misery inflicted in particular cases by these commotions we have a
lively picture in Letter 126. At the time when Cade and his followers
were encamped upon Blackheath, Sir John Fastolf, a noted warrior of the
time, of whom we shall have much to say hereafter, was residing at his
house in Southwark. He was a man who had not succeeded in standing well
with his contemporaries, and the fact may have contributed not a little
to the sensitiveness of a naturally irascible character. In one
engagement with the French[76-2] he was actually accused of cowardice,
a charge which he seems afterwards satisfactorily to have disproved. For
some years, however, he had given up soldiering and returned to his
native country, where he served the king in a different manner as a
member of his Privy Council. But in this capacity too he was unpopular.
His advice should have been valuable at least in reference to the
affairs of France; but it does not seem to have been taken. The warnings
and counsels which he gave with reference to the maintenance of the
English conquests in France he caused his secretary, William Worcester,
to put in writing for his justification; but though his admonitions were
neglected by those to whom they were addressed, popular rumour held him
partly accountable for the loss of Normandy. Of this opinion some
evidence was given in the course of Cade’s insurrection.
[Footnote 76-2: The Battle of Patay.]
As a member of the King’s Council Fastolf thought it right to send a
messenger to ascertain what were the demands of the insurgents.
[Sidenote: John Payn and the rebels.] He therefore commanded one John
Payn, who was in his service, to take a man with him and two of the best
horses of his stable, and ride to Blackheath. When he arrived there,
Cade ordered him to be taken prisoner. To save his master’s horses from
being stolen, Payn gave them to the attendant, who galloped away with
them as fast as he could, while he himself was brought before the
Captain. Cade then asked him what he had come for, and why he had caused
his fellow to run away with the horses. He answered that he had come to
join some brothers of his wife, and other companions who were among the
insurgents. On this some one called out to the Captain that he was a man
of Sir John Fastolf’s, and that the two horses were Sir John’s. The
Captain raised a cry of ‘Treason!’ and sent him through the camp with a
herald of the Duke of Exeter before him, in the duke’s coat-of-arms. At
four quarters of the field the herald proclaimed with an _Oyez_ that
Payn had been sent as a spy upon them by the greatest traitor in England
or France, namely, by one Sir John Fastolf, who had diminished all the
garrisons of Normandy, Le Mans, and Maine, and thereby caused the loss
of all the king’s inheritance beyond sea. It was added that Sir John had
garrisoned his place with the old soldiers of Normandy, to oppose the
Commons when they came to Southwark; and, as the emissary of such a
traitor, Payn was informed that he should lose his head.
He was brought to the Captain’s tent, where an axe and block were
produced. But fortunately he had friends among the host; and Robert
Poynings, Cade’s swordbearer and carver, who afterwards married John
Paston’s sister Elizabeth, declared plainly that there should die a
hundred or two others if Payn were put to death. He was therefore
allowed to live on taking an oath that he would go to Southwark and arm
himself, and return to join the Commons. He accordingly carried to
Fastolf a statement of their demands, advising him at the same time to
put away his old soldiers and withdraw himself into the Tower. The old
warrior felt that the advice was prudent; he left but two of his
servants in the place, and but for Payn the insurgents would have burned
it to the ground. The faithful dependant, however, had to pay the full
penalty of his master’s unpopularity. He seems to have entertained the
rioters for some time at his own cost. Afterwards the Captain took from
him some valuable clothes and armour, and sent men to ransack his
chamber of bonds, money, and other stores. The insurgents also robbed
his house in Kent, and threatened to hang his wife and children.
Finally, on the night of the battle on London Bridge, Cade thrust him
into the thickest of the combat, where he continued six hours unable to
extricate himself, and was dangerously wounded.
To have passed through all this was surely a severe enough trial; yet
after that commotion he had further trouble to endure. He was impeached
by the Bishop of Rochester, and thrown into the Marshalsea by command of
the queen. He was also threatened to be hanged, drawn, and quartered, in
order that he might accuse his master Fastolf of treason; but in the end
his friends succeeded in procuring for him a charter of pardon. To earn
this, however, as we find from the document itself, he had to appear
before the king in person, during a progress which he made in Kent the
year after the rebellion, and, amid a crowd of other supplicants whose
bodies were stripped naked down to their legs, humbly to beg for
mercy.[78-1]
[Footnote 78-1: _See_ Appendix to Introduction.]
_The Dukes of York and Somerset_
[Sidenote: The Duke of York.] Cade’s rebellion was attributed by the
Court to the machinations of the Duke of York. The disturbances that had
prevailed for some months previously seem to have been partly associated
with his name. When Adam de Moleyns, Bishop of Chichester, was murdered
in the beginning of the year, the malcontents talked of inviting York
over from Ireland to redress the wrongs of the people. The exclusion of
York and other lords of royal blood from the king’s councils was also
made an express ground of complaint by the Kentish insurgents. The
repetition of his name in the mouths of the disaffected was anything but
grateful to the party then in power. It was construed as being in itself
an evidence of his disloyalty. But the popular complaints as to his
treatment were both just and reasonable, for it was a matter that
concerned the public weal. The rank, wealth, and lineage of the Duke of
York, his connection with the blood-royal, his large possessions, and
finally his well-proved ability both as a general and an
administrator--all marked him out as one who ought to have been invited
to take a leading part in the government of the realm; but a faction
about the king had taken care to keep him as much as possible at a
distance from the Court. Moreover, it had maligned and aspersed him in
his absence, so that it would have been positively insecure for himself
to allow the charges to accumulate. A time had clearly come when it was
no longer his duty to obey the orders of others. His enemies were
becoming more and more unpopular every day, and the only hope of
improving the administration of affairs depended upon his taking the
initiative.
[Sidenote: Comes over from Ireland.] He accordingly determined to avail
himself of the privilege due to his rank, and lay his requests at the
foot of the throne. A little before Michaelmas he came over from
Ireland, collected 4000 of his retainers upon the Welsh Marches, and
with them proceeded to London. His coming, although unsolicited by the
king and without leave asked, was nevertheless not altogether
unexpected. Attempts were made to stop his landing at Beaumaris, and
bodies of men lay in wait for him in various places to interrupt his
progress. For this, however, he could not have been unprepared. He knew
well the hatred entertained towards him at the Court, for he had
experienced pretty much the same thing years before in going to Ireland,
as now in coming from it. Although he was sent to that country in the
king’s service, and as the king’s lieutenant, there were persons
commissioned to apprehend him at several points in his journey thither;
and now on his return similar efforts were made to prevent his advance
to London. As regards himself they were altogether fruitless; but it is
not improbable that they succeeded in deterring many of his followers
from joining him. William Tresham, the Speaker of the last Parliament,
having received a summons from the duke to meet him, was waylaid and
murdered in Northamptonshire by a body of the retainers of Lord Grey of
Ruthin. For two months the murderers went at large. The sheriff of the
county durst not arrest them, and it was only on the meeting of
Parliament that a special act was passed for their punishment.[80-1]
[Footnote 80-1: _Rolls of Parl._ v. 211-12.]
York, however, pursued his way, in spite of all opposition, to the royal
presence, and great was the dismay of those then about the king.
According to an act passed against him nine years later, his approach
was not unaccompanied by violence. He and his followers, it is said,
came in warlike array to Westminster Palace, and ‘beat down the spears
and walls’ in the king’s chamber. If so, we should infer that his access
to the king was opposed even at the last moment. But the opposition was
ineffectual, and the reception he met with from Henry himself did not
indicate that the king at all resented his conduct.
It must have been on his first interview with Henry that he presented a
petition and received a reply from him, which are printed in Holinshed
as follows:--
_Richard, Duke of York: his letter to King Henry_[80-2]
Please it your Highness to conceive that since my departing out of
this your realm by your commandment, and being in your service in
your land of Ireland, I have been informed that divers language hath
been said of me to your most excellent estate which should sound to
my dishonour and reproach and charge of my person; howbeit that I
have been, and ever will be, your true liegeman and servant, and if
there be any man that will or dare say the contrary or charge me
otherwise, I beseech your rightwiseness to call him before your high
presence, and I will declare me for my discharge as a true knight
ought to do. And if I do not, as I doubt not but I shall, I beseech
you to punish me as the poorest man of your land. And if he be found
untrue in his suggestion and information, I beseech you of your
highness that he be punished after his desert in example of all
other.
Please it your Excellency to know that as well before my departing
out of this your realm for to go into your land of Ireland in your
full noble service, as since, certain persons have lain in wait for
to hearken upon me, as Sir John Talbot, knight, at the castle of
Holt, Sir Thomas Stanley, knight, in Cheshire, Pulford at Chester,
Elton at Worcester, Brooke at Gloucester, and Richard, groom of your
chamber, at Beaumaris; which had in charge, as I am informed, to
take me, and put me into your castle of Conway, and to strike off
the head of Sir William Oldhall, knight, and to have put in prison
Sir William Devereux, knight, and Sir Edmund Malso (Mulso), knight,
withouten enlarging until the time that your Highness had appointed
their deliverance.
Item, at such time as I was purposed for to have arrived at your
haven of Beaumaris, for to have come to your noble presence to
declare me your true man and subject, as my duty is, my landing was
stopped and forebarred by Henry Norris, Thomas Norris, William
Buckley, William Grust, and Bartholomew Bould, your officers in
North Wales, that I should not land there, nor have victuals nor
refreshing for me and my fellowship, as I have written to your
Excellency here before; so far forth, that Henry Norris, deputy to
the chamberlain of North Wales, said unto me that he had in
commandment that I should in no wise have landing, refreshing, nor
lodging, for men nor horse, nor other thing that might turn to my
worship or ease; putting the blame upon Sir William Say, usher of
your chamber, saying and affirming that I am against your intent and
[held] as a traitor, as I am informed. And, moreover, certain
letters were made and delivered unto Chester, Shrewsbury, and to
other places, for to let mine entry into the same.
Item, above all wrongs and injuries above said, done unto me of
malice without any cause, I being in your land of Ireland in your
honourable service, certain commissions were made and directed unto
divers persons, which for the execution of the same sat in certain
places, and the juries impanelled and charged. Unto the which juries
certain persons laboured instantly to have me indicted of treason,
to the intent for to have undone me and mine issue, and corrupted my
blood, as it is openly published. Beseeching your Majesty royal of
your righteousness to do examine these matters, and thereupon to do
such justice in this behalf as the cause requireth; for mine intent
is fully to pursue to your Highness for the conclusion of these
matters.
[Footnote 80-2: The whole of this correspondence is attributed by
Holinshed and Stow to the year 1452; but it appears to me clearly
to belong to the year 1450, when the Duke had just returned from
Ireland. See _Chronicle of London_, 136; though internal evidence
alone will, I think, satisfy the careful student.]
_The Answer of King Henry to the Duke of York_
Cousin, we have seen the bill that ye took us late, and also
understand the good humble obedience that ye in yourself show unto
us, as well in word as in deed; wherefore our intent is the more
hastily to ease you of such things as were in your said bill.
Howbeit that at our more leisure we might answer you to your said
bill, yet we let you wit that, for the causes aforesaid, we will
declare you now our intent in these matters. Sith it is that a long
time among the people hath been upon you many strange language, and
in especial anon after your [qu. their?][82-1] disordinate and
unlawful slaying of the bishop of Chichester,[82-2] divers and many
of the untrue shipmen and other said, in their manner, words against
our estate, making menace to our own person by your sayings, that ye
should be fetched with many thousands, and ye should take upon you
that which ye neither ought, nor, as we doubt not, ye will not
attempt; so far forth that it was said to our person by divers, and
especially, we remember, of one Wasnes which had like words unto us.
And also there were divers of such false people that went on and had
like language in divers of our towns of our land, which by our
subjects were taken and duly executed. Wherefore we sent to divers
of our courts and places to hearken and to take heed if any such
manner coming were, and if there had been, for to resist it; but
coming into our land our true subject as ye did, our intent was not
that ye, nor less of estate of our subjects, nor none of your
servants should not have been letted nor warned, but in goodly wise
received; howbeit that peradventure your sudden coming, without
certain warning, caused our servants to do as they did, considering
the causes abovesaid. And as to the indictment that ye spoke of, we
think verily and hold for certain, that there was none such. And if
ye may truly prove that any person was thereabouts, the matter shall
be demeaned as the case shall require, so that he shall know it is
to our great displeasure. Upon this, for the easing of your heart in
all such matters, we declare, repute and admit you as our true and
faithful subject, and as our faithful cousin.
[Footnote 82-1: I have no doubt this is a misreading of the
contracted form ‘y{r}’ which was intended for ‘their.’ To accuse
York of the murder of the Bishop of Chichester, and apparently as
a principal, not an accessory in that murder, when he was at the
time in Ireland, would have been absurd. Besides, the tenor of the
whole of this reply is to exculpate York of all charges.]
[Footnote 82-2: Misprinted ‘Chester’ in Holinshed.]
So far, York had gained his object. The charges against him were
repudiated by the highest authority in the kingdom. But it was
impossible that the matter could rest there. His own interests and those
of the public alike compelled him to demand a full inquiry into the
machinations of his adversaries, and when admitted to freer intercourse
with Henry he was able to support this request by most inconvenient
arguments. Town and country now listened with eagerness for news of a
long looked-for crisis, while, as it seemed, the old _régime_ was being
quietly laid aside at Westminster. [Sidenote: A change of government.]
