On their reassembling there, they proceeded to arrange the proportion of

the number of archers which should be raised in each county, and the

means by which they were to be levied. The Commons, however, were

relieved of the charge of providing 7000 men of the number formerly

agreed to, as 3000 were to be charged upon the Lords and 3000 more on

Wales and the county palatine of Cheshire, while an additional thousand

was remitted by the king, probably as the just proportion to be levied

out of his own household. For the remaining 13,000, the quota of each

county was then determined. But soon afterwards it was found that the

need of such a levy was not so urgent as had at first been supposed, and

the actual raising of the men was respited for two years, provided that

no emergency arose requiring earlier need of their services.[128-1]

[Footnote 128-1: _Rolls of Parl._ v. 231-3.]

The possibility of their being required in Gascony after the success of

the Earl of Shrewsbury in the preceding year, seems no more to have

occurred to the Government, than the thought of sending them to

Constantinople, where possibly, had the fact been known, they might at

this very time have done something to prevent that ancient city from

falling into the hands of the Turks. For it was in this very year, and

while these things occupied the attention of the English Parliament,

that the long decaying Eastern Empire was finally extinguished by the

fall of its metropolis.

After this, some new Acts were passed touching the pay of the garrison

at Calais, and for the making of jetties and other much-needed repairs

there. For these purposes large sums of money were required, and the

mode in which they were to be provided gives us a remarkable insight

into the state of the exchequer. To the Duke of Somerset, as Captain of

Calais, there was owing a sum of £21,648, 10s., for the wages of himself

and his suite since the date of his appointment; and on the duke’s own

petition, an Act was passed enabling him to be paid, not immediately,

but after his predecessor, Humphrey, Duke of Buckingham, should have

received all that was due to him in a like capacity.[128-2] The pay of

the officers of Calais, it would thus appear, but that it seems to have

been discharged by the Captain for the time being out of his own

resources, must at this time have been more than two years in arrear. If

such was the state of matters, we gain some light on the causes which

induced Somerset, after his loss of Normandy, to add to his unpopularity

by accepting a post of so much responsibility as the Captainship of

Calais. He was one of the few men in England whose wealth was such that

he could afford to wait for his money; and he was too responsible for

the rotten government which had led to such financial results to give

any other man a post in which he would certainly have found cause of

dissatisfaction.

[Footnote 128-2: _Ibid._ v. 233.]

It was necessary, however, to provide ready money for the repairs and

the wages of the garrison from this time, and it was accordingly enacted

that a half of the fifteenth and tenth already voted should be

immediately applied to the one object, and a certain proportion of the

subsidy on wools to the other. At the same time a new vote of half a

fifteenth and tenth additional was found necessary to meet the

extraordinary expenditure, and was granted on the 2nd of July.[129-1]

[Footnote 129-1: _Rolls of Parl._ v. 234-6.]

This grant being announced by the Speaker to the king, who was then

sitting in Parliament, Henry thanked the Commons with his own mouth, and

then commissioned the chancellor, Cardinal Kemp, to prorogue the

assembly; alleging as his reasons the consideration due to the zeal and

attendance of the Commons, and the king’s own intention of visiting

different parts of his kingdom for the suppression of various

malpractices. ‘The king, also,’ he added, ‘understood that there were

divers petitions exhibited in the present Parliament to which no answer

had yet been returned, and which would require greater deliberation and

leisure than could now conveniently be afforded, seeing that the autumn

season was at hand, in which the Lords were at liberty to devote

themselves to hunting and sport, and the Commons to the gathering in of

their harvests.’ As these weighty matters, whatever they were, required

too much consideration to be disposed of before harvest-time, we might

perhaps have expected an earlier day to be fixed for the reassembling of

the legislature than that which was actually then announced. Perhaps,

also, we might have expected that as the Parliament had returned to

Westminster, it would have been ordered to meet there again when it

renewed its sittings. But the king, or his counsellors, were of a

different opinion; and the Parliament was ordered to meet again on the

12th of November at Reading.

Long before that day came, calamities of no ordinary kind had overtaken

both king and nation. About the beginning of August,[130-1] news must

have come to England of the defeat and death of the Earl of Shrewsbury;

and Somerset at last was quickened into action when it was too late.

Great preparations were made for sending an army into Guienne, when

Guienne was already all but entirely lost. It is true the Government

were aware of the danger in which Talbot stood for want of succours, at

least as early as the 14th of July; even then they were endeavouring to

raise money by way of loan, and to arrest ships and sailors. But it is

evident that they had slept too long in false security, and when they

were for the first time thoroughly awake to the danger, the disaster was

so near at hand that it could not possibly have been averted.[130-2]

[Footnote 130-1: It appears not to have been known on the 4th of

August. Stevenson’s _Wars_, ii. 487-8.]

[Footnote 130-2: Nicolas’s _Privy Council Proceedings_, vi. 151-4,

155-7. Stevenson’s _Wars_, ii. 481-92.]

_The King’s Prostration_

Whether it was in any degree owing to this national calamity,--in which

case, the impression made by the event may well have been deepened by

the knowledge that it was attributed to the remissness of Somerset,--or

whether it was due entirely to physical or other causes quite

unconnected with public affairs, [Sidenote: The king falls ill.] in

August the king fell ill at Clarendon, and began to exhibit symptoms of

mental derangement.[130-3] Two months later an event occurred in which,

under other circumstances, he could not but have felt a lively interest.

After eight years of married life, the queen for the first time bore him

a child. It was a son and received the name of Edward; but for a long

time afterwards the father knew nothing of the event. So entirely were

his mental faculties in abeyance, that it was found impossible to

communicate to him the news. The affairs of his kingdom and those of his

family were for the time equally beyond his comprehension.

[Footnote 130-3: W. Worc. In an almanac of that time I find the

following note, which dates the beginning of the king’s illness on

the 10th of August:--‘In nocte S. Laurentii Rex infirmatur et

continuavit usque ad Circumcisionem Anni 1455, in p. . . .’ (?) (a

word unintelligible at the end). MS. Reg. 13, C. 1.]

