with the landed wealth commensurate with the earldom he granted him in 1414. What Pugh successfully does is undermine the 'band of brothers' narrative surrounding the Agincourt campaign, as the three plotters executed, with differing justifications, were men who would have played important roles in France, Cambridge because of his royal ancestry, Masham because of his wide experience, and Grey due to his indented service, while the forgiven March, who did sail with the expedition was evacuated before the fall of Harfleur.The more one looks at Henry V, the harder it is to like him, although there remains much to admire in his flawed kingship, but Pugh in this readable work, fully supported by footnotes, and with appendices including relevant contemporary documents, not only places the Southampton Plot within the political and military background of fifteenth century England, but also shows how Henry V's insensitivity to the legitimate needs of Cambridge, March, Masham, and Grey brought about, however fantastical, a plan of desperation to remove him from the throne.

Add a review