‘Sir, and it please,’ writes one newsmonger, William Wayte, the clerk of
Justice Yelverton, ‘Sir, and it please, I was in my lord of York’s
house, and I heard much thing more than my master writeth unto you of.
I heard much thing in Fleet Street. But, sir, my lord was with the king,
and he visaged so the matter that all the king’s household was and is
afraid right sore. And my said lord hath put a bill to the king and
desired much thing which is much after the Commons’ desire; and all is
upon justice, and to put all those that be indicted under arrest without
surety or mainprise, and to be tried by law as law will; insomuch that
on Monday Sir William Oldhall was with the king at Westminster more than
two hours, and had of the king good cheer.’[83-1]
[Footnote 83-1: _See_ No. 142.]
Sir William Oldhall, a friend and companion-in-arms of the Duke of York
in France, had been summoned to the king’s councils more than once
before.[83-2] But the last occasion was eleven years before this, at a
time when it was doubtless felt to be necessary to obtain the sanction
beforehand of all parties in the State to the proposed negotiations for
peace at Calais. From that day till now we do not hear of him, and we
may presume that he was not invited to Court. By the Duke of York’s
letter just quoted, it would seem that courtiers had planned to have him
beheaded. But now the old exclusiveness was defeated. Men whose
patriotism and generalship, it was believed, would have averted the loss
of France, were at length allowed free access to their sovereign; while
men who were believed to have culpably misdirected the king, and by
their favouritism and partiality to have perverted the course of justice
throughout the kingdom, stood in fear of a strict inquiry being made
into their misdeeds. For such was the sole purport of the ‘bill,’ or
petition presented by the Duke of York as mentioned by William Wayte,
the exact text of which will be seen in No. 143. The king’s answer to
this is preserved in Holinshed as follows:--
[Footnote 83-2: Nicolas’s _Proceedings of the Privy Council_, iv.
212, v. 108.]
_The Answer of King Henry to the Duke of York_
Cousin, as touching your bill last put up to us, we understand well
that ye, of good heart, counsel and advertise us to the setting up
of justice and to the speedy punishing of some persons indicted or
noised, offering your service to be ready at commandment in the
same; sith it is, that for many causes moving us to have determined
in our soul to stablish a sad and substantial Council, giving them
more ample authority and power than ever we did before this, in the
which we have appointed you to be one. But sith it is not
accustomed, sure, nor expedient, to take a conclusion and conduct by
advice or counsel of one person by himself, for the conservation (?)
it is observed that the greatest and the best, the rich and the
poor, in liberty, virtue and effect of their[84-1] voices be equal;
we have therefore determined within ourself to send for our
Chancellor of England and for other Lords of our Council, yea and
all other, together within short time, ripely to common of these and
other our great matters. In the which communication such
conclusions, by the grace of God, shall be taken, as shall sound to
His pleasure, the weal of us and our land, as well in these matters
as in any other.
[Footnote 84-1: Misprinted ‘your’ in Holinshed.]
[Sidenote: Politics in Norfolk.] The time was favourable to men like
John Paston, who had been wronged by a powerful neighbour such as Lord
Molynes, and had been hitherto denied redress. There seemed also a hope
of destroying, once for all, the influence of Tuddenham and Heydon in
the county of Norfolk. It was proposed that on the Duke of York visiting
Norfolk, which he intended to do, the mayor and aldermen of Norwich
should ride to meet him, and that complaints should be preferred against
the party of Tuddenham and Heydon in the name of the whole city. ‘And
let that be done,’ adds William Wayte, ‘in the most lamentable wise;
for, Sir, but if (_i.e._ unless) my Lord hear some foul tales of them,
and some hideous noise and cry, by my faith they are else like to come
to grace.’ Owing to the influence of the Duke of York, a new Parliament
was summoned to meet in November, and John Paston was urged by some
friends to get himself returned as a member. But it was still more
strongly recommended that the Earl of Oxford should meet the duke,
apparently with the view of arranging the list of candidates--a
responsibility which the earl, for his part, seems to have declined. The
Duke of Norfolk met with the Duke of York at Bury St. Edmunds, and these
two dukes settled that matter between them. The Earl of Oxford modestly
contented himself with reporting their decision, and advising that their
wishes should be carried into effect.[85-1]
[Footnote 85-1: Nos. 142, 145, 148, and 149. The influence of a
powerful nobleman on the elections was evidently quite a matter of
course. What use York made of it, or attempted to make of it,
cannot so easily be determined. Of the two candidates proposed by
him for the county of Norfolk, only one was returned, the name of
Sir Miles Stapleton being substituted for that of Sir William
Chamberlain (_see_ vol. ii. p. 185 note 1). It appears from two of
the above cited letters that Stapleton was a favourite candidate
with the Pastons and their friends, and that he was urged to wait
on the Duke of York on his coming to Norwich.]
The Parliament met on the 6th November, and Sir William Oldhall was
chosen Speaker. About the same time a commission of _Oyer and Terminer_
which had been issued as early as the first of August,[85-2] began its
labours at Norwich, and the Earl of Oxford stayed away from Parliament
to attend it. Mr. Justice Yelverton was sent down from Westminster to
sit on that tribunal along with him. There seemed hope at last of
redress being had for the wrongs and violence that had prevailed in the
county of Norfolk; but the course of justice was not yet an easy one.
Great pressure had been put upon the king, even at the last moment, that
Yelverton should be countermanded, and Lord Molynes had spoken of his
own dispute with Paston in the king’s presence in a manner that made the
friends of the latter wish he had been then at Westminster to see after
his own interests. The Lords of the Council, however, determined that
Yelverton should keep his day for going into Norfolk. When he arrived
there, he had occasion to report that there were many persons
ill-disposed towards Tuddenham and Heydon, but that it was most
important they should be encouraged by a good sheriff and under-sheriff
being appointed, else there would be a total miscarriage of justice. For
the annual election of sheriffs had been delayed this year, apparently
owing to the state of parties. Until the Duke of York arrived in London
for the Parliament, his friends would not allow them to be nominated;
and the state of suspense and anxiety occasioned by this delay is
clearly shown in the letters written during November.[86-1]
[Footnote 85-2: _See_ No. 119.]
[Footnote 86-1: Nos. 151, 153, 154, 155, 156.]
The truth is, the Duke of York had not yet succeeded in establishing the
government upon anything like a firm or satisfactory basis. In times
like our own there is little difficulty in determining the
responsibility of ministers; but in the rough judgment of the ‘Commons’
of those days an error in policy was nothing short of treason. Whoever
took upon him to guide the king’s counsels knew very well the danger of
the task; and York (if I understand his character aright) was anxious,
until he was driven desperate, never to assume more authority than he
was distinctly warranted in doing. He could not but remember that his
father had suffered death for conspiring to depose Henry V., and that
his own high birth and descent from Edward III. caused his acts to be
all the more jealously watched by those who sought to estrange him from
his sovereign. He therefore made it by no means his aim to establish for
himself a marked ascendency. He rather sought to show his moderation.
I find, indeed, that at this particular period he not only removed two
members of the Council, Lord Dudley and the Abbot of St. Peter’s at
Gloucester, but sent them prisoners to his own castle of Ludlow.[86-2]
This, however, he could hardly have done without permission from the
king, as it was the express object of his petition above referred to,
that persons accused of misconducting themselves in high places should
be committed for trial; and judging from the terms of the king’s answer,
I should say that it must have been done by the authority of the new
Council, which Henry therein declared it to be his intention to
constitute.
[Footnote 86-2: Stow’s _Chronicle_, p. 392.]
This new Council was probably what we should call in these days a
coalition ministry. [Sidenote: The Duke of Somerset.] York’s great
rival, the Duke of Somerset, had come over from Normandy a little before
York himself came over from Ireland. On the 11th of September, while
Cardinal Kemp, who was then Lord Chancellor, was sitting at Rochester on
a commission of _Oyer and Terminer_ to try the Kentish rebels,[87-1] he
affixed the Great Seal to a patent appointing Somerset Constable of
England.[87-2] In that capacity, as we have already seen, the duke
arrested one of the new Kentish leaders that started up after Cade’s
rebellion had been quelled. There is no doubt that he stood high in the
king’s confidence, and that he was particularly acceptable to Queen
Margaret. He was, nevertheless, one of the most unpopular men in
England, on account of his surrender of Caen and total loss of Normandy
in the preceding year; and as the Parliament was now called, among other
reasons, expressly to provide for the defence of the kingdom, and for
speedy succours being sent to preserve the king’s other dominions in
France,[87-3] it was impossible that his conduct should not be inquired
into. The short sitting of Parliament before Christmas was greatly
occupied by controversy between York and Somerset.[87-4] On the 1st of
December the latter was placed under arrest. His lodgings at the Black
Friars were broken into and pillaged by the populace, and he himself was
nearly killed, but was rescued from their violence by a barge of his
brother-in-law the Earl of Devon. Next day the Dukes of York and Norfolk
caused proclamation to be made through the city that no man should
commit robbery on pain of death, and a man was actually beheaded in
Cheap for disobeying this order. As a further demonstration against
lawlessness, the king and his lords, on Thursday the 3rd December, rode
through the city in armour, either side of the way being kept by a line
of armed citizens throughout the route of the procession. It was the
most brilliant display of the kind the Londoners of that day had ever
seen.[88-1]
[Footnote 87-1: _See_ vol. ii. pp. 161-2.] [[Letter 131]]
[Footnote 87-2: Rymer, xi. 276.]
[Footnote 87-3: _Rolls of Parl._ v. 210.]
[Footnote 87-4: W. Worc.]
[Footnote 88-1: MS. Cott. Vitell. A. xvi. Stow in his _Chronicle_
dates this procession a day later.]
The Duke of Somerset did not long remain in prison. Very soon after
Christmas the king made him captain of Calais, and gave him the entire
control of the royal household.[88-2] The Court was evidently bent on
the restoration of the old order of things, so far as it dared to do so.
The chief obstacle to this undoubtedly was the Parliament, which was, on
the whole, so favourable to the Duke of York, that one member, Young of
Bristol, had even ventured to move that he should be declared heir to
the crown.[88-3] Parliament, however, could be prorogued; and, as Young
found shortly afterwards, its members could be committed to the Tower.
The speech of the Lord Chancellor on the meeting of Parliament had
declared that it was summoned for three important causes: first, to
provide for the defence of the kingdom, and especially the safeguard of
the sea; secondly, for the speedy relief of the king’s subjects in the
south of France, and aid against the French; thirdly, for pacifying the
king’s subjects at home, and punishing the disturbances which had lately
been so frequent. But practically nothing was done about any of these
matters before Christmas. An act was passed for the more speedy levying
of a subsidy granted in the last Parliament, and also an act of
attainder against the murderers of William Tresham. The Lord Chancellor
then, in the king’s name and in his presence, prorogued the Parliament
till the 20th of January, declaring that the matters touching the
defence of the kingdom were too great and difficult to be adequately
discussed at that time. The same excuse, however, was again used for
further prorogations until the 5th of May; and meanwhile fears began to
be entertained in the country that all that had been done hitherto for a
more impartial administration of justice was about to be upset.[88-4]
[Footnote 88-2: W. Worc.]
[Footnote 88-3: _The Chronicle of London_ (p. 137) says that ‘all
the Commons’ agreed to this proposition, and stood out for some
time against the Lords on the subject.]
[Footnote 88-4: _Rolls of Parl._ v. 210-14.]
[Sidenote: A.D. 1451.] During the whole course of the succeeding year
matters were in a very unsettled condition. At the very opening of the
year we hear complaints that the sheriff, Jermyn, had not shown himself
impartial, but was endeavouring to suppress complaints against certain
persons at the coming sessions at Lynn. It was feared the king would
pardon Tuddenham and Heydon the payment of their dues to the Exchequer
for Suffolk; and if they did, payment of taxes would be generally
refused, as Blake, the Bishop of Swaffham, having gone up to London,
informed the Lord Chancellor himself. From London, too, men wrote in a
manner that was anything but encouraging. The government was getting
paralysed alike by debt and by indecision. ‘As for tidings here,’ writes
John Bocking, ‘I certify you all is nought, or will be nought. The king
borroweth his expenses for Christmas. The King of Arragon, the Duke of
Milan, the Duke of Austria, the Duke of Burgundy, would be assistant to
us to make a conquest, and nothing is answered nor agreed in manner save
abiding the great deliberation that at the last shall spill all
together.’ Chief-Justice Fortescue had been for a week expecting every
night to be assaulted.[89-1] The only symptom of vigour at headquarters
was the despatch of a commission of _Oyer and Terminer_ into Kent, for
the trial of those who had raised disturbances during the preceding
summer. As for the county of Norfolk, the only hope lay in a strong
clamour being raised against oppressors. Sir John Fastolf showed himself
anxious about the prosecution of certain indictments against Heydon, and
his servant Bocking, and Wayte, the servant of Judge Yelverton, urged
that strong representations should be made to Lord Scales against
showing any favour to that unpopular lawyer.[89-2]
[Footnote 89-1: In earlier issues of this Introduction was added:
‘probably for no other reason than his high impartiality.’ Mr.