[[began to exhibit symptoms of mental derangement

_text reads “symptons”_]]

The failure of royalty to perform any of its functions, however weakly

they might have been performed before, was a crisis that had not

occurred till now. A heavier responsibility lay with Somerset and the

Council, who could not expect that acts done by their own authority

would meet with the same respect and recognition as those for which they

had been able to plead the direct sanction of their sovereign. And now

they had to deal with a factious world, in which feuds between powerful

families had already begun to kindle a dangerous conflagration. In the

month of August, probably of the year before this, Lord Thomas Nevill,

a son of the Earl of Salisbury, married a niece of Lord Cromwell at

Tattersall in Lincolnshire. After the wedding the earl returned into

Yorkshire, when, having reached the neighbourhood of York, some

disturbance arose between his retainers and those of Lord Egremont, son

of the Earl of Northumberland.[131-1] As to the cause of the dispute we

are left entirely ignorant; but it grew into a serious quarrel between

the Nevills and the Percys. The chief maintainers of the feud were, on

the one side, Sir John Nevill, a younger son of the Earl of Salisbury,

and on the other Lord Egremont. Both parties were repeatedly summoned to

lay their grievances before the Council; but the most peremptory letters

and mandates had hitherto been ineffectual. Illegal gatherings of people

on either side continued in spite of every prohibition; and the whole

north of England seems to have been kept in continual disorder.[131-2]

[Footnote 131-1: W. Worc.]

[Footnote 131-2: Nicolas’s _Privy Council Proceedings_, vi. 140-2,

147-9, 154-5.]

The case was not likely to be improved when the source of all legal

authority was paralysed. And yet so bad was the state of matters before,

that the king’s illness, instead of being an aggravation of the evil,

positively brought with it some perceptible relief. The Council were no

longer able to avoid calling in the aid of one whose capacity to rule

was as indisputable as his birth and rank. A Great Council was summoned

for the express purpose of promoting ‘rest and union betwixt the lords

of this land’; and according to the usage in such cases, every peer of

the realm had notice to attend. Gladly, no doubt, would Somerset have

omitted to send such notice to his rival; and it seems actually to have

been the case that no summons was at first sent to the Duke of York. But

afterwards the error was rectified, and York being duly summoned, came

up to Westminster and took his seat at the Council-table[132-1] on the

21st of November. Before taking part in the proceedings, however, he

addressed himself to the lords then assembled, declaring how he had come

up in obedience to a writ of privy seal, and was ready to offer his best

services to the king; but as a previous order had been issued, by what

authority he could not say, to certain old councillors to forbear from

attending the king’s councils in future, he required that any such

prohibition might be removed. This was unanimously agreed to, and the

government of England was at once restored to a free and healthy

condition.[132-2]

[Footnote 132-1: Nicolas’s _Privy Council Proceedings_, vi.

163-5.]

[Footnote 132-2: _Patent Roll_, 32 Hen. VI. m. 20. _See_ Appendix

to this Introduction.]

The Duke of Somerset was not present at this meeting of the Council. He

doubtless saw too clearly the storm gathering against him. To his former

responsibility for the loss of Normandy was now added further

responsibility for the loss of Guienne. The accusations against him were

accordingly renewed; but they were taken up this time, not by York but

by the Duke of Norfolk. [Sidenote: Norfolk accuses Somerset.] A set of

articles of impeachment was drawn up by the latter, to which Somerset

made some reply, and was answered again by Norfolk. The accuser then

pressed the matter further, urging that the loss of Normandy and of

Guienne should be made a subject of criminal inquiry according to the

laws of France; and that other misdemeanours charged upon him should be

investigated according to the modes of procedure in England. Finally,

lest his petition should be refused by the Council, Norfolk desired that

it might be exemplified under the king’s Great Seal, protesting that he

felt it necessary, for his own credit, that what he had done in the

matter should be known as widely as possible.[132-3]

[Footnote 132-3: No. 230.]

In the end it was determined that the Duke of Somerset should be

arrested and committed to the Tower. This resolution was carried into

effect a little before Christmas, and the different lords retired during

the festive season to their own country quarters. But all who had given

their votes against Somerset knew well that they stood in considerable

danger. The battle that he had lost would have to be fought over again

with the queen, who now put in a claim to be intrusted with the entire

government of the kingdom. Every man of Somerset’s party got his

retainers in readiness, and while other lords were out of town, the

harbinger of the Duke of Somerset secured for his company all the

lodgings that were to be got in Thames Street, Mark Lane, St.

Katherine’s, and the neighbourhood of the Tower. The Duke of Norfolk was

warned by a faithful servant to beware of parties in ambush on his way

to London. Everything clearly showed that the faction which had been

dispossessed of power had sanguine hopes of reinstating themselves at an

early opportunity.[133-1]

[Footnote 133-1: No. 235.]

And this, it is probable, they might have done with the greatest

possible ease, were it not that the king’s loss of his faculties was so

complete and absolute that it was impossible, by any means whatever, to

obtain a semblance of acting upon his authority. [Sidenote: A.D. 1454.]

About New Year’s Day, when the new-born prince was conveyed to Windsor,

the Duke of Buckingham took the child in his arms and presented him to

the king, beseeching him to give him a father’s blessing. Henry returned

no answer. [Sidenote: The king and his child.] The duke remained some

time with the child in the king’s presence, but could not extract from

him the slightest sign of intelligence. The queen then came in, and

taking the infant in her arms, presented him to his father, with the

same request that the duke had made before her. But all their efforts

were in vain; the king continued dumb, and showed not the slightest

perception of what they were doing, except that for one moment only he

looked upon the babe, and then cast down his eyes again.[133-2]

[Footnote 133-2: _Ibid._]

There were no hopes, therefore, that the king himself would interfere in

any way to protect his favourites in the Council. [Sidenote: Every man

looks to himself.] Every man felt it necessary to see to his own

security. The Lord Chancellor himself, Cardinal Kemp, ‘commanded all his

servants to be ready, with bow and arrows, sword and buckler, crossbows,

and all other habiliments of war, to await upon the safeguard of his

person.’ The Duke of Buckingham caused to be made ‘2000 bends with

knots--to what intent,’ said a cautious observer, ‘men may construe as

their wits will give them.’ Further from the court, of course, the old

disturbances were increased. ‘The Duke of Exeter, in his own person,

hath been at Tuxforth beside Doncaster, in the north country, and there

the Lord Egremont met him, and the two be sworn together, and the duke

is come home again.’ The Earl of Wiltshire and the Lord Bonvile made

proclamations in Somersetshire, offering sixpence a day to every man

that would serve them; and these two noblemen, along with the Lords

Beaumont, Poynings, Clifford, and Egremont, were preparing to come up to

London each with as strong a body of followers as he could possibly

muster.[134-1]

[Footnote 134-1: No. 235.]

The Duke of York and his friends on their side did the same; and it was

high time they should, otherwise the machinations of Somerset would

certainly have been their ruin. The latter had spies in every great

household, who reported to him everything that could be construed to the

disadvantage of his opponents. [Sidenote: The Duke of York and Thorpe.]

