The fifteenth century is full of the disasters and violent deaths of great nobles. The history of Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, brother to Henry V., belongs especially to London. On the death of his brother, being then about twenty-seven years of age, he was, as we have seen, named joint-guardian of the infant King, and was to rule England by consent of Parliament, until his elder brother returned from France. The wars and the threatening aspect of things kept the Duke of Bedford abroad except for occasional visits to England until his death. Gloucester is spoken of as a man of profligate habits and great ambition. These general adjectives are convenient for the historian; they sum up a man, and present him in bold outline. Now in nature there is no outline, only gradual shadings. He was, it is said, ambitious. The Court of the young, weak-minded King was full of intrigue and plottings and conspiracies for power and place. The courtiers were all ambitious. What any one wanted, if not power, it is not possible to arrive at with certainty. They all wanted power and place, nor is it easy to see that any one of the ambitious lords was in that respect worse than any other. And as regards Gloucester it must be remembered that if Henry died without heirs he stood next to Bedford in the succession, and that Bedford had no children. As for Gloucester’s morals, we have seen that London at this time, thanks to the Lollard movement, was exacting in the point of morals: yet Gloucester remained popular with the citizens: they made him presents—500 marks on one occasion and 1000 on another—though the latter gift was for the Duchess Jacqueline. It is said that Eleanor Cobham was his mistress before he married her. Perhaps he had the sense not to parade the liaison, in which case the good citizens would not be scandalised. But the morals of kings and princes have never been very jealously watched by their subjects. Charles II. and George IV. are by no means alone in immorality: and the world has forgiven or forgotten most of the others. In other words, there is nothing to show that Gloucester was specially blameworthy on the score of morals. It is, however, quite certain that he was a splendid and lordly Prince, a patron and a lover of the fine arts. [Illustration: THE DUKE OF BEDFORD]