Plummer, I find, who knows him better, has not the same opinion of
Fortescue’s impartiality as a politician, but considers that he
was in danger just because he was so strong a Lancastrian. _See_
Introduction to _The Governance of England_, p. 50.]
[Footnote 89-2: Nos. 167, 169-174.]
[Sidenote: Tuddenham and Heydon.] By and by it was seen what good reason
the friends of justice had for their apprehensions. It had been arranged
that Tuddenham and Heydon should be indicted at a sitting of the
commission of _Oyer and Terminer_ at Norwich in the ensuing spring.
Rumours, however, began to prevail in Norwich that they who had promoted
this commission in the county of Norfolk--the Earl of Oxford and Justice
Yelverton, as well as John Paston and John Damme--were to be indicted in
Kent by way of revenge. John Damme had before this caused Heydon to be
indicted of treason for taking down one of those hideous memorials of a
savage justice--the quarter of a man exposed in public. The man was
doubtless a political victim belonging to Heydon’s own party; but Heydon
was now looking to recover his influence, and he contrived to get the
charge of treason retorted against Damme. Symptoms were observed in
Norwich that the unpopular party were becoming bolder again. ‘Heydon’s
men,’ wrote James Gloys to John Paston, ‘brought his own horse and his
saddle through Aylesham on Monday, and they came in at the Bishop’s
Gates at Norwich, and came over Tombland and into the Abbey; and sithen
they said they should go to London for Heydon. Item, some say that
Heydon should be made a knight, and much other language there is which
causeth men to be afeard, weening that he should have a rule
again.’[90-1]
[Footnote 90-1: Nos. 179 and 180.]
Full well might Sir John Fastolf and others apprehend that if Heydon or
Tuddenham appeared in answer to the indictment, it would be with such a
following at his back as would overawe the court. No appearance was put
in for them at all at several of the sessions of _Oyer and Terminer_.
One sitting was held at Norwich on the 2nd of March. Another was held
just after Easter on the 29th of April, and Justice Prisot, not the most
impartial of judges, was sent down to Norwich to hold it. Strong
complaints were put in against Tuddenham and Heydon on the part of the
city of Norwich, and also by the town of Swaffham, by Sir John Fastolf,
Sir Harry Inglos, John Paston, and many others; but, as Fastolf’s
chaplain afterwards informed his master, ‘the judges, by their
wilfulness, might not find in their heart to give not so much as a beck
nor a twinkling of their eye toward, but took it to derision, God reform
such partiality!’ The one-sidedness of Prisot, indeed, was such as to
bring down upon him a rebuke from his colleague Yelverton. ‘Ah, Sir
Mayor and your brethren,’ said the former, ‘as to the process of your
complaints we will put them in continuance, but in all other we will
proceed.’ Yelverton felt bound to protest against such unfairness.
[Sidenote: Partial justice.] Yet even this was not the worst; for
Prisot, seeing that, with all he could do, the result of the proceedings
at Norwich would scarcely be satisfactory to Tuddenham and Heydon, took
it upon him, apparently by his own authority, to remove them to
Walsingham, where they had most supporters. And there, accordingly,
another session was opened on Tuesday the 4th of May.[91-1]
[Footnote 91-1: Nos. 119, 185, 186, 192.]
It was, according to Sir Thomas Howys, ‘the most partial place of all
the shire.’ All the friends and allies of Tuddenham and Heydon, knights
and squires, and gentlemen who had always been devoted to their
pleasure, received due warning to attend. A body of 400 horse also
accompanied the accused, and not one of the numerous complainants
ventured to open his mouth except John Paston. Even he had received a
friendly message only two days before that he had better consider well
whether it was advisable to come himself, as there was ‘great press of
people and few friends’; and, moreover, the sheriff was ‘not so whole’
as he had been. What this expression meant required but little
explanation. As Sheriff of Norfolk, John Jermyn was willing to do Paston
all the service in his power, but simple justice he did not dare to
do.[91-2]
[Footnote 91-2: Nos. 189, 192.]
[Sidenote: John Paston and Lord Molynes.] He had but too good an excuse
for his timidity. Of John Paston’s complaint against Tuddenham and
Heydon we hear no more; we can easily imagine what became of it. But we
know precisely what became of an action brought by Paston at this
sessions against his old adversary Lord Molynes, for his forcible
expulsion from Gresham in the preceding year. John Paston, to be sure,
was now peaceably reinstated in the possession of that manor;[91-3] but
he had the boldness to conceive that undermining his wife’s chamber,
turning her forcibly out of doors, and then pillaging the whole mansion,
were acts for which he might fairly expect redress against both Lord
Molynes and his agents. He had accordingly procured two indictments to
be framed, the first against his lordship, and the second against his
men. But before the case came on at Walsingham, Sheriff Jermyn gave
notice to Paston’s friends that he had received a distinct injunction
from the king to make up a panel to acquit Lord Molynes.[92-1] Royal
letters of such a tenor do not seem to have been at all incompatible
with the usages of Henry VI.’s reign. John Paston himself said the
document was one that could be procured for six-and-eightpence.
[Footnote 91-3: No. 178.]
[Footnote 92-1: No. 189.]
There was no hope, therefore, of making Lord Molynes himself responsible
for the attack on Gresham. The only question was whether the men who had
done his bidding could not be made to suffer for it. After the acquittal
of their master, John Osbern reports a remarkable conversation that he
had with Sheriff Jermyn in which he did his best to induce him to accept
a bribe in Paston’s interest. The gift had been left with the under
sheriff for his acceptance. Jermyn declined to take it until he had seen
Paston himself, but Osbern was fully under the impression that he would
be glad to have it. Osbern, however, appealed also to other arguments.
‘I remembered him,’ he tells Paston, ‘of his promises made before to you
at London, when he took his oath and charge, and that ye were with him
when he took his oath and other divers times; and for those promises
made by him to you at that time, and other times at the _Oyer and
Terminer_ at Lynn, ye proposed you by the trust that ye have in him to
attempt and rear actions that should be to the avail of him and of his
office.’ The prospect of Paston being valuable to him as a litigant had
its weight with the sheriff, and he promised to do him all the good in
his power except in the action against Lord Molynes’ men; for not only
Lord Molynes himself but the Duke of Norfolk had written to him to show
them favour, and if they were not acquitted he expected to incur both
their displeasure and the king’s. In vain did Osbern urge that Paston
would find sufficient surety to save the sheriff harmless. Jermyn said
he could take no surety over £100, and Lord Molynes was a great lord who
could do him more injury than that.[93-1]
[Footnote 93-1: No. 193.]
[[The gift had been left with the under sheriff
_text unchanged: expected form “under-sheriff”_]]
The diplomacy on either side seems to have been conducted with
considerable _finesse_. Jermyn declared that he had been offered twenty
nobles at Walsingham in behalf of the Lord Molynes, but that he had
never received a penny either from him or from any of Paston’s
adversaries. Osbern then offered if he would promise to be sincere
towards Paston, that the latter would give him a sum in hand, as much as
he could desire, or would place it in the hands of a middle man whom
Jermyn could trust. In the end, however, he was obliged to be satisfied
with Jermyn’s assuring him that if he found it lay within his power to
do anything for Paston, he would take his money with good will. The
negotiator’s impression was that he was fully pledged to get Lord
Molynes’ men acquitted, but that in all other actions he would be found
favourable to Paston.[93-2]
[Footnote 93-2: _Ibid._]
[Sidenote: Parliament.] About this time Parliament, which had now been
prorogued for nearly five months, met again at Westminster. The king’s
necessities were doubtless the all-sufficient cause why its meeting
could no longer be dispensed with. The Crown was already in debt to the
sum of £372,000, and was daily becoming more so. The expenses of the
royal household amounted to £24,000 a year, while the yearly revenue out
of which they should have been paid was only £5000. Nor was it by any
means advisable to remedy the matter by imposing fresh taxation; for the
people were so impoverished by the payment of subsidies, the exactions
of the king’s purveyors, and the general maladministration of justice,
that the experiment could hardly have been made with safety. An act of
resumption was the only expedient by which it seemed possible to meet
the difficulty; and all grants of crown lands made to any persons since
the first day of the reign were accordingly recalled by statute.[93-3]
In return for this the Commons preferred a petition to the king that he
would for ever remove from his presence and counsels a number of persons
to whom they alleged it was owing both that his possessions had been
diminished, and that the laws had not been carried into execution.
Foremost on the list was the Duke of Somerset; and with him were named
Alice, widow of the late Duke of Suffolk, William Booth, Bishop of
Chester (that is to say, of Coventry and Lichfield),[94-1] Lord Dudley,
Thomas Daniel, and twenty-five others. It was petitioned that they
should never again be permitted to come within twelve miles of the royal
presence, on pain of forfeiture of lands and goods. But the days had not
yet come when a petition against ministers by the Commons was tantamount
to their dismissal. The king indeed felt it best on this occasion to
yield somewhat; but he yielded on no principle whatever. He declared in
reply that he himself saw no cause for their removal; but he was content
to dismiss the most of them for a year, during which period accusations
brought against any of them might be inquired into. Those who were Peers
of the realm, however, he refused to send away; and he insisted on
retaining the services of one or two others who had been accustomed
continually to wait upon him.[94-2]
[Footnote 93-3: _Rolls of Parl._ v. 217.]
[Footnote 94-1: The modern see of Chester was separated from this
diocese in the time of Henry VIII.]
[Footnote 94-2: _Rolls of Parl._ v. 216.]
Parliament seems shortly after this to have been dissolved, and no
parliament met again till two years later. Of course the influence of
Somerset increased when both Lords and Commons were dismissed into the
country; and we perceive that by the end of the year Thomas Daniel, one
of the old unpopular adherents of the Duke of Suffolk, who,
nevertheless, had not always been acceptable to the Court, was expecting
to recover favour by means of Somerset.[94-3] He is represented as
having cultivated the Duke’s friendship for a quarter of a year; so that
we may conclude Somerset’s ascendency was at this time unmistakable.
With what degree of discretion he made use of it there is little
evidence to show. One advantage that Daniel hoped to gain through his
influence was the friendship of Tuddenham and Heydon, by whose means,
and by the good offices of Lord Scales, he expected to be allowed to
re-enter the manor of Bradeston, of which he had already dispossessed
one Osbert Munford last year, but had subsequently been dispossessed
himself. The value of a disputed title in any part of England probably
depended very much upon who was supreme at Court.
[Footnote 94-3: No. 206. Daniel had been out of favour at one time
during Suffolk’s ascendency. _See_ No. 75, p. 86.]
But high as Somerset stood in the king’s favour, the course of events
did not tend to make him more acceptable to the people. The loss of
Normandy, in the preceding year, was itself a thing not likely to be
readily forgotten; but the misfortunes of the English arms did not end
with the loss of Normandy. So great, indeed, was the despondency
occasioned by that event that, in the opinion of French writers, Calais
itself would not have been able to hold out if the French had
immediately proceeded to attack it. But Charles was afraid he might have
been deserted by the Duke of Burgundy, whose interests would hardly have
been promoted by the French king strengthening himself in that quarter,
and he declined to attempt it.[95-1] Relieved, however, of the necessity
of maintaining a large force in Normandy, he found new occupation for
his troops in completing the conquest of Guienne, of which a beginning
had already been made by the capture of Cognac and of some places near
Bayonne and the Pyrenees. In November 1450 the French laid siege to
Bourg and Blaye on the Garonne, both of which places capitulated in the
spring of the following year. They were the keys of the more important
city of Bordeaux, which, now perceiving that there was no hope of
succour from England, was obliged to follow their example. This was in
June 1451. [Sidenote: Loss of Gascony and Guienne.] Two months
afterwards Bayonne, too, was obliged to capitulate; and with it the
whole of Gascony and Guienne was as completely lost to the English as
Normandy had been in the preceding year. Calais was now all that
remained to them of their conquests and possessions in France; nor were
they without considerable apprehension that they might be expelled from
Calais too.
[Footnote 95-1: Basin, i. 247-48.]
These disasters, which were but the natural sequel to the loss of
Normandy, only served to make more bitter the reflection how the
government of that duchy had been taken out of the able hands of the
Duke of York and given to the incompetent Somerset. The jealousy with
which the latter regarded his rival was heightened by the consciousness
of his own unpopularity. The Duke of York was living in seclusion at his
castle of Ludlow, but Somerset seems to have regarded him with daily
increasing apprehension. He was continually instilling into the king
distrust of York’s fidelity as a subject; until at last the latter
thought it expedient to make a public declaration of his loyalty.
[Sidenote: York’s manifesto.] He accordingly issued the following
manifesto:--
[Sidenote: A.D. 1452.]