Among York’s private enemies, moreover, was Thomas Thorpe, Speaker of

the House of Commons, who was also a Baron of the Exchequer. In the

former capacity his functions had been for some time suspended; for

Parliament, which had been prorogued to the 12th November at Reading,

only met on that day to be prorogued again to the 11th February, in

consequence of the mortality which prevailed in the town. Meanwhile, in

Michaelmas term, the Duke of York took an action of trespass against him

in his own Court of Exchequer, and a jury had awarded damages to the

amount of £1000. On this judgment was given that he should be committed

to the Fleet till the damages were paid, and in the Fleet the Speaker

accordingly remained till the next meeting of Parliament.[135-1] In his

confinement he was now busily employed in drawing up a bill of articles

against the Duke of York, which doubtless, with the aid of a little

favour at Court, would have been highly serviceable to the cause of

Somerset.[135-2]

[Footnote 135-1: _Rolls of Parl._ v. 238-9.]

[Footnote 135-2: No. 235.]

The legal proceedings of which Thorpe was a victim appear doubtless to

have been connected with party politics. His son and heir, Roger Thorpe,

at the beginning of the reign of Henry VII. procured an Act of

Parliament in his favour, showing that both he and his father had

suffered injustice in the cause of the House of Lancaster, and that the

Duke of York’s action of trespass against his father was owing to his

having arrested, at the king’s command, ‘certain harness and other

habiliments of war of the said duke’s.’[135-3] No doubt this must have

been the case, but was the king’s command constitutional? Or was it,

perhaps, only the command of Somerset given in the king’s name? An agent

had no right to obey an unconstitutional order.

[Footnote 135-3: _Rolls of Parl._ vi. 295.]

About the 25th of January the Duke of York was expected in London,

accompanied by a select body of men of his household retinue. With him

came his son, the Earl of March, at this time not quite twelve years

old; to whom, nevertheless, a separate household had already been

assigned by his father, and consequently another company marched in the

name of the Earl of March. These, however, were sent forward a little in

advance. Along with the Duke of York there also came up, or was expected

to come, his powerful friend the Earl of Warwick, who, besides the

retinue by which he was attended, was to have a thousand men awaiting

his arrival in London. Even these noblemen and their companies formed a

most powerful confederacy. But there were two other great personages

besides who travelled with them on the same road, whose sympathy and

co-operation with York at this time no reader would have conjectured.

The king’s two half-brothers, the Earls of Richmond and Pembroke, were

expected to reach London in the duke’s company; and they, too, had

wisely taken with them a good number of followers, for, notwithstanding

their relation to the Crown, it was thought not unlikely that they would

be arrested on their arrival.[136-1]

[Footnote 136-1: No. 235.]

In short, the continuance of the king’s infirmity had now rendered it

clear to every man that unless the Council were willing to comply with

the Queen’s demands, and yield up to her the uncontrolled management of

public affairs, the government of the kingdom must be placed in the

hands of the Duke of York. And yet some little time was necessarily

allowed to pass before any special powers could be intrusted to him.

Parliament was not to sit again till the 11th February, and Reading was

still the place where it was appointed to assemble. The Earl of

Worcester, who filled the office of Lord Treasurer, was commissioned to

go down to Reading, and cause it to adjourn from the 11th to the 14th of

the month, to meet that day at Westminster. Meanwhile a commission was

granted to the Duke of York to act as the king’s lieutenant on its

reassembling.[136-2]

[Footnote 136-2: _Rolls of Parl._ v. 238-9.]

[[on its reassembling.[136-2] _final . missing_]]

[Sidenote: Parliament and the Speaker.] On the 14th, accordingly, the

Houses met in the royal palace of Westminster; but the Commons were

without a Speaker, and another of their members, by name Walter Rayle,

was also undergoing imprisonment, from what cause does not appear. The

Commons, therefore, before proceeding to business, demanded of the King

and the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, that their ancient privileges

should be respected, and their Speaker and the other member liberated.

The case was taken into consideration by the Peers on the following day,

when it was explained by the Duke of York’s counsel that the Speaker had

a few months before gone to the house of Robert Nevill, Bishop of

Durham, and there taken away certain goods and chattels belonging to the

duke against his will; that for this he had been prosecuted in the Court

of Exchequer, as it was a privilege of that court that its officers in

such cases should not be sued before any other tribunal; that a jury had

found him guilty of trespass, and awarded to the duke damages of £1000

and £10 costs. Speaker Thorpe had accordingly been committed to the

Fleet for the fine due to the king. The proceedings against him had not

been taken during the sitting of Parliament, and it was urged that if he

should be released by privilege of Parliament a great wrong would be

done to the duke. It was a delicate question of constitutional law, and

the Lords desired to have the opinion of the judges. But the chief

justices, after consultation with their brethren, answered, in the name

of the whole body, that it was beyond their province to determine

matters concerning the privilege of Parliament; ‘for this high court of

Parliament,’ they said, ‘is so high and mighty in his nature that it may

make law, and that that is law it may make no law; and the determination

and knowledge of the privilege belongeth to the Lords of the Parliament,

and not to the Justices.’ Nevertheless, as to the accustomed mode of

procedure in the lower courts, the Judges remarked that in ordinary

cases of arrest a prisoner was frequently liberated on a writ of

_supersedeas_ to enable him to attend the Parliament; but no general

writ of _supersedeas_, to surcease all processes, could be allowed; ‘for

if there should be, it should seem that this high court of Parliament,

that ministereth all justice and equity, should let the process of the

common law, and so it should put the party complainant without remedy,

for so much as actions at the common law be not determined in this high

court of Parliament.’[137-1]

[Footnote 137-1: _Rolls of Parl._ v. 239-40.]

From this carefully considered reply it was clear to the Lords that they

were at least nowise bound to interfere in behalf of the imprisoned

Speaker, unless they considered the liberties of Parliament likely to be

prejudiced by the circumstances of his particular case. It was

accordingly decided that he should remain in prison, and that the

Commons should be directed to choose another Speaker. This they did on

the following day, and presented Sir Thomas Charleton to the Lord

Chancellor as their new representative; who being accepted by that

functionary in the name of the king, both Houses at once proceeded to

business.[137-2]

[Footnote 137-2: _Ibid._ 240.]

A month later the Commons came before the Duke of York, as the king’s

lieutenant, with two very urgent petitions. [Sidenote: Defence of

Calais.] The first related to the defence of Calais and the safeguard of

the sea. Notwithstanding the very liberal grants which had already been

voted by this Parliament, Calais was still in danger, and the sea was

still very insufficiently protected; insomuch that the Lord Chancellor

had told the House of Commons £40,000 would be required to obviate very

serious perils. The Commons were very naturally alarmed; a modern House

of Commons would have been indignant also. They had in the preceding

year voted no less than £9300 for Calais, partly for repairs and partly

for making jetties, besides all the sums voted for the pay of the

garrison and the tonnage and poundage dues, which ought to have been

applied to general purposes of defence. They therefore humbly petitioned

to be excused from making any further grants; ‘for they cannot, may not,

ne dare not make any mo grants, considered the great poverty and penury

that be among the Commons of this land, for whom they be comen at this

time; and that this their excuse might be enacted in this high court of

Parliament.’ The money already voted was evidently conceived to be

somewhere, and was considered to be quite sufficient to do the work

required; so the Commons were told in reply by my Lord Chancellor the

Cardinal, ‘that they should have good and comfortable answer, without

any great delay or tarrying.’[138-1]

[Footnote 138-1: _Rolls of Parl._ v. 240.]

[Sidenote: A council required.] The second petition was that ‘a sad and

wise Council’ might be established, ‘of the right discreet and wise

lords and other of this land, to whom all people might have recourse for

ministering justice, equity, and righteousness; whereof they have no

knowledge as yet.’ The Duke of York was only the king’s lieutenant in

Parliament. With the assent of the Great Council he could prorogue or

dissolve it and give the royal assent to any of its acts. But the

business of the nation imperatively required that some smaller body of

statesmen should be intrusted with more general powers. Even before the

king’s illness the constitution of some such body had been promised to

the Parliament at Reading as a thing contemplated by the king

himself;[138-2] and it was now more necessary than ever. The only

problem was how to confer upon it an authority that could not be

disputed.

[Footnote 138-2: _Ibid._ 241.]

But while the Lords are taking this point into consideration, we invite

the reader’s attention to a piece of private history.

[Sidenote: Thomas Denyes.] A few years before the date at which we have

now arrived, one Thomas Denyes, a trusted servant of the Earl of Oxford,

seems to have caused his master some little inconvenience by falling in

love with a lady who resided in the neighbourhood of Norwich. We regret

that we cannot inform the reader who she was. All that we know is that

her Christian name was Agnes, which was at that time popularly corrupted

into Anneys and frequently confounded with Anne, and that she was an

acquaintance of John Paston’s. With John Paston, accordingly, the earl

thought it best to communicate, and in doing so earned for himself the

heartfelt gratitude of Denyes by one of those small but truly gracious

acts which reveal to us better than anything else the secret of the

power of the English aristocracy. The lady seems not to have given her

admirer any great encouragement in his suit. She had property of her own

worth 500 marks, and could have had a husband in Norfolk with land of

100 marks value, which was more than Denyes could offer her. But the

Earl of Oxford requested John Paston to intercede with her in behalf of

her wooer, promising her that if the marriage took effect the Earl would

show himself liberal to them both. He further offered, if it would be

any satisfaction to her, to go himself into Norfolk and visit

her.[139-1]

[Footnote 139-1: Nos. 124, 240.]

This intercession was effectual, and the lady became the wife of Thomas

Denyes. It was a triumph of love and ambition to a poor dependant on a

great earl. But with increase of wealth, as others have found in all

ages, Denyes experienced an increase of anxieties and of business also.

A suit in Chancery was commenced against him and his wife by a gentleman

of the name of Ingham, who considered himself to have a claim on the

lady’s property for a considerable sum of money. Ingham’s son Walter was

active in procuring the _subpœna_. But Denyes, strong, as he believed,

in a great lord’s favour, conceived a plan by which he might either

interrupt the suit or revenge it on the person of Walter Ingham. On the

11th of January 1454--just about the time the queen and Buckingham were

making those vain attempts to introduce his child to the notice of the

unhappy king--when, consequently, it was still uncertain whether York or

Somerset would have the rule, and when lawless persons all over the

country must have felt that there was more than usual immunity for bad

deeds to be hoped for,--Thomas Denyes wrote a letter in the name of the

Earl of Oxford to Walter Ingham, requiring his presence at the earl’s

mansion at Wivenhoe, in Essex, on the 13th. This letter reached Ingham

at Dunston, in Norfolk, and he at once set out in obedience to the

summons. [Sidenote: Walter Ingham waylaid.] But as he was nearing his

destination, on the 12th, he was waylaid by a party in ambush hired by

Denyes, who beat him so severely upon the head, legs, and back that he

was maimed for life, and compelled to go on crutches for the rest of his

days. Ingham complained of the outrage to the Lord Chancellor, Cardinal

Kemp, who sent a sergeant-at-arms to arrest Denyes at Lincoln’s Inn; but

he at first refused to obey the arrest. Shortly afterwards, however, he

was committed to the Fleet prison; and Ingham, with the favour of the

cardinal and the Earl of Oxford, who utterly repudiated the act of his

dependant, presented a petition to Parliament that he should not be

admitted to bail or mainprise until he had been tried for the outrage

and all actions between him and Ingham had been fully discussed and

settled.[140-1]

[Footnote 140-1: Nos. 238, 239.]

The Earl of Oxford seems to have been thoroughly incensed, and not

without reason, against a servant who had so abused his trust. Cardinal

Kemp, as chancellor, was not less righteously indignant; and a bill was

actually passed through the House of Peers in accordance with the prayer

of Ingham’s petition. Yet it is difficult to understand why the

punishment of the wrong committed was not left to the operation of

ordinary criminal law. The case, perhaps, affected too seriously the

honour of a nobleman, and the discretion to be allowed to a retainer.

But whatever may have been the cause, poor Denyes now becomes positively

an object for compassion--all the more so because his chief feeling in

the matter was not a selfish one. [Sidenote: Denyes and his wife in

prison.] Besides imprisoning Denyes himself in the Fleet, the cardinal

and the Earl of Oxford threw his wife into the Counter, and afterwards

sent her to Newgate, where she suffered the discomforts of a gaol apart

from her husband, although she was then with child. ‘Which standeth too

nigh mine heart,’ is the brief expression in which he conveys his

feelings to John Paston, while apparently he was expecting to hear that

his wife was either dead or prematurely delivered; for the treatment she

had met with brought on the pains of labour long before the right time

had come. Denyes, however, made friends with the warden of the Fleet

prison, who contrived in some manner to make interest for her with her

gaoler, so that afterwards she was rather better treated, and at last

admitted to bail.[141-1]

[Footnote 141-1: No. 239.]