Forasmuch as I, Richard Duke of York, am informed that the King, my
sovereign lord, is my heavy lord, greatly displeased with me, and
hath in me a distrust by sinister information of mine enemies,
adversaries, and evil-willers, where[as] God knoweth, from whom
nothing is hid, I am, and have been, and ever will be, his true
liegeman, and so have I before this, divers times, as well by mouth
as by writing, notified and declared to my said sovereign lord: And
for that this notice so comen unto me of the displeasure of my said
sovereign lord is to me so grievous, I have prayed the reverend
father in God, the Bishop of Hereford,[96-1] and my cousin the Earl
of Shrewsbury, to come hither and hear my declaration in this
matter; wherein I have said to them that I am true liegeman to the
King my sovereign lord, ever have been, and shall be to my dying
day. And to the very proof that it is so, I offer myself to swear
that on the blessed Sacrament, and receive it, the which I hope
shall be my salvation at the day of doom. And so for my special
comfort and consolation I have prayed the said lords to report and
declare unto the King’s highness my said offer; and to the end and
intent that I will be ready to do the same oath in presence of two
or three lords, such as shall please the King’s highness to send
hither to accept it. In witness whereof I have signed this schedule
with my sign manual, and set thereunto my signet of arms. Written in
my castle of Ludlow, the 9th of January, the 30th year of the reign
of my sovereign lord, King Henry the Sixth.[96-2]
[Footnote 96-1: Reginald Butler or Boulers, whose appointment to
the see, dated 23rd December 1450, was no doubt due to the Duke of
York’s influence.]
[Footnote 96-2: Stow’s _Chronicle_, p. 393.]
He appears to have waited nearly a month to learn the effect of this
remonstrance. Meanwhile reports came that the French were advancing to
lay siege to Calais. At such a juncture it was peculiarly intolerable
that the administration of affairs should still be intrusted to hands so
notoriously incompetent as those of Somerset; and York, as being the
only man who could stir in such a matter with effect, now made up his
mind to take active steps for Somerset’s removal. Nothing, however,
could be done for such an object without a considerable force of armed
men to support him. York accordingly issued the following address to the
burgesses of Shrewsbury:--
Right worshipful friends, I recommend me unto you; and I suppose it
is well known unto you, as well by experience as by common language
said and reported throughout all Christendom, what laud, what
worship, honour, and manhood, was ascribed of all nations unto the
people of this realm whilst the kingdom’s sovereign lord stood
possessed of his lordship in the realm of France and duchy of
Normandy; and what derogation, loss of merchandize, lesion of
honour, and villany, is said and reported generally unto the English
nation for loss of the same; namely (_i.e._ especially) unto the
Duke of Somerset, when he had the commandance and charge thereof:
the which loss hath caused and encouraged the King’s enemies for to
conquer and get Gascony and Guienne, and now daily they make their
advance for to lay siege unto Calais, and to other places in the
marches there, for to apply them to their obeisance, and so for to
come into the land with great puissance, to the final destruction
thereof, if they might prevail, and to put the land in their
subjection, which God defend. And on the other part it is to be
supposed it is not unknown to you how that, after my coming out of
Ireland I, as the King’s true liegeman and servant (and ever shall
be to my life’s end) and for my true acquittal, perceiving the
inconvenience before rehearsed, advised his Royal Majesty of certain
articles concerning the weal and safeguard, as well of his most
royal person, as the tranquillity and conservation of all this his
realm: the which advertisements, howbeit that it was thought that
they were full necessary, were laid apart, and to be of none effect,
through the envy, malice, and untruth of the said Duke of Somerset;
which for my truth, faith, and allegiance that I owe unto the King,
and the good will and favour that I have to all the realm, laboreth
continually about the King’s highness for my undoing, and to corrupt
my blood, and to disinherit me and my heirs, and such persons as be
about me, without any desert or cause done or attempted, on my part
or theirs, I make our Lord Judge. Wherefore, worshipful friends, to
the intent that every man shall know my purpose and desire for to
declare me such as I am, I signify unto you that, with the help and
supportation of Almighty God, and of Our Lady, and of all the
Company of Heaven, I, after long sufferance and delays, [though it
is] not my will or intent to displease my sovereign lord, seeing
that the said Duke ever prevaileth and ruleth about the King’s
person, [and] that by this means the land is likely to be destroyed,
am fully concluded to proceed in all haste against him with the help
of my kinsmen and friends; in such wise that it shall prove to
promote ease, peace, tranquillity, and safeguard of all this land:
and more, keeping me within the bounds of my liegeance, as it
pertaineth to my duty, praying and exhorting you to fortify,
enforce, and assist me, and to come to me with all diligence,
wheresoever I shall be, or draw, with as many goodly and likely men
as ye may, to execute the intent abovesaid. Written under my signet
at my castle of Ludlow, the 3rd day of February.
Furthermore I pray you that such strait appointment and ordinance be
made that the people which shall come in your fellowship, or be sent
unto me by your agreement, be demeaned in such wise by the way, that
they do no offence, nor robbery, nor oppression upon the people, in
lesion of justice. Written as above, etc.
Your good friend,
R. YORK.[98-1]
To my right worshipful friends, the bailiffs, burgesses and
commons of the good town of Shrewsbury.
[Footnote 98-1: Ellis’s _Letters_, First Series, i. 11-13.]
[Sidenote: York marches towards London.] Having thus collected a
sufficient body of followers, the duke began his march to London. The
Earl of Devonshire, Lord Cobham, and other noblemen also collected
people and joined him.[98-2] The king and Somerset, however, being
informed of his intentions, set out from the capital to meet him,
issuing, at the same time, an imperative summons to Lord Cobham, and
probably to the duke’s other adherents, to repair immediately to the
royal presence.[98-3] But the duke, who had no desire to engage the
king’s forces, turned aside and hoped to reach London unmolested. He
sent a herald before him to desire liberty for himself and his allies to
enter the city; but strict injunctions to the contrary had been left by
the king, and his request was refused. Disappointed in this quarter, it
was natural that he should look for greater sympathy in Kent, where,
doubtless, smouldered still the remains of past disaffection. He
accordingly crossed the Thames at Kingston Bridge, and proceeded with
his host to Dartford. The king’s army followed and pitched their camp
upon Blackheath. And so, on the 1st of March 1452, there lay, within
eight miles of each other, two formidable hosts, which any further
movement must apparently bring into collision.
[Footnote 98-2: _English Chronicle_ (ed. Davies), 69.]
[Footnote 98-3: Nicolas’s _Privy Council Proceedings_, vi. 116.
According to Fabyan, the king and Somerset set out on the 16th of
February. The summons to Lord Cobham, though dated Westminster,
was issued on the 17th.]
To judge from one contemporary account,[99-1] the duke’s position must
have been a strong one. He had a body of ordnance in the field, with no
less than 3000 gunners. He himself had 8000 men in the centre of his
position; while the Earl of Devonshire lay to the south with another
detachment of 6000, and Lord Cobham by the river-side commanded an equal
force. Seven ships lay on the water filled with the baggage of the
troops. But the strength of the king’s army appears to have largely
exceeded these numbers;[99-2] and even if the duke had wished to provoke
a conflict, it was evidently more prudent to remain simply on the
defensive. He accordingly left the responsibility of further action to
those of the king’s party.
[Footnote 99-1: _Cottonian Roll_, ii. 23. _See_ Appendix to this
Introduction.]
[Footnote 99-2: _Rolls of Parl._ v. 346. The statement in the Act
of Attainder passed against the Duke of York seven years
afterwards, that he was ‘of no power to withstand’ the king on
this occasion, is liable to suspicion, but it is confirmed by the
testimony of Whethamstede, 348.]
In this crisis the lords who were with the king took counsel together,
and determined, if possible, to labour for a compromise.[99-3] An
embassy was appointed to go to the Duke of York, and hear what he had to
say. It consisted of the wise and good prelate Waynflete, Bishop of
Winchester, and Bourchier, Bishop of Ely (afterwards Archbishop of
Canterbury), the Earls of Salisbury and Warwick, Lord Beauchamp, Lord
Sudeley, and some others. The answer made by York was, that no ill was
intended against either the king or any of his Council; that the duke
and his followers were lovers of the commonweal; but that it was their
intention to remove from the king certain evil-disposed persons, through
whose means the common people had been grievously oppressed. Of these
the Duke of Somerset was declared to be the chief; and, indeed, his
unpopularity was such that even those on the king’s side would seem to
have seconded the Duke of York’s demand. After a consultation the king
consented that Somerset should be committed to custody until he should
make answer to such charges as York would bring against him.[100-1]
[Footnote 99-3: ‘The Lords, both spiritual and temporal, took the
matter in hand.’ _Three Fifteenth Century Chronicles_ (Camden
Soc.), 69. So also _Chronicle of London_, 137.]
[Footnote 100-1: Fabyan.]
Nothing more seemed necessary to avert civil war. On a simple pledge
given by the king that Somerset should be placed in confinement, and
afterwards put on his trial, the Duke of York at once broke up his camp
and ordered his men home. He then repaired himself to the king’s tent to
express his loyalty. [Sidenote: York is entrapped,] But no sooner had he
arrived there than he found he was deceived. The king, in violation of
his promise, kept the Duke of Somerset attending upon him as his chief
adviser, and York was virtually a prisoner. He was sent on to London in
advance of the king, in a kind of honourable custody, attended by two
bishops, who conducted him to his own residence; but what to do with him
when he got there was a difficulty. His enemies feared to send him to
the Tower. There were 10,000 men yet remaining in the Welsh Marches,
who, on such a rumour, would have come up to London; and it was not very
long before they were reported to be all under arms, and actually on the
march, with the duke’s young son at their head--Edward, Earl of March,
boy as he was, not yet quite ten years old.[100-2]
[Footnote 100-2: Fabyan. _Three Fifteenth Century Chronicles_, 69,
and the MS. Chronicle, Vitell. A. xvi.]
York had distinctly accused the Duke of Somerset as a traitor. He was
now in Somerset’s power, but the latter did not dare to retort the
charge upon him. Yet if Somerset was not a traitor, the course pursued
by York was utterly indefensible. He had actually taken up arms against
the Crown, to remove by force the minister in whom the king had placed
his confidence. But unfortunately Somerset knew too well that if he made
this a ground of accusation against his rival, recrimination would be
sure to follow, and he himself would incur a weight of public odium
which might possibly lead to the same result as in the case of Suffolk.
The wisest and most politic course for himself was not to impeach the
Duke of York, but, if possible, to shut his mouth and let him go free.
No accusation, therefore, was drawn up. [Sidenote: and compelled to
swear allegiance.] An oath of allegiance, binding him over to keep the
peace in time coming, was all that was required. It was on the 1st of
March that York had repaired to the king’s tent and found himself in his
rival’s power. On the 10th he was brought to St. Paul’s, and there
publicly made oath as follows:--
I, Richard, Duke of York, confess and beknow that I am and ought to
be humble subject and liegeman to you, my sovereign Lord, King Henry
the Sixth, and owe therefore to bear you faith and truth as to my
sovereign lord, and shall do all the days unto my life’s end; and
shall not at any time will or assent, that anything be attempted or
done against your noble person, but wheresoever I shall have
knowledge of any such thing imagined or purposed I shall, with all
the speed and diligence possible to me, make that your Highness
shall have knowledge thereof, and even do all that shall be possible
to me to the withstanding thereof, to the utterest of my life.
I shall not in no wise any thing take upon me against your royal
estate or the obeisance that is due thereto, nor suffer any other
man to do, as far forth as it shall lie in my power to let it; and
also I shall come at your commandment, whensoever I shall be called
by the same, in humble and obeisant wise, but if [_i.e._ unless] I
be letted by any sickness or impotency of my person or by such other
causes as shall be thought reasonable to you, my sovereign lord.
I shall never hereafter take upon me to gather any routs, or make any
assembly of your people, without your commandment or licence, or in
my lawful defence. In the interpretation of which my lawful defence,
and declaration thereof, I shall report me at all times to your
Highness, and, if the case require, unto my peers: nor anything
attempt by way of faite against any of your subjects, of what
estate, degree, or condition that they be. But whensoever I find
myself wronged or aggrieved, I shall sue humbly for remedy to your
Highness, and proceed after the course of your laws, and in none
other wise, saving in mine own lawful defence in manner above said;
and shall in all things abovesaid and other have me unto your
Highness as an humble and true subject ought to have him to his
Sovereign Lord.
All these things above said I promise truly to observe and keep, by
the Holy Evangelists contained in this book that I lay my hand upon,
and by the Holy Cross that I here touch, and by the blessed
Sacrament of our Lord’s body that I shall now with His mercy
receive. And over this I agree me and will that if I any time
hereafter, as with the grace of our Lord I never shall, anything
attempt by way of fear or otherwise against your royal majesty and
obeisance that I owe thereto, or anything I take upon me otherwise
than is above expressed, I from that time forth be unabled, [held
and taken as an untrue and openly forsworn man, and unable][102-1]
to all manner of worship, estate, and degree, be it such as I now
occupy, or any other that might grow unto me in any wise.
And this I here have promised and sworn proceedeth of mine own
desire and free voluntee and by no constraining or coercion. In
witness of all the which things above written I, Richard, Duke of
York above named, subscribe me with mine own hand and seal, with
this mine own seal, &c.[102-2]
[Footnote 102-1: These words are not in the copy in the _Rolls
of Parliament_, but they occur in that given in Holinshed’s
_Chronicle_.]
[Footnote 102-2: _Rolls of Parl._ v. 346.]
With this guarantee for his future loyalty, the duke was permitted to
return into his own country.