Poor Denyes was in dread of still further evils arising out of the case

when he wrote these facts to John Paston. The bill against him had

already passed through the Lords, and he was in fear that it might pass

through the Commons also, which we afterwards learn that it did

not.[141-2] His adversary, moreover, was bent upon revenge; ‘for

Ingham,’ he said, ‘lieth, beside that, to take away my wife’s daughter

out of Westminster,[141-3] to make an end of my wife if he can, and also

to arrest my servants, that I dread that she nor I shall have no

creature to attend us ne help us; and such malice have I never heard of

here before. And it is told me that beside that they will despoil, if

any good they can find of mine in Norwich or Norfolk, and imprison my

servants there.’ All this he urgently implored Paston to prevent to the

best of his ability. And it must be said that John Paston, although he

considered himself little bound to Denyes, except in so far as he had

promoted his marriage at the Earl of Oxford’s solicitation, on this

occasion stood his friend. He wrote a letter to the earl urgently

interceding for the unhappy wife; and though it seems probable the

letter that he first wrote was not actually sent, we may fairly presume

that he either devised a second to the same effect, or used his

influence otherwise to the same end. Certain it is that he made some

effort for which Denyes was beyond measure grateful.[142-1]

[Footnote 141-2: No. 244.]

[Footnote 141-3: Apparently Agnes Denyes had taken sanctuary at

Westminster before her imprisonment. The manner in which Denyes

here speaks of her daughter gives us reason to believe that she

was a widow before he married her.]

[Footnote 142-1: Nos. 240, 245.]

‘The cardinal is dead and the king is relieved.’ Such were the last

words of a postscript which Denyes appended to his first melancholy

letter, complaining of his own and his wife’s imprisonment. A rumour

apparently had been spread that the king’s health was beginning to

improve; for which, as we shall see, there was very little foundation.

[Sidenote: Death of Cardinal Kemp.] But it was perfectly true that

Cardinal Kemp, Archbishop of Canterbury and Chancellor of England, was

dead. Little as we know, beyond a few broad facts of his career, whereby

to judge his real character and aims, it is certain that he was an

accomplished statesman. A follower originally of Cardinal Beaufort,--the

man who of all others could serve two masters, Rome and England, with

the least degree of repugnance, and of whom the best that can be said

is, that he never scrupled to betray the former in what appeared to be

the interest of the latter,--Kemp was, perhaps, as honest a specimen of

the political churchman as an essentially bad system could produce. The

clergy, however, were really needed as statesmen; few laymen had the

ability, learning, or education to enable them to do the essential work

of the nation; and Kemp was one who had gained for himself, by his own

talents, the highest position to which a subject could aspire in

England, not only in the realm but in the Church.

Thus, at a time when the functions of royalty itself were suspended, the

chancellor, the official keeper of the king’s conscience, was suddenly

taken away; and in him England also lost her primate, always one of the

most important members of the Council. The formation of a governing

Council was now more important than ever; but the most pressing

questions of all were the appointment of a new chancellor and of a new

archbishop. Who was to take upon himself to nominate either the one or

the other? The queen’s modest claim to be invested with the functions of

her husband had not been listened to by the Lords; but the powers as yet

conferred upon the Duke of York were only to represent the king in

Parliament.

It was upon the 19th of March that the Commons had pressed their

petition for the establishment of a Council. Cardinal Kemp died on the

22nd. [Sidenote: Deputation of Lords to the king.] On the 23rd the Lords

appointed twelve of their number as a deputation, headed by Waynflete,

Bishop of Winchester, to ride to Windsor and endeavour, if possible, to

lay the state of matters before the king. Their instructions were drawn

up in six articles, but only two were to be communicated to the king if

they found him unable to pay attention to what was said. These two were

a mere assurance of anxiety to hear of his recovery, and that the Lords,

under the presidency of the duke as his lieutenant, were using their

best discretion in the affairs of the nation. If any response were made

to these two articles, the deputation was then to tell him of the death

of Cardinal Kemp, and ask to know his pleasure who should be the new

archbishop and who should be appointed chancellor. They were to say that

for the security of the Great Seals (there were at this time no less

than three Great Seals used in the Chancery)[143-1] the Lords had caused

them to be produced in Parliament, and after being seen by all the Lords

they were enclosed in a coffer sealed by a number of the Peers present,

and then laid up in the Treasury. Finally, they were to ask the king’s

mind touching the establishment of a Council, telling him how much it

was desired by the Commons, and suggesting the names of certain Lords

and persons whom it was thought desirable to appoint as Councillors. All

these matters, however, were to be communicated only to the king in the

strictest privacy.[143-2]

[Footnote 143-1: Nicolas’s _Privy Council Proceedings_, vol. vi.

preface, pp. clxxviii.-ix.]

[Footnote 143-2: _Rolls of Parl._ 240-1.]

The deputation returned two days after with a report of the total

failure of their mission. They had waited on the king at Windsor just

after he had dined, but could get from him no answer nor sign that he

understood their message. [Sidenote: The king’s imbecility.] The Bishop

of Winchester then told the king that the Lords had not dined, and that

after they had they would wait on him again. After dinner accordingly

they were again with him, and tried all they could to elicit an answer;

but the king was speechless. They then proposed that he should go into

another room, and he was led between two men into his bedchamber. A

third and last effort was then made to rouse him by every expedient that

could be imagined; and when all else failed, a question was put to him

which involved no more than a simple yes or no. Was it his Highness’s

pleasure that they should wait on him any longer? A long pause was

allowed in the hope that any mere physical difficulty might be overcome.

A faint nod, even a shake of the head, would have been regarded with

some degree of satisfaction. But it was all in vain. ‘They could have no

answer, word ne sign; and therefore with sorrowful hearts, came their

way.’[144-1]

[Footnote 144-1: _Rolls of Parl._ 241.]

It was now clear that the highest constitutional authority resided for

the time in the Lords Spiritual and Temporal. The reader, imbued with

modern notions of the power and prestige of the House of Commons, may

possibly think that their votes, too, should have been consulted in the

formation of a Government. Such a view, however, would be radically

erroneous. The influence which the House of Commons has in later times

acquired--an influence so great that, at times unhappily, Acts are even

passed by Peers against their own sense of right and justice, in

deference to the will of the Lower Chamber--is a thing not directly

recognised by the constitution, but only due to the control of the

national purse-strings. Strictly speaking, the House of Commons is not a

legislative body at all, but only an engine for voting supplies. The

Peers of the realm, in Parliament or out of Parliament, are, according

to the constitution, the sovereign’s privileged advisers. A king may, no

doubt, at any time call to him what other councillors he pleases, and

the prerogative of the Lords may lie dormant for a very long period of

time; but the Peers of the realm have, individually or in a body,

a right to tender their advice upon affairs of state, which belongs to

no other class in the community.

On the 27th of March, therefore--two days after the report of the

deputation that had seen the king at Windsor--the Lords took the first

step towards the establishment of order and government, by electing

Richard, Duke of York, as Protector and Defender of the realm.