Somerset might well be pleased that the matter should be settled thus;
for if the charges York brought, or at least was prepared to have
brought, against him were only one-half true (and some of them certainly
were true altogether), his administration of the Duchy of Normandy was a
mixture of indiscretion and dishonesty at which the nation had good
right to be indignant. We have already seen how in concert with the Duke
of Suffolk he had authorised a perfidious breach of the truce with
France in the capture of Fougères. We have also seen how ill prepared he
was for the consequences; how he discovered too late the weakness of all
the garrisons; how the French king recovered town after town, and the
English were finally expelled from Normandy in less than a year and a
half after the unjustifiable outrage. [Sidenote: York’s charges against
Somerset.] But if any credit may be given to the further charges
brought against him by the Duke of York,--charges which agree only
too well with the character attributed to him by the most impartial
authorities[102-3]--Somerset had himself to blame in great measure for
the defenceless condition of the country committed to his protection.
On his first going into Normandy he had jobbed the offices under his
control. For the sake of private emolument he had removed a number of
trusty and experienced captains, filling their places with creatures of
his own, or men who had paid _douceurs_ for their posts; and only on
receipt of still greater bribes would he consent to restore any of those
that had been put out. He had, however, actually reduced many garrisons,
while he had taxed the inhabitants of the Duchy beyond all reason for
the means of defence. His administration of justice, too, had been such
as to excite the most vehement dissatisfaction, and had made the whole
native population impatient of English government. He had, moreover,
pocketed the compensation given by France to the dispossessed Englishmen
of Anjou and Maine. Worse still, after all his maladministration and ill
success, he had prevailed on the king to make him captain of Calais,
which it seemed as if he was on the point of losing also in as careless
and culpable a manner as he had already lost Normandy.
[Footnote 102-3: The character given of the Duke of Somerset by
the contemporary historian Basin is on the whole favourable, and
may be supposed to be impartial. He describes him as handsome in
person, gentle and urbane in manner, and well inclined towards
justice; but all these graces were marred by an insatiable avarice
which would not let him rest content with the immense wealth he
had inherited from Cardinal Beaufort; and by continually coveting
the riches of others he brought ruin on himself. Basin, i. 193.]
Here, however, is the full text of the accusation,[103-1] as prepared by
York himself:--
Thies articles and pointes folowyng yeve, shewe and ministre I,
Richard Duc of York, youre true liegman and servaunt unto youre
highnesse, summarily purposyng and declaryng thaym ayeinst Edmond
Duc of Somerset for the grete welfare and the comen availle and
interesse of youre mageste Roiall and of this youre noble roialme,
aswell to bryng to knawlege and understondyng the meanes and causes
of the grete myscheves and inconvenientz which late befe[l] unto
this youre said noble roiame, as in losse of youre lyvelode by yonde
thee see and otherwyse in ponisshment of deservitours and excuse of
innocencie, and also in puttyng aside and eschuyng of the grete and
importable hurte and prejudice which ben like, withouten that
purviaunce be had of remedie, to succede in shorte tyme. To the
which articles and every of theym I, the seid Duc of York, desire of
youre egall and indifferent rightwesnesse that the seid Edmond
answere by his feith and trouth, the sacrement of his othe
thereuppon made, duly and truly as lawe and conscience requireth;
I also desiryng, for the veraly examinacion and knowlech of trouth
theruppon to be had, and for the grete and singuler weel of this
youre said Roiame, to be admytted to the prefe, and to yeve evidence
in the said articles that folowyn in such as he woll denye, after
the equite and consideracion of lawe in such case, and processe had,
and also of good feith and conscience justice thereafter to be don
and executid.
First, I article and declare that the seid Edmond Duc of Somersett
hath be meane, consenter, occasioner, cause and mediatour, both by
his inwarde knowlege and expresse consent, by counseill, and
worchyng thurghe diverse subtyle weyes and meanes, as by violent
presumpcion and otherwyse is knowen and understonde, and furthermore
also by his inordinate negligence, lacchesse and wilfull
rechelessnes and insaciate covetyse, of the losse and amission of
youre Duchie of Normandie, rejoissed and possessed at this tyme, for
the defence of his negligent kepyng and otherwyse before reherced,
by youre enemyes. Which may clerly by (_sic_) understonde by the
meanes and causes that folowen; of the which and for such one he is
openly called, reputed and had by the comen fame and voice. Of the
which oon cause is that the seid Duc of Somersett, at his first
comyng into Normandie, chaunged and putt out of theire occupacion
and youre service, withoute skyll, cause or reason, all the true and
feithfull officers, for the most partie, of all Normandie, and put
in such as hym liked for his owne singuler availe and covetyse, as
it apperith well, inasmoch as ther coude noon of theym that were so
put out be restored agayn withoute grete giftes and rewardes, which
was full unfittyng. And furthermore did put in prison many diverse
and notable persones of youre seid Duchie, withoute cause, justice
or any ordinarie processe made agayn theym or due examinacion, and
by that meane did grete extorcions and rered unlawfully grete sommes
undre colour of amendes and composicions, wherby the cuntre for such
wrong and faute of justice grucched sore agayn hym and his
governaunce and caused the people to arise in theire conseytes and
to take grete displeasir; and that was a grete occasion and cause of
the losse of youre said Duchie of Normandie.
Item, the seid Edmond Duc of Somerset was cause and consenter
voluntarie of the brekyng of the trues and pais for a tyme had
betwene youre highnes and youre uncle of Fraunce, which was well
understond at the taking of Fogiers in Britaigne by Sir Fraunceys
Larragonneys thurgh his avise, consentement, and counseile; and also
duryng the said trues made more strong and fortified diverse places
disopered by youre commaundement, as Morteyn and Seint Jakes de
Beveron, ageyn the appointement of the seid trues; uppon which youre
uncle did sommon hym to make a-seeth [_satisfaction_] and for to
disimpaire the seid fortifying and wrong don agayn the trues, and in
asmoch as non aseeth by hym was don, nor [he] lefte not of his seid
fortifiyng, caused youre seid uncle to have, as he pretende, cause
to breke the said trues on his partie; which brekyng of trues was
oon of the verray cause of losse of Normandie. And thus he brake the
seide trues ayeinst his promysse and true feith made to youre
highnes, which was to kepe and entretyn the said trues, and so did
ayen the lawe in this behalve and youre statutes of the roiame.
Item, he put away and diminisshed diverse garnisons and other strong
places of youre seid Duchie of Normandie of soudiours and of men of
werre which were accustumed to abide uppon the suerte and saufgarde
of the same, howe be hit he had verrayly knowlege that youre ennmyes
were full determi[ned] for to ley seges to put the same places in
theire subjeccion, not paiyng duely nor contentyng such soudiours as
abode uppon the defences of the same places; he reryng at that tyme
in youre said Duchie as grete tailles and aides as were in long tyme
before duryng the werre; and that caused the soudiours in diverse
strong places for poverte, not havyng hors nor harneys, and also the
nombre diminisshed, to be of non poiaire to make resistence, and
that was a grete cause of the losse of Normandie. The losse of which
caused the perdicion of Gascoigne and Guyen.
Item, the Duc of Somersett wold yeve noo counseile, aide ne helpe
unto the capitanis of diverse stronge places and garnisons which at
that tyme, constreyned by nede, desired of hym provision and relief
for abillement of werre to resiste the malice of theire enemyes
daily makyng fressh feetes of werre uppon theym; he gevyng theym
noone aide nor help, but lete theym contynue in theire malice, howe
be it that diverse places were lost before: and what tyme that the
said places were beseged and sent for help and socour unto hym he
wold graunte no maner of comforte, but suffred hem appoint and
compounde with here enemyes as well as they myght for theire ease
and suertee, makyng no maner of provision for the kepyng of the
places which remayned; insomuch that he made non ordinaunce nor
provision for the toun, castell, and places of Rouen, neither of
men, stuffe ne vitaile, the knowlage that he had of youre enemyes
comyng thereunto notwithstondyng, yevyng licence unto the
Archiebisshopp, chanons and burgeys of the same toun for to goo or
sende to compounde with youre enemyes for the deliveraunce of the
same, notwithstondyng that afore that tyme the enemyes which were
entred in to the same toun were worshiply put oute and betyn of by
the Erle of Shrowesbury and other notable persones, and withdrawen
to Pontlarge and Loviers, and at that tyme, they beyng so
withdrawen, licenced to appointe as it is aforeseid. Which was
plainly ayeinst his promys, feith and liegeaunce that he of right
oweth unto you, and ayeinst the tenure of the endentures made betwix
youre highnes and hym of the charge of that londe, the which
licence, and it had not ben don, the seid toun had abiden undre
youre obeisaunce, the losse of whiche was a verray ope
. . . .[106-1] cause of the perdicion of Normandie.
Item, the said Duc of Somersett, for to colour his defautes and
wilfull purp[o]s in the premisses, entred in to youre palaice of
Rouen not vitailed nor fo[rnisshed][106-1] for defence, where he
myght savely absentid hym, and yeldid up the said Palaice and
Castell, and moreover other good tounes, castels and
[fortresses],[106-1] as Caudebek, and other diverse, as Tancarville,
Moustervillers, Arques, key of all Caulx, not beseged nor in perell
of losse at that tyme, for the enlargisshyn[g] and deliveraunce of
hym, his childre and goodes; which myght not, nor hath not, be done
nor seen by lawe, resoun or cronikel, or by cours or a . . . . . .
any leftenant, all though that he had be prisoner: Witnesse the Duc
of Orliaunce, the Duc of Burbon, the Duc of Alansum and other . . .
. . . for whom was none delyvered, al though they had many strong
places of theire owen. And furthermore fore the suertee of
delyveraunce of . . . . . . tounes, castell and forteresses which
were wel furnysshed for to have resisted youre enemyes, and to have
biden within youre obeisaunce, delyvered in ostage the Erle of
Shrowesbury, that tyme Marescall of Fraunce, and other notable
persones which shuld have defended youre lande there ayens the
malice of youre enemyes; and in likewyse apointed to delyver Honflu,
which was in noo gret perell, ne had be that it was retardyd by
youre lettres and so by that fraudelent and inordinat meane all was
lost and yoldon up, as hereafter by more evident declaracions it
shalbe clerely [proved].[106-2]
Item, the said Duc of Somerset hath contrived and ymagined, helped
or consented to the grete and importable losse of Cales to be undre
the obeisaunce of the Duc of Burgoyn, as it apperith openly by
diverse skilles, evidencez, and resons; that is to sey, in asmuch as
he desired and made laboures, or at the lest toke uppon hym, for to
be capiten of the seid Toun of Cales, knowyng and understondyng well
the grete murmur and sclaunder which daily rennyth agayn hym for the
losse and sale, as it is surmyttid, of Normandie, to the grete
discoragyng of the soudiours of the said Toun; where as the comen
fame is that he will bylike sotill meanes contrive and ymagyn the
losse and amission of youre said Toun of Cales, like as he hath
afore causid the perdicion of youre Duchie of Normandie; which
apperith well, in asmoch as he hath desirid the terme of a monyth
without more, that, in case that the said Toun were besegid and not
rescuyd within the said monyth, that than he shuld stond discharged
though it were delyvered to youre enemyes; within which tyme it were
impossible, or at the lest full unlikly, that never myght be
assembled for the rescu therof, where as it may and hath be
here-before kept ayens the force of youre enemyes moche lenger tyme
in grete jupardy; which is so grete an hevynesse and trouble to
youre said soudiours, that by theire langage, demenyng and
communicacion it may be understond that they will not be so herty
nor feithfull to the welfare and defence of the said Toun as they
shuld be in case they had a captayn more agreable unto theym. And
also this premisse apperith well in asmoch as the comen voyce,
langage, and fame is, and also grete prefe and evidence shalbe made
theruppon, that the seid Duc of Somerset, in hope of mariage to be
doon and had be twix the Duc son of Burgoyn[107-1] and one of his
doughters, had made a promysse and behest to the said Duc of
Burgoyne, or Duchesse by his meane, concent and massangers, of the
delyverey of the Toun of Cales, to be done by such sotill meanes as
shuld not be understond neither of youre highenes nor of youre
subgettz.
Item, the said Duc of Somerset is cause of grete hurte, robbery,
manslauter and other myscheves daily done and contynued in this
youre roialme, in asmoch as he resceyved and had at the delyverey of
Anjoy and Mayn iij.{xx} xij.{m} (72,000) frankes or there aboutes,
which were graunted and ordeyned to the Englisshmen havyng theire
[_there_] lyvelode for theire recompense and asyth for the lyverey
up of theire seid lyvelode at the said delyveraunce, and wold not
dispose the same money nor departe therfrom, bot kepith it still to
his owne use and singuler availe, notwithstondyng that he was
recompensid for his lyvelode in that cuntrey in youre Duchie of
Normandie of a more value than the gift therof was worth, which
causith the said Englisshmen to be here in grete povertee; of which
povertee no doute commyth grete myscheve daily within your said
roiame. And also in so muche as many diverse soudiours of Normandye
were not paied theire wages, where he rerid grete and notable sommes
of youre Duchie of Normandie for ther agrement, which non paiement
and poverte causith also daily grete inconvenientz within this your
lande.
Item, that these forsaid articles and poyntz be just and true it may
well appere by many grete presumpcions beside evident prefes that
shalbe made thereuppon with open and notarie fame and voice of the
people, and also inasmoch as the said Duc of Somerset hath be double
and untrue in many and diverse pointes, and in especiall that he
hath desirid a recompense of youre highnes for the counte of Mayn
for the delyverance therof, where it was specified in youre lettres
patentes of your graunte therof to hym made that ye shuld be at your
libertee to dispose it at your pleasere in case that ye for the
meane of the pease wold do make a lyverey thereof unto youre uncle
of Fraunce; and yit at the tyme of delyveraunce thereof he wold not
agree therto unto tyme that he were recompensid, as it is aforesaid,
in youre Duchie of Normandie to a more value than his said graunte
drue to.
Item, thees forsaid articles, everyche of theym and every parte of
theym, purposyth and ministre I, Richard, Duc of York, ayens the
said Duc of Somersett joyntly and severally not atteigne to a more
strate nor chargeable prefe than your lawe in such case and processe
will require; desiryng of youre highnesse and rightuous justice that
in asmoche as lawfully may ayenst hym be foundon or previd, that
jugement in that partie be had and executid unto youre highnes for
yours and youre roialmes prosperite and welfare, indende not elles
bot the salvacion and indempnite of youre most roiale persone, and
also alle youre feithfull subgettz, in which y reporte me to God and
all the word [_world_].
[Footnote 103-1: Printed in this Introduction for the first time
from the original in the Cottonian MS., Vesp. C. xiv. f. 40. The
first paragraph of this document is quoted by Stowe in his
_Chronicle_, p. 397, and the charges are referred by him to the
thirty-third year of the king’s reign, _i.e._ the latter part of
A.D. 1454, which is certainly erroneous. The date which he
intended, indeed, was the latter part of the year 1453, when the
Duke of Somerset was arrested and sent to the Tower; but this date
also is quite impossible.]
[Footnote 106-1: MS. mutilated.]
[Footnote 106-2: A line seems here to be cut off in the MS. at
the bottom of the leaf.]
[Footnote 107-1: Charles, afterwards Charles the Bold, son of
Philip the Good, who was at this time Duke of Burgundy.]
[[Anjoy and Mayn iij.{xx} xij.{m} (72,000) frankes
_the letters shown as {superscripts} were printed directly above
the preceding numbers_]
I imagine this paper must have been really handed in by York to the
lords of the king’s Council. It is preserved among the MSS. in the
Cottonian Library, a large number of which were undoubtedly at one time
part of the public records of the realm. But in any case we can hardly
doubt that Somerset understood quite sufficiently the grounds on which
he was so generally hated; nor is it by any means improbable that the
armed remonstrance of the Duke of York produced some real effect, if
only for a time. This at least we know, that only four days after the
oath taken by York at St. Paul’s, active and energetic measures began to
be taken for the defence of Calais. [Sidenote: Defence of Calais.]
Historians, as Sir Harris Nicolas truly remarks, do not seem hitherto to
have been aware of the imminent danger in which even Calais at this time
stood of being lost, like the other English conquests, a full century
before it was actually recovered by the French. Rumours that Calais
would be besieged reached England in the beginning of May 1450, along
with the news of the Duke of Suffolk’s murder.[108-1] In August 1451 a
reinforcement of 1150 men was sent thither in twelve vessels, under the
Lords Beauchamp and Sudeley. In the February following, as we have seen,
York wrote of the success of the French in Gascony having emboldened
them to lay siege to Calais again. And now, on the 14th of March, when
Charles was advancing towards the last English stronghold, with the most
formidable army that had been seen for years, and when men had begun to
fear that he would be able not only to gain possession of Calais with
ease, but even to invade and ravage England, steps were at last taken
for the immediate formation of a fleet.
[Footnote 108-1: Letter 121.]
A royal navy had undoubtedly existed for a long time before the days of
Henry VI., but it never amounted in itself to a very formidable force,
and in time of war recourse was always had to impressment on the large
scale. But the neglect of the sea was during this reign the constant
complaint of Englishmen. For want of an efficient fleet the mercantile
interest continually suffered, the fisheries could not safely be
visited, and even the dwellers at home were insecure. The fact was
confessed by the greatest eulogists of Henry VI., who had not a thought
of impugning his government. ‘Our enemies,’ says Capgrave in his
_Illustrious Henries_,--‘Our enemies laugh at us. They say, “Take off
the ship from your precious money, and stamp a sheep upon it to signify
your sheepish minds.” We who used to be conquerors of all nations are
now conquered by all. The men of old used to say that the sea was
England’s wall, and now our enemies have got upon the wall; what think
you they will do to the defenceless inhabitants? Because this business
has been neglected for so many years it now happens that ships are
scanty, and sailors also few, and such as we have unskilled for want of
exercise. May God take away our reproach and raise up a spirit of
bravery in our nation!’[109-1]
[Footnote 109-1: _Capgrave de Illust. Henricis_, 135.]
There were already available for the king’s service a certain number of
ships in the Thames, and at Winchelsea and Sandwich. The chief of these
vessels was called the _Grace Dieu_--a name which was perhaps
traditional, for it was handed down to Tudor times when, with the king’s
own Christian name prefixed, it was always given to the largest of the
fleet.[109-2] The Earl of Shrewsbury[110-1] was appointed to take the
command of the whole army at sea, and efforts were made to augment the
squadron with as large a force as possible. On the 14th of March 1452 a
commission was given to Lord Clifford, which was doubtless one of a
number given to various noblemen, to negotiate for this purpose with
shipowners, knights, and gentlemen in the district where he commonly
resided; and he was instructed to take the command of all such vessels
as he could raise, and bring them into the Downs to join with
Shrewsbury. The appeal to patriotism was not made in vain. Many
shipowners came forward, offering not only to lend but to victual their
own ships for the service. But full powers were also given to arrest
ships, shipmasters, and mariners, to make up a sufficient number. To
every man not furnished with victuals by the benevolence of others,
twelve pence a week was offered on the king’s behalf, with a customary
share in any booty that he might help to capture at sea. Captains of
ships were to have in addition a reward of ten marks, or £10, at the
discretion of Lord Clifford. Altogether we may presume that the
defensive measures taken at this time were sufficient, for we hear no
more during the next few years of any attempt to lay siege to Calais.
[Footnote 109-2: The _Henry Grace Dieu_ of Henry VIII.’s time is,
however, better known by its popular epithet of the _Great
Harry_.]
[Footnote 110-1: The Earl of Shrewsbury, as already mentioned, had
been given up to the French in 1449 as a hostage for the delivery
of certain towns in Normandy. It is said that he only recovered
his liberty on taking oath never to bear arms again against the
French, but that on visiting Rome in the year of Jubilee, 1450, he
obtained an absolution from this engagement.--_Æneæ Sylvii Opera_,
441.]
_Amnesty at Home--Disaster Abroad_
[Sidenote: General pardon.] As to internal dissensions at home, it was
quite in accordance with the weakness of the king’s character to believe
that he had now stilled the chief elements of danger. His piety
suggested to him to complete the good work by a general political
amnesty. The year 1450, as being the concluding year of a half-century,
had been celebrated as a jubilee at Rome, during which a general
indulgence and pardon were granted to all who visited the Imperial City.
There was also, according to precedent, a bull issued at the close of
the year to extend these benefits still further. Taking his example from
the great Spiritual Ruler, the king, on Good Friday, the 7th of April
1452, offered publicly a general pardon to all who had been guilty of
acts of disloyalty to himself, and who would apply to his Chancery for
letters patent.[111-1] The offer was, undoubtedly, both gracious and
humane. It sprang from a genuine love of peace on the king’s part, and
probably went far to make the government of Somerset endurable for some
months longer. Amid the confusion and troubles of the times, thousands
must have felt that they needed the royal clemency to protect them
against the severity of the laws. One hundred and forty-four persons,
among whom was Thomas Young of Bristol--he who had proposed in
Parliament that York should be proclaimed heir to the crown--obtained
sealed pardons on that very Good Friday. Some two or three thousand
others laid claim to the like indulgence, and had patents granted to
them at a later date.[111-2] Only a very few persons were excepted on
account of the enormity of their offences.
[Footnote 111-1: Whethamstede, 317.]
[Footnote 111-2: The names are all entered on the _Pardon Roll_ of
30 and 31 Henry VI. Among the hosts of less interesting names, we
find that the Duke of York took out a pardon on the 3rd of June;
the Duke of Norfolk and the young Duke of Suffolk on the 23rd of
the same month; Thomas Percy, Lord Egremont, on the 1st; Thomas
Courtenay, Earl of Devon, on the 20th, and Sir William Oldhall,
who is called of Hunsdon, on the 26th. Ralph, Lord Cromwell, had
one on the 22nd May, and Robert Wynnyngton of Dartmouth (the
writer of Letter 90) on the 28th July. On the 12th July a joint
pardon was given to Sir Henry Percy, Lord Ponynges, and Eleanor,
his wife, kinswoman and heir of Sir Robert Ponynges. At later
dates we have also pardons to Henry, Viscount Bourchier, and Sir
John Talbot, son and heir of the Earl of Shrewsbury.]
One part of his kingdom, however, Henry himself did not expect to pacify
by such means only. The state of the county of Norfolk had been so
represented to him that he felt it necessary to send thither the Duke of
Norfolk. ‘Great riots, extortions, horrible wrongs and hurts,’ were the
subject of complaint, and nothing but an impartial inquiry would give
satisfaction. The duke on coming into the country issued a proclamation,
urging all who had any complaints to make to lay them freely and
fearlessly before him. But free and fearless evidence was not likely to
be had without a strong guarantee for the protection of witnesses.
Already the news of the duke’s coming had got wind, and some of the
dependants of Lord Scales, who had been amongst the principal offenders,
had given notice that any complaints against _them_ would be redressed
in another fashion after the duke’s departure. In the absence of the
duke Lord Scales had been always hitherto the natural ruler of the
county, and it was under his protection that Sir Thomas Tuddenham, Sir
Miles Stapleton, John Heydon, and others had dared to make themselves
unpopular. Norfolk accordingly declared in the same proclamation that he
intended henceforth to vindicate for himself so long as he lived the
chief power and authority in the county which bore his name, subject
only to that of the king himself. [Sidenote: Intended royal visit to
Norfolk.] And to give still greater encouragement to the well-disposed,
he announced that the king himself would shortly visit the county,
before whom all who desired it should have their grievances
redressed.[112-1]
[Footnote 112-1: No. 210.]
That the king actually visited Norfolk at this time I do not find from
any other evidence. A letter written on St. George’s Day says that he
had been expected at Norwich or Claxton for ten days past. Encouraged by
the duke’s proclamation, several gentlemen of the county had drawn up a
complaint against Charles Nowell, and were waiting to know in what
manner they should present it. [Sidenote: Complaint against Charles
Nowell.] This Charles and a number of others appear to have been keeping
the country east of Norwich at the time in continual alarm and
confusion. They held their rendezvous at the house of one Robert
Ledeham, from which they would issue out in bands of six, or twelve, or
sometimes thirty or more, fully armed with bows and arrows, spears and
bills, jacks and sallets.[112-2] No place was sacred from their
outrages. On Mid-Lent Sunday they had attacked two servants of the
Bishop of Norwich inside the church at Burlingham, and would have killed
them behind the priest’s back while they were kneeling at the mass. On
the 6th of April they had endeavoured to break into the White Friars at
Norwich on pretence of wishing to hear evensong; but having publicly
declared in the town that they intended to get hold of certain citizens,
either alive or dead, the doors were shut against them. Happily, before
they accomplished their purpose the mayor and aldermen came to the spot.
A multitude of people had meanwhile assembled in the streets, and the
rioters, finding the odds considerably against them, quietly took their
departure.[113-1]
[Footnote 112-2: Coats of mail and helmets.]
[Footnote 113-1: Nos. 211, 217, 241.]
[Sidenote: John Paston assaulted at Norwich Cathedral.] John Paston had
a complaint of his own to make against these wrongdoers. Charles Nowell
himself, and five others, had attacked him at the door of Norwich
Cathedral. He had with him at the time two servants, one of whom
received a blow on the naked head with a sword; and he himself was
seized and had his arms held behind him, while one of the company struck
at him. But for a timely rescue his death would seem to have been
certain. On the very day on which this occurred his wife’s uncle, Philip
Berney, was waylaid by some of the same fellowship, in the highway under
Thorpe Wood. Berney was riding, accompanied by a single servant, when
their two horses first were wounded by a discharge of arrows. They were
then speedily overtaken by their assailants, who broke a bow over Philip
Berney’s head, and took him prisoner, declaring him to be a traitor. To
give a further colour to their proceedings, they led him prisoner to the
Bishop of Norwich, demanding surety of him to keep the peace, and, when
they had obtained it, let him go. Philip Berney lived more than a year
after the adventure, but he never recovered from the effects of this
rough usage.[113-2]
[Footnote 113-2: Nos. 212, 213, 227, 228, 241.]
Outrages like these, it must be remembered, were not the work of lawless
brigands and recognised enemies of the whole community. They were merely
the effect of party spirit. The men who did them were supported by
noblemen and country gentlemen. One, by name Roger Church, probably the
most daring, and at the same time the most subtle, of the gang, had got
himself made bailiff of the hundred of Blofield.[113-3] Charles Nowell
was a friend of Thomas Daniel, who, after being a year and a half out of
favour, had recently recovered his influence in Norfolk through the
medium of the Duke of Somerset.[114-1] By this means he seems again to
have obtained possession of the manor of Bradeston, the right to which
he had disputed in 1450, apparently more by arms than by law, with
Osbert Mountford, marshal of Calais. Charles Nowell was appointed by
Daniel bailiff of the manor, with the slender but not insignificant
salary of twopence a day; and he and his fellows, Roger Church, Robert
Ledeham, John Ratcliff, and Robert Dalling, made it their chief business
to maintain Daniel in possession.