[Sidenote: The Duke of York Protector.] The title of Protector

essentially implied an interim administrator during a period when the

king, by legal or physical incapacity, was unable to exercise his regal

functions in person. A Protector’s tenure of power was therefore always

limited by the clause _quamdiu Regi placeret_. It was terminable by the

king himself the moment he found himself able to resume the actual

duties of royalty. Even a protectorship like that of Humphrey, Duke of

Gloucester, instituted in consequence of the king being an infant, was

terminated before the royal child was eight years old by the act of his

coronation. The crowned and anointed infant became a king indeed, and

therefore no longer required the services of a Protector; so from that

day Duke Humphrey had ceased to wield any authority except that of an

ordinary member of the Council. But, indeed, even during his

protectorship, his powers were greatly circumscribed; and it had been

expressly decided by the Council that he was not competent to perform an

act of state without the consent of a majority of the other Lords.

Richard, therefore, knowing that his powers would be limited, was most

anxious that his responsibility should be accurately defined, that no

one might accuse him thereafter of having exceeded the just limits of

his authority. He delivered in a paper containing certain articles, of

which the first was as follows:--

‘Howbeit that I am not sufficient of myself, of wisdom, cunning, nor

ability, to take upon me that worthy name of Protector and Defender

of this land, nor the charge thereto appertaining, whereunto it hath

liked you, my Lords, to call, name, and desire me unworthy

thereunto;--under protestation, if I shall apply me to the

performing of your said desire, and at your instance take upon me,

with your supportation, the said name and charge, I desire and pray

you that in this present Parliament and by authority thereof it be

enacted, that of yourself and of your free and mere disposition, ye

desire, name and call me to the said name and charge, and that of

any presumption of myself, I take them not upon me, but only of the

due and humble obeisance that I owe to do unto the king, our most

dread and Sovereign Lord, and to you the Peerage of this land, in

whom by the occasion of the infirmity of our said Sovereign Lord,

resteth the exercise of his authority, whose noble commandments I am

as ready to perform and obey as any his liege man alive; and at such

time as it shall please our blessed Creator to restore his noble

person to healthful disposition, it shall like you so to declare and

notify to his good grace.’[146-1]

[Footnote 146-1: _Rolls of Parl._ v. 242.]

In reply to this, it was put on record that it was ‘thought by the Lords

that the said Duke desireth that of his great wisdom for his discharge.’

And they, too, for their own justification, resolved that an Act should

be made according to a precedent during the king’s minority, setting

forth that they themselves, from the sheer necessity of the case, had

been compelled to take upon themselves the power of nominating a

Protector. So jealous were the Lords of anything like an invasion of the

royal prerogative!

Further, the duke required that the Lords would aid him cordially in the

execution of his duties and would exactly define such powers and

liberties as they meant him to exercise; that they would arrange what

salary he should receive; and that all the Lords Spiritual and Temporal

belonging to the King’s Council would agree to act in the Councils of

the Protector. These matters being at length satisfactorily adjusted,

the duke was formally created Protector by patent on the 3rd of April.

It was, however, at the same time provided by another patent that the

office should devolve on the king’s son as soon as he came of

age.[146-2] After this, five Lords were appointed to have the keeping of

the sea against the king’s enemies, and in addition to the subsidies

already voted by Parliament for that object, a loan, amounting in all to

£1000, was levied upon the different seaports.[146-3] This was but light

taxation, and was no doubt cheerfully submitted to. The good town of

Bristol, we know, did more than it was asked; for Sturmyn, the Mayor,

fitted out a stately vessel expressly for the war.[146-4] Evidently

there were zeal and patriotism in the country whenever there was a

government that could make good use of them.

[Footnote 146-2: _Ibid._ 243.]

[Footnote 146-3: _Rolls of Parl._ 244-5.]

[Footnote 146-4: No. 249.]

[Sidenote: Calais again in danger.] And there was real need of that

patriotism; for the French were again threatening Calais. They also made

a descent in great force on the isles of Jersey and Guernsey, but were

defeated by the valour and loyalty of the inhabitants, who killed or

took prisoners no less than five hundred of their assailants.[147-1] A

Council was called to meet at Westminster on the 6th of May, to take

measures for the defence of Calais,[147-2] the result of which and of

further deliberations on the subject was seen in the appointment of the

Duke of York as captain or governor of the town, castle, and marches.

This office was granted to him by patent on the 18th of July,[147-3] but

he only agreed to undertake it, as he had done the Protectorship,

subject to certain express conditions to which he obtained the assent of

the Lords in Parliament. Among these was one stipulation touching his

remuneration, in which he affirms that he had served the king formerly

at his own cost in the important offices he had filled in France and in

Ireland, so that owing to non-payment of his salary, he had been obliged

to sell part of his inheritance and pawn plate and jewels which were

still unredeemed.[147-4] A very different sort of governor this from the

avaricious Somerset!

[Footnote 147-1: No. 247.]

[Footnote 147-2: Nicolas’s _Privy Council Proceedings_, vi. 174.]

[Footnote 147-3: Rymer, xi. 351. Carte’s _Gascon and French

Rolls_.]

[Footnote 147-4: _Rolls of Parl._ v. 252.]

Meanwhile other changes had been made in the administration. On the 2nd

of April--the day before the duke’s appointment as Protector--the Great

Seal had been given to Richard Nevill, Earl of Salisbury, as chancellor;

[Sidenote: Disturbances in the North.] and to prevent any renewal of

disturbances in the North by the earl’s former opponent Lord Egremont,

his father, the Earl of Northumberland, was summoned before the Council.

But before the day came which was given him to make his appearance, news

arrived that Lord Egremont had already been making large assemblies and

issuing proclamations of rebellion, in concert with the Duke of Exeter.

To restore tranquillity, it was thought proper that the Duke of York

should go down into Yorkshire, where he no sooner made his appearance

than his presence seems to have put an end to all disturbances. The Duke

of Exeter disappeared from the scene and was reported to have gone up

secretly to London; but the adherents of Lord Egremont continued to give

some trouble in Westmoreland. Thither the Duke of York accordingly

received orders from the Council to proceed; but he probably found it

unnecessary, for on the 8th of June it is stated that he intended

remaining about York till after the 20th. Every appearance of

disturbance seems to have been quelled with ease; and a number of the

justices having been sent into Yorkshire for the punishment of past

offences, the Protector was able to return to London in the beginning of

July.[148-1]

[Footnote 148-1: Nicolas’s _Privy Council Proceedings_, vi. 178,

193-7. Nos. 247, 249.]