[Footnote 113-3: Nos. 214, 241.]
[Footnote 114-1: No. 206.]
To put an end to such a state of matters as this, the Duke of Norfolk’s
coming must have been truly welcome. But if any man expected that the
power of duke or king could suddenly terminate the reign of anarchy, and
initiate an era of plain impartial justice, he must have been a sanguine
mortal. As one of the first effects of the duke’s coming, some of the
leading oppressors of the country were driven to a course of chicanery
instead of violence. [Sidenote: Roger Church.] Roger Church got himself
arrested by some of his own company, and was brought before the duke as
a promoter of sedition. He was accused of having taken part in an
unlawful assembly at Postwick, with the view of stirring up an
insurrection. He confessed the fact, and offered to turn king’s evidence
on his accomplices. He then named a number of thrifty husbandmen,
farmers, and gentlemen of the neighbourhood, alleging that about three
hundred persons were implicated in the intended rising. The truth, as it
presently turned out, and as Church himself afterwards confessed, was,
that the movement had been got up by himself, at the instigation of
Robert Ledeham, who promised to procure his pardon through the influence
of Daniel. By solicitations addressed to various unsteady characters he
had induced some to believe that an insurrection would be well
supported. A little company of fifteen men accordingly met him under a
wood at Postwick, and he told them he had discovered an excellent name
for their captain, who should be called John Amend-All. But beyond this
meeting and naming of the captain nothing seems ever to have come of the
project.[114-2]
[Footnote 114-2: Nos. 214, 217, 218, 219, 241.]
John Paston was certainly one of those mentioned by Church. The chief
persons accused were the friends of Osbert Mountford, and Paston was one
of them. But John Falgate, one of the deluded victims who had been
present at the meeting at Postwick, being subjected to examination
before the sheriff, exonerated Paston, and, while acknowledging his own
share in the conspiracy, pronounced the tale told by Roger Church in his
confession to be altogether an invention. We need not be surprised to
hear that after this a petition from the county of Norfolk was sent up
to the Lord Chancellor, praying that Church should not be allowed the
benefit of the general pardon, offered upon Good Friday.[115-1] But
Church persevered in his policy. He appears to have been a reckless kind
of adventurer. He probably claimed the benefit of clergy, for we find
him three months after his arrest in the hands of officers of the Bishop
of Norwich. His goods also were seized for a debt that he owed the
bishop. But in spite of the contradictions given by other witnesses, in
July he adhered to what he had said in April, and instead of retracting
his former accusations, said he meant to impeach some one else whom he
could not at that time name,--a man who, he said, had more money in his
purse than all of those whom he had accused before. The coolness with
which he persisted in these statements gave an impression that he was
even yet relying upon powerful friends to support him.[115-2]
[Footnote 115-1: The petition, I think, must have been effectual,
for I did not find Church’s name on the _Pardon Roll_, 30 and 31
Henry VI.]
[Footnote 115-2: Nos. 214, 216, 218.]
The conclusion of the affair must be a matter of speculation, for we
hear nothing more of it. The political history of England, too, is, at
this point, almost a blank. We know from the Privy Council Proceedings
that there was some difficulty in the spring of 1452 in preserving
friendly relations with Scotland in consequence of some Border outrages
perpetrated by the Earl of Douglas. And this is absolutely all the light
we have on the domestic affairs of England for about a twelvemonth after
the Duke of York’s oath of allegiance at St. Paul’s. I have found,
however, by an examination of the dates of privy seals, [Sidenote: A
royal progress.] that in July the king began a progress into the west of
England, which is not altogether without significance. He reached Exeter
on the 18th, and from thence proceeded by Wells, Gloucester, Monmouth,
and Hereford to Ludlow, where he arrived on the 12th of August, and from
which he returned homewards by Kenilworth and Woodstock, arriving at
Eltham in the beginning of September. In October he made another circuit
northwards by St. Albans to Stamford, Peterborough, and Cambridge. There
can hardly be a doubt the object of these journeys was mainly to
conciliate those who had declared their opposition to the Duke of
Somerset, especially when we consider that the visit to Ludlow must have
been nothing less than a visit to the Duke of York. York was now more
than pardoned. He was honoured by his sovereign.
Financially, however, we may well suppose that the duke was not the
better of the royal visit. Perhaps also the state of the country did not
conduce to the prosperity of great landowners. At all events we find
that at the end of the year York was glad to pledge some pieces of
jewellery to Sir John Fastolf for a loan of £437, to be repaid next
Midsummer.[116-1] The transaction is in every way curious, as
illustrating the sort of dealings in money matters which were at that
time by no means uncommon among knights and noblemen. It is certainly
highly characteristic of such a knight as Sir John Fastolf, who, quite
unlike the Falstaff of the dramatist, instead of being always needy, was
always seeking to increase the wealth that he had amassed by long years
of thrift and frugality.
[Footnote 116-1: No. 223.]
[Sidenote: Sir John Fastolf.] We have had occasion to mention the
historic Fastolf before; and it is time that we should now direct
attention to the circumstances of his private life and his connection
with the Paston family. John Paston, as the reader has already been
informed, was ultimately his executor, and to this circumstance may
safely be attributed the preservation of so many of his letters, most of
which have certainly been handed down with the papers of the Paston
family. Nevertheless, up to the time at which we have now arrived we do
not find that he directly corresponded with any of them. We can see,
however, that he had a high regard for John Paston’s advice in business,
and sometimes sent letters and documents of importance by him to his
agent in Norfolk, Sir Thomas Howes.[117-1] He seems to have been related
in blood to John Paston’s wife,[117-2] and he acknowledges Paston
himself as his cousin in his will. From the general tenor of most of his
letters we should certainly no more suspect him of being the old soldier
that he actually was than of being Shakespeare’s fat, disorderly knight.
Every sentence in them refers to lawsuits and title-deeds, extortions
and injuries received from others, forged processes affecting property,
writs of one kind or another to be issued against his adversaries,
libels uttered against himself, and matters of the like description.
Altogether the perusal is apt to give us an impression that Sir John
would have made an acute and able, though perhaps not very highminded,
solicitor. If ever his agent, Sir Thomas Howes, was, or seemed to be,
a little remiss in regard to some particular interest, he was sure to
hear of it, and yet woe to him if he did things on his own responsibility
which turned out afterwards to be a failure.[117-3] Sir John was not the
man to pass over lightly injuries done by inadvertence.
[Footnote 117-1: Nos. 153, 159, 162, 186, 188, 203.]
[Footnote 117-2: Note the passages in Margaret Paston’s letter
(No. 222):--‘Yet I suppose Sir John, if he were spoken to, would
be gladder to let his kinsmen have part than strangers.’ And
again:--‘Assay him in my name of such places as ye suppose is most
clear.’]
[Footnote 117-3: No. 202.]
The familiarity shown by Fastolf with all the forms and processes of the
law is probably due not so much to the peculiarity of his personal
character as to the fact that a knowledge of legal technicalities was
much more widely diffused in that day than it is in ours. Even in the
days when Master Shallow first made himself ridiculous to a London
audience by claiming to be justice of the peace and _coram_,
_custalorum_, and _ratolorum_, there can hardly be a doubt that the
knowledge of legal terms and processes was not a thing so entirely
professional as it is now. But if we go back to an earlier time, the
Paston letters afford ample evidence that every man who had property to
protect, if not every well-educated woman also, was perfectly well
versed in the ordinary forms of legal processes. Sir John Fastolf had a
great deal of property to take care of, and consequently had much more
occasion to make use of legal phraseology than other people. Had it been
otherwise we should hardly have had any letters of his at all; for the
only use of writing to him, and probably to most other people in those
days, was to communicate on matters of business.
There are also parts of his correspondence from which we might almost
infer that Sir John was a merchant as well as a lawyer. His ships were
continually passing between London and Yarmouth, carrying on the outward
voyage building materials for his works at Caister, and bringing home
malt or other produce from the county of Norfolk. In two of his letters
we have references to his little ship _The Blythe_,[118-1] which,
however, was only one of several; for, in the year 1443, he obtained a
licence from the Crown to keep no less than six vessels in his service.
These are described as of four different kinds: two being what were
called ‘playtes,’ a third a ‘cog-ship,’ a fourth a ‘farecoft,’ and the
two others ‘balingers,’ for the carriage of goods and building materials
for the use of his household. These vessels were to be free from all
liability to arrest for the service of the king.[118-2]
[Footnote 118-1: Nos. 171, 173.]
[Footnote 118-2: Rymer, xi. 44.]
[Sidenote: Building of Caister Castle.] The object of these building
operations was the erection of a stately castle at Caister, not far from
Yarmouth, the place of the old warrior’s birth. As early as the reign of
Henry V., it seems, he had obtained licence to fortify a dwelling there,
‘so strong as himself could devise’;[118-3] but his occupation in the
French wars had suspended a design which must have been a special object
with him all through life. The manor of Caister had come to him by
natural descent from his paternal ancestry; but even during his mother’s
widowhood, when Sir John was a young man of about six-and-twenty, we
find that she gave up her life tenure of it to vest it entirely in her
son.[119-1] Since that day he had been abroad with Henry V. at Agincourt
and at the siege of Rouen. He had afterwards served in France under the
Regent Bedford,--had taken several strong castles and one illustrious
prisoner,[119-2]--had held the government of conquered districts, and
had fought, generally with success and glory, in almost every great
battle of the period. Nor had he been free, even on his return to
England, to go at once and spend the rest of his days on his paternal
domains in Norfolk. His counsels were needed by his sovereign. His
experience abroad must have qualified him to give important advice on
many subjects of vital interest touching both France and England, and we
have evidence that he was, at least occasionally, summoned to take part
in the proceedings of the Privy Council. But now, when he was upwards of
seventy years of age, the dream of his youth was going to be realised.
Masons and bricklayers were busy at Caister,[119-3] building up for him
a magnificent edifice, of which the ruins are at this day the most
interesting feature in the neighbourhood. Sadly imperfect ruins indeed
they are,--in some places even the foundations would seem to have
disappeared, or else the plan of the building is not very intelligible;
but a noble tower still rises to a height of ninety feet,--its top
possessed by jackdaws,--and a large extent of mouldered walls, pierced
with loopholes and surmounted by remains of battlements, enable the
imagination to realise what Caister Castle must have been when it was
finished over four hundred years ago. A detached fragment of these
ruins, too, goes by the name of the Bargehouse; and there, beneath a
low-browed arch still visible, tradition reports that Sir John Fastolf’s
barge or barges would issue out on their voyages or enter on their
return home.
[Footnote 118-3: Dawson Turner’s _Historical Sketch of Caister
Castle_, p. 31. He does not state his authority.]
[Footnote 119-1: _See_ ‘Early Documents’ in vol. ii. p. 4.]
[Footnote 119-2: The Duke of Alençon.]
[Footnote 119-3: Nos. 224, 225.]
According to Dawson Turner, the foundations of Caister Castle must have
enclosed a space of more than six acres of ground.[119-4] The inventory
of the furniture contained in it at Fastolf’s death[119-5] enumerates no
less than six-and-twenty chambers, besides the public rooms, chapel, and
offices. An edifice on such a scale must have been some time in
building:--many years, we should suppose, passed away before it was
completed. And we are not without evidence that such was actually the
case; for a chamber was set apart for the Lady Milicent, Fastolf’s wife,
who is believed to have died in 1446, and yet the works were still going
on in 1453. In this latter year we find that John Paston was allowed to
have some control of the building operations, and that chambers were to
be built for him and his wife. Meanwhile it appears he had chosen an
apartment in which to set up his coffers and his counting-board for the
time. Possibly when he was able to visit Caister he may have acted as
paymaster of the works.[120-1]
[Footnote 119-4: _Historical Sketch_, p. 4.]
[Footnote 119-5: No. 389.]
[Footnote 120-1: Nos. 224, 225.]
The great castle, however, was now not far from completion; and before
the end of the following year Sir John Fastolf had removed from London
and taken up his residence at Caister, where, with the exception of one
single visit to the capital, he seems to have spent all the remainder of
his days.