It was at this time that the two eldest sons of the Duke of York,

Edward, Earl of March, and Edmund, Earl of Rutland, who were of the ages

of twelve and eleven respectively, addressed the following interesting

letter to their father:[148-2]--

‘_To the ryght hiegh and myghty Prince, oure most worschipfull and

gretely redoubted lorde and fader, the Duke of Yorke, Protector and

Defensor of Englonde._

‘Ryght hiegh and myghty Prince, oure most worschipfull and gretely

redoubted lorde and Fader, in as lowely wyse as any sonnes con or

may we recomaunde us un to youre good lordeschip. And plaese hit

youre hieghnesse to witte that we have receyved youre worschipful

lettres yesturday by your servaunt William Cleton, beryng date at

Yorke the xxix day of Maij, by the whiche William and by the

relacion of John Milewatier we conceyve your worschipfull and

victorious spede ageinest your enemyse, to ther grete shame, and to

us the most comfortable tydinges that we desired to here. Where of

we thonke Almyghty God of his yeftes, beseching Hym hertely to geve

yowe that grace and cotidian fortune here aftur to knowe your

enemyse and to have the victory of them. And yef hit plaese your

hieghnesse to knowe of oure wilfare, at the makyng of this lettre we

were in good helith of bodis, thonked be God; beseching your good

and graciouse Faderhode of youre daily blessing. And where ye

comaunde us by your said lettres to attende specialy to oure lernyng

in our yong age that schulde cause us to growe to honour and

worschip in our olde age, Please hit youre hieghnesse to witte that

we have attended owre lernyng sith we come heder, and schall here

aftur; by the whiche we trust to God youre graciouse lordeschip and

good Fadurhode schall be plaesid. Also we beseche your good

lordeschip that hit may plaese yowe to sende us Harry Lovedeyne,

grome of your kechyn, whos service is to us ryght agreable; and we

will sende yow John Boyes to wayte on youre good Lordeschip. Ryght

hiegh and myghty Prince, our most worschipfull and gretely redoubted

lorde and Fader, We beseche Almyghty God yeve yowe as good lyfe and

longe as youre owne Princely hert con best desire. Writen at your

Castill of Lodelow the iij day of June.--Youre humble sonnes,

‘E. MARCHE,

‘E. RUTLOND.’

[Footnote 148-2: Printed from the original in MS. Cott., Vespasian

F. xiii. fol. 35.]

Soon after the duke had returned to London his presence was required at

a Great Council summoned for the 18th of July, to consider the

expediency of liberating on bail his great rival and personal enemy, the

Duke of Somerset, who had been now seven months in prison. [Sidenote:

The Duke of Somerset.] On this point York had only one piece of advice

to offer, which was, that as he had been committed to custody upon

suspicion of treason, the opinion of the judges should be taken before

he was released from confinement. That he had remained so long without a

trial was not unnatural, considering the nature of the times. It was a

bold step indeed to try him at all, while there was a chance of the

weak-minded king’s recovery; but this step was certainly resolved on.

The 28th of October was the day appointed for his trial; and the Duke of

Norfolk, who, as we have seen, had been the first to move the capital

charge against him, was ordered by that day to be ready to produce his

proofs. Meanwhile the lords concurred that it was clearly inexpedient to

let him go, especially as the number of lords assembled was not so great

as it should have been on the occasion; and the opinion of the Duke of

York was not only agreed to, but at his request was put on

record.[149-1]

[Footnote 149-1: Nicolas’s _Privy Council Proceedings_, vi. 207.]

Six days later it was agreed at another meeting of the Council that the

Duke of York should return into the North with the Duke of Exeter in his

custody, whom he was to confine in the castle of Pomfret as a state

prisoner.[150-1]

[Footnote 150-1: Nicolas’s _Privy Council Proceedings_, vi. 217,

218.]

By these decisive steps the authority of the Duke of York was at length

secured on something like a stable footing. During the remainder of his

protectorate there could no longer be a doubt to whose hands power was

committed; and England, at last, had the blessing of real government,

able and vigorous, but at the same time moderate. The resolutions of the

Council soon became known to the public. ‘As for tidings,’ wrote William

Paston to his brother in Norfolk, ‘my lord of York hath taken my lord of

Exeter into his award. The Duke of Somerset is still in prison, in worse

case than he was.’ William Paston wrote in haste, but these were two

matters of public importance to be mentioned before all private affairs

whatever.[150-2] And yet the private affairs of which he wrote in the

same letter will not be without interest to the readers of this

Introduction. [Sidenote: Sir J. Fastolf goes to reside in Norfolk.]

William Paston now reported to his brother that Sir John Fastolf was

about to take his journey into Norfolk within a few days, and proposed

to take up his residence at Caister. His going thither must have been

regarded as an event not only in the neighbourhood of Yarmouth but even

in the city of Norwich. At all events it was highly important to John

Paston, whose advice the old knight valued in many matters. ‘He saith,’

wrote William Paston to his brother, ‘ye are the heartiest kinsman and

friend that he knoweth. He would have you at Mauteby[150-3] dwelling.’

This must have been written in the latter part of July. Sir John did not

actually go into Norfolk quite so soon as he intended; but he appears to

have been there by the beginning of September.[150-4]

[Footnote 150-2: No. 254.]

[Footnote 150-3: The manor of Mauteby, which came to John Paston

by his marriage, was only three miles distant from Caister.]

[Footnote 150-4: No. 260.]

There in his completed castle of Caister he had at length taken up his

abode, to spend the evening of his days in the place of his birth, and

on the inheritance of his ancestors. There during the next five years he

spent his time, counting over the items of a number of unsettled claims

he had against the crown,[151-1] and meditating also, it would seem, on

another account he had with Heaven. For the latter the foundation of a

college[151-2] or religious endowment, in which were to be maintained

‘seven priests and seven poor folk’ at Caister, might possibly liquidate

his debts. But in his transactions with his fellowmen he was certainly

for the most part a creditor, and by no means one of the most generous.

Instances will be found in his letters in abundance showing with what

vehemence (testy old soldier that he was!) he perpetually insisted on

what was due to himself;--how he desired to know the names of those who

would presume to resist his agent, Sir Thomas Howes--how they should be

requited ‘by Blackbeard or Whitebeard, that is to say, by God or the

Devil’;[151-3]--how he noted that Sir John Buck had fished his stanks

and helped to break his dam;[151-4] how he had been informed that at a

dinner at Norwich certain gentlemen had used scornful language about

him, and desired to know who they were.[151-5] In this perpetual

self-assertion he seems neither to have been over-indulgent towards

adversaries nor even sufficiently considerate of friends and dependants.

‘Cruel and vengeable he hath been ever,’ says his own servant Henry

Windsor, ‘and for the most part without pity and mercy.’[151-6] So also

on the part of his faithful secretary, William Worcester, we find a

complaint of shabby treatment, apparently at this very time when the

household was removed to Caister. To a letter in which John Paston had

addressed him as ‘Master Worcester,’ the latter replied with a request

that he would ‘forget that name of mastership,’ for his position was by

no means so greatly improved as to entitle him to such respect. His

salary was not increased by one farthing in certainty--only ‘wages of

household in common, _entaunt come nows plaira_’--which apparently

means, assured to him only during his master’s pleasure. When he

complained to his master of this, all the satisfaction he obtained was

that Sir John expressed a wish he had been a priest, when he could have

rewarded him with a living.[152-1]

[Footnote 151-1: Nos. 309, 310.]

[Footnote 151-2: Nos. 340, 350, 351, 385, 386, 387.]

[Footnote 151-3: No. 125.]

[Footnote 151-4: Nos. 160, 161.]

[Footnote 151-5: No. 272.]

[Footnote 151-6: No. 332.]

[Footnote 152-1: Nos. 258, 259.]

There are, indeed, in more than one of Worcester’s letters in this

collection symptoms of ill-concealed chagrin and disappointment. Nor

were such feelings unnatural in one who, probably out of regard for an

ill-appreciated hero, had devoted the best energies of his life to the

services of such a master as Fastolf. [Sidenote: William Worcester.] A

native of Bristol, the son of one William Worcester, who lived in St.

James’s Bec in that town, he was descended by the mother’s side from a

wealthy family of Coventry, and often called himself, instead of

Worcester, by his mother’s maiden name of Botoner. Born in the year

1415, he had entered the university of Oxford in 1432, and been four

years a student at Hart Hall, now Balliol College; after which he had

gone into Fastolf’s service. For many years he had been steward of Sir

John’s manor of Castle Combe in Wiltshire, and MSS. still exist in his

handwriting relating to the holding of manorial courts there.[152-2] He

had also been Fastolf’s secretary in drawing up various statements

regarding the wars in France in vindication of his master’s

policy.[152-3] He was a man of literary tastes, who had already

presented some compositions to his patron.[152-4] Later in life he wrote

a book of annals, which is an important historical authority for the

period. It seems to have been about a year before his master’s death

that he set himself assiduously to learn French, under the tuition of a

Lombard named Caroll Giles.[152-5] From this instructor he had purchased

several books, and Henry Windsor suspected he had run himself into debt

in consequence. He had fairly owned to Windsor ‘he would be as glad and

as fain of a good book of French or of poetry, as my master Fastolf

would be to purchase a fair manor.’[152-6] But he had a special object

in view in which a knowledge of this language was important; for he had

begun translating, at Fastolf’s request, from a French version, Cicero’s

treatise _de Senectute_. This work appears to have been left on his

hands at Sir John Fastolf’s death, and on the 10th of August 1473 he

presented it to his patron’s old friend, Bishop Waynflete, at Esher.

‘Sed nullum regardum recepi de episcopo’ (but I received no reward from

the bishop), is his melancholy comment on the occasion.[153-1] The work

was ultimately printed by Caxton in 1481. Worcester was an assiduous

collector of information on topics of every description, and a number of

his commonplace books remain at this day. But like many men of letters

after him, he found that industry of this sort may look in vain for any

reward beyond the satisfaction of gratified curiosity.[153-2]

[Footnote 152-2: Add. MS. 28,208, B.M.]

[Footnote 152-3: Stevenson’s _Wars_, ii. [519], _sq._]

[Footnote 152-4: ‘Stellæ versificatæ pro anno 1440 ad instantiam

J. Fastolfe militis.’ MS. Laud., B. 23 (according to the old

pressmark).]

[Footnote 152-5: Letter 370.]

[Footnote 152-6: In previous editions it was here remarked:--‘This

French zeal appears to have excited the contempt of some of his

acquaintances--among others of Friar Brackley, who nicknamed him

Colinus Gallicus.’ The discovery of additional letters, formerly

published in a Supplement, but now incorporated with the series,

seems to show that this was an error, or at all events very

doubtful. It is clear from Letter 404 that a certain ‘W. W.’ and

Colinus Gallicus were different persons (_see_ vol. iii. p. 213,

note 3), and the references to ‘W. W.’ at p. 230 as the knight’s

secretary and one of his executors remove any doubt that we might

otherwise entertain that he was William Worcester. But a new

difficulty arises from that identification, that Friar Brackley

calls ‘W. W.’ an Irishman, which William Worcester was not; and

the references at p. 220 of the same volume would imply that he

was really an Irishman in nationality, and also a one-eyed man of

dark visage. Such may have been Worcester’s personal appearance;

but why was he called an Irishman?

It is with some hesitation that I hazard a new conjecture as

to the person nicknamed Colinus Gallicus; but on comparing the

different passages where that nickname occurs, I am inclined

to think it was meant for Judge Yelverton.]

[[p. iii. 230 = Letter 417; p. iii. 220 = Letter 409]]

[Footnote 153-1: Itin. 368.]

[Footnote 153-2: Tanner’s _Bibliotheca_. _See_ also a notice of

William Worcester in _Retrospective Review_, Second Series, ii.

451-4.]

Along with the announcement that Sir John Fastolf was about to go into

Norfolk, William Paston informed his brother that the old knight’s

stepson, Stephen Scrope, would reside at Caister along with him.

[Sidenote: Stephen Scrope.] Of this Stephen Scrope our Letters make not

unfrequent mention; but the leading facts of his history are obtained

from other sources. He was the son of Sir Stephen Scrope, by his wife

Lady Milicent, who married Fastolf after her husband’s death. At the

time of this second marriage of his mother, young Scrope was about ten

or twelve years of age, and being heir to a considerable property, his

stepfather had the management of his affairs during his minority.

Bitterly did he complain in after years of the manner in which Sir John

had discharged the trust. According to the unfeeling, mercenary fashion

in which such matters were then managed, Fastolf sold his wardship to

Chief-Justice Gascoigne for 500 marks; ‘through the which sale,’ wrote

Scrope at a later date, ‘I took sickness that kept me a thirteen or

fourteen years [en]suing; whereby I am disfigured in my person and shall

be whilst I live.’ Gascoigne held this wardship for three years, and by

right of it intended to marry Scrope to one of his own daughters; but as

the young lad’s friends thought the match unequal to his fortune,

Fastolf bought the wardship back again.[154-1] Stephen Scrope, however,

when he grew up, was not more grateful for the redemption than for the

original sale of his person. ‘He bought me and sold me as a beast’ (so

he writes of Sir John Fastolf), ‘against all right and law, to mine hurt

more than 1000 marks.’ In consequence of the stinginess of his

stepfather