We have said that very few notices are to be found of the internal
affairs of England in the year 1452, subsequent to the Duke of York
swearing allegiance at St. Paul’s. But just about that time, or not very
long after, the affairs of Guienne came once more to demand the serious
consideration of the Council. It is true that Guienne and Gascony were
now no longer English possessions. [Sidenote: Attempt to recover
Guienne.] Bayonne, the last stronghold, had been given up in the
preceding August, and, the English forces being now expelled, all hope
of recovering the lost provinces might well have been abandoned, but
that the inhabitants were desirous to put themselves once more under the
protection of the King of England. The fact is that the Gascons, who had
been three centuries under English rule, did not at all relish the
change of masters. Under the crown of England they had enjoyed a liberty
and freedom from taxation which were unknown in the dominions of Charles
VII.; and on the surrender of Bordeaux and Bayonne, the French king had
expressly promised to exempt them from a number of impositions levied
elsewhere. But for this promise, indeed, those cities would not so
readily have come to terms.[121-1] Unfortunately, it was not very long
before the ministers of Charles sought to evade its fulfilment. They
represented to the people that for their own protection, and not for the
benefit of the royal treasury, the imposition of a _taille_ would enable
the king to set a sufficient guard upon the country, and that the money
would not in reality be taken from them, as it would all be spent within
the province. The English, it was to be feared, would not remain patient
under the loss, not only of the provinces themselves, but also of a very
valuable commerce that they had hitherto maintained with the south of
France; for Gascony supplied England with wine, and was a large consumer
of English wool. Hence there was every reason to fear that some attempt
would be made by the enemy to recover the lands from which he had been
expelled, and it was the interest of the inhabitants themselves to
provide an adequate force to ward off invasion.[121-2]
[Footnote 121-1: Basin, i. 251.]
[Footnote 121-2: _Ibid._ 257.]
With arguments like these the French king’s officers went about among
the people endeavouring to compel them to forego a liberty which had
been secured to them under the Great Seal of France. In vain were
deputations sent from Bordeaux and Gascony beseeching the king to be
faithful to his promise. The petitioners were sent back with an answer
urging the people to submit to exactions which were required for the
defence of the country. The citizens of Bordeaux were greatly
discontented, and an embassy, headed by the Sieur de l’Esparre, was sent
over to the King of England to offer him the allegiance of the lost
provinces once more, on his sending a sufficient fleet and army to their
rescue. The proposal being laid before a meeting of the English Council,
was of course most readily agreed to; and it was arranged that a fleet,
under the command of the Earl of Shrewsbury, should sail for the Garonne
in October. On the 18th of that month the earl accordingly embarked with
a body of 4000 or 5000 soldiers. The French army having withdrawn, he
easily obtained possession of Bordeaux, and sent its captain, Oliver de
Coëtivy, a prisoner into England. Other towns then readily opened their
gates to the invaders, of which one of the principal was Castillon in
Perigord; and very soon, in spite of the opposition of their French
governors, the greater part of the lost provinces had put themselves
again under the protection of the English.[122-1]
[Footnote 122-1: Basin, i. 258-261. Leclerq (in Petitot’s
Collection), 37-38.]
[[sent its captain, Oliver de Coëtivy
_spelling unchanged: expected form “Olivier”_]]
The suddenness with which these things were done seems for a time to
have disconcerted the French king. Winter was now coming on, and
probably nothing effective could be done for some time, so Charles lay
maturing his plans in silence. As he surveyed the position at leisure,
he probably found that any further efforts of the invaders could be
checked with tolerable facility. France still retained possession of the
two little towns of Bourges and Blaye, which we have already mentioned
as being the keys of Bordeaux, and also of various other strong places
in which he had been careful to leave considerable garrisons. [Sidenote:
A.D. 1453.] It was therefore the beginning of June in the following year
before he took any active steps to expel the enemy from their conquests.
He then marched southwards from Lusignan, near Poitiers, and laid siege
to Chalais in Perigord, on the borders of Saintonge. In the space of
five days it was taken by assault. Out of a garrison of 160 men no less
than half were cut to pieces. The other half took refuge in a tower
where they still held out for a time in the vain hope of succours, till
at last they were compelled to surrender unconditionally. Of the
prisoners taken, such as were of English birth were ransomed; but as for
those who were Gascons, as they had sworn fealty to Charles and departed
from their allegiance, they were all beheaded. After this, one or two
other ill-defended places fell into the hands of the French. On the 14th
July siege was laid to Castillon on the Dordogne, a position which when
won gave the French free navigation into the Gironde. The besieging army
was furnished with the most perfect mechanism of war that the skill or
science of that age could supply. It had a train of artillery, with no
less than 700 gunners, under the conduct of two able engineers of Paris,
the brothers Bureau. The place was thoroughly closed in, when
Shrewsbury, hearing of the danger in which it stood, came with haste out
of Bordeaux with a body of 800 or 1000 horse, followed shortly after by
4000 or 5000 foot.[123-1]
[Footnote 123-1: Basin, i. 261-4. Leclerq, 39-41. Matt. de Coussy,
121.]
At daybreak on the 17th, the earl came suddenly upon the besiegers, and
succeeded without difficulty in thoroughly defeating a body of archers,
who had been posted at an abbey outside the town. This detachment being
completely taken by surprise, was obliged to save itself by flight, and
after a little skirmishing, in which some 80 or 100 men were slain on
both sides, the greater number of the Frenchmen succeeded in gaining a
park in which the main body of the besiegers had entrenched themselves.
Further pursuit being now unnecessary, the English returned to the
abbey, where they were able to refresh themselves with a quantity of
victuals which the French had left behind them. ‘And because the said
skirmish,’ writes the French chronicler De Coussy, ‘had been begun and
was done so early that as yet Talbot had not heard mass, his chaplain
prepared himself to sing it there; and for this purpose the altar and
ornaments were got ready.’ But this devout intention the earl presently
abandoned; for a cloud of dust was seen in the distance, and it was
reported to him that even the main body of the French were rapidly
retreating. Immediately the earl was again on horseback, and as he left
the abbey he was heard to say, ‘I will hear no mass to-day till I have
overthrown the company of Frenchmen in the park before me.’[123-2]
[Footnote 123-2: Basin, i. 264-5. De Coussy, 122.]
Unfortunately, it turned out that the report of the retreat of the
French was utterly unfounded. The cloud of dust had been raised by a
body of horses which they had sent out of the camp to graze. The French
army remained in its position, with artillery drawn up, ready to meet
the earl on his advance. The English, nevertheless, came on with their
usual shout, ‘A Talbot! A Talbot! St. George!’ and while their foremost
men just succeeded for an instant in planting their standard on the
barrier of the French lines, they were mowed down behind by the
formidable fire of the French artillery. Against this all valour was
fruitless; about 500 or 600 English lay dead in front; and the French,
opening the barrier of their park, rushed out and fought with their
opponents hand to hand. For a while the conflict was still maintained,
with great valour on both sides; but the superior numbers of the French,
and the advantage they had already gained by their artillery, left very
little doubt about the issue. After about 4000 Englishmen had been slain
in the hand-to-hand encounter, the remainder fled or were made
prisoners. Some were able to withdraw into the town and join themselves
to the besieged garrison; others fled through the woods and across the
river, in which a number of the fugitives were drowned. [Sidenote:
Defeat and death of Talbot.] In the end the body of the veteran Talbot
was found dead upon the field, covered with wounds upon the limbs, and a
great gash across the face.[124-1]
[Footnote 124-1: De Coussy, 124.]
So fell the aged warrior, whose mere name had long been a terror to
England’s enemies. By the confession of a French historian, who hardly
seems to feel it a disgrace to his countrymen, the archers, when they
closed around him, distinctly refused to spare his life, so vindictively
eager were they to despatch him with a multitude of wounds.[124-2] Yet
it must be owned that in this action he courted his own death, and
risked the destruction of a gallant army. For though he was led to the
combat by a false report, he was certainly under no necessity of
engaging the enemy when he had discovered his mistake, and he was
strongly dissuaded from doing so by Thomas Everingham.[124-3] But his
own natural impetuosity, inflamed probably still more by the
unreasonable taunts of the men of Bordeaux, who, it seems, were
dissatisfied that no earlier attempt had been made to resist the advance
of the French king into Guienne,[124-4] induced him to stake everything
on the issue of a most desperate and unequal conflict.
[Footnote 124-2: Basin, i. 267-8.]
[Footnote 124-3: _Ibid._ 265.]
[Footnote 124-4: De Coussy, 122.]
With him there also died upon the field his eldest son, Lord Lisle, his
illegitimate son, Henry Talbot, Sir Edward Hull, and thirty other
knights of England. About double that number were taken prisoners, the
most notable of whom was John Paston’s old persecutor, the Lord
Moleyns.[125-1] Never had the English arms experienced such a disastrous
overthrow.
[Footnote 125-1: J. Chartier, 265; Berry, 469.]
The Gascons now gave up their cause as altogether hopeless. A fresh army
had lately marched into their country, and was laying siege to several
places at once towards the east of Bordeaux, so that it was manifest
that city would soon be shut in by the royal forces. Castillon was no
longer able to hold out. It surrendered on the second day after Talbot’s
death. About the same time Charles in person laid siege to Cadillac, one
of the most important places in the neighbourhood, protected by a strong
castle. The town was speedily carried by assault, and a few weeks later
the castle was also taken. Other places in like manner came once more
into the power of the French king. At Fronsac an English garrison
capitulated and was allowed to leave the country, each soldier bearing
in his hand a baton till he reached the seaside. Very soon Bordeaux was
the only place that held out; nor was the defence even of this last
stronghold very long protracted. Its surrender was delayed for a time
only in consequence of the severity of the conditions on which Charles
at first insisted; but a sickness which began to ravage his camp at
length inclined him to clemency. On the 17th of October the city
submitted to Charles, the inhabitants engaging to renew their oaths of
allegiance, and the English having leave to return in their own ships to
England. To secure himself against their future return, or any fresh
rebellion of the citizens, Charles caused to be built and garrisoned, at
the expense of the latter, two strong towers, which were still standing
at the beginning of the last century. Thus was Gascony finally lost to
the Crown of England.
We must now return to the domestic affairs of the kingdom. Matters had
been hung up, as it were, in a state of unstable equilibrium ever since
Good Friday 1452. The political amnesty, proceeding, as it did, from the
king’s own heart, and removing every stain of disloyalty from those who
had laboured most to change his policy, helped, in all probability, to
keep up a precarious state of tranquillity much longer than it could
otherwise have been preserved. The danger of Calais, too, had passed
away for the time, although it was always recurring at intervals so long
as Henry VI. was king. So that, perhaps, during the latter part of the
year 1452, the country was in as quiet a state as could reasonably have
been expected. At least, the absence of information to the contrary may
be our warrant for so believing. [Sidenote: A.D. 1453.] But the new year
had no sooner opened than evidences of disaffection began to be
perceived. [Sidenote: Robert Poynings.] On the 2nd of January Robert
Poynings--the same who had taken a leading part in Cade’s rebellion, and
had, it will be remembered, saved the life of one of Sir John Fastolf’s
servants from the violence of the insurgents--called together an
assembly of people at Southwark, many of whom were outlaws. What his
object was we have no distinct evidence to show. He had received the
king’s general pardon for the part he took in the movement under Cade;
but he had been obliged to enter into a recognisance of £2000, and
find six sureties of £200 each, for his good behaviour; so that he, of
all men, had best cause to beware of laying himself open to any new
suspicion of disloyalty. Yet it appears he not only did so by this
meeting at Southwark, but that immediately afterwards he confederated
with one Thomas Bigg of Lambeth, who had been one of Cade’s petty
captains, and having met with him and about thirty others at Westerham
in Kent, tried to stir up a new rising in the former seat of rebellion.
From Kent he further proceeded into Sussex, and sent letters to two
persons who had been indicted of treason, urging them to come and meet
him at Southwark on the last day of February; ‘at which time and place,’
says the Parliament Roll, ‘the same Robert Poynings gave them money,
thanking them heartily of their good will and disposition that they were
of unto him in time past, praying them to continue their good will, and
to be ready and come to him at such time as he should give them
warning.’[126-1] Altogether it would appear from the record of the
charge itself that nothing very serious came of this display of
disaffection on the part of Poynings; but it must at least be noted as a
symptom of the times.
[Footnote 126-1: _Rolls of Parl._ v. 396. _See_ also the pardon
granted to him five years later. _Patent Roll_, 36 Hen. VI. m.
12.]
[Sidenote: Parliament.] Soon after this a Parliament was called. The
Crown was in need of money; but Somerset did not dare to convoke the
legislature at Westminster. It met in the refectory of the abbey of
Reading on the 6th of March. In the absence of the Archbishop of
Canterbury, Cardinal Kemp, who was Chancellor, the Bishop of
Lincoln[127-1] opened the proceedings by a speech on behalf of the king,
declaring the causes of their being summoned; which were merely stated
to be, in general terms, for the good government of the kingdom and for
its outward defence. The necessity of sending reinforcements into
Gascony was not mentioned, and apparently was not thought of; for up to
this time the success of Shrewsbury had been uninterrupted, and the
French king had not yet begun his southward march. The Commons elected
one Thomas Thorpe as their Speaker, and presented him to the king on the
8th. Within three weeks they voted a tenth and fifteenth, a subsidy of
tonnage and poundage, a subsidy on wools, hides, and woolfells, and a
capitation tax on aliens,--all these, except the tenth and fifteenth, to
be levied for the term of the king’s natural life. They also ordained
that every county, city, and town should be charged to raise its quota
towards the levying of a body of 20,000 archers within four months. For
these important services they received the thanks of the king,
communicated to them by the Chancellor, and were immediately prorogued
over Easter, to sit at Westminster on the 25th of April.[127-2]
[Footnote 127-1: Called William, Bishop of Lincoln, on the _Rolls
of Parliament_, but his name was John Chedworth.]
[Footnote 127-2: _Rolls of Parl._ v. 227-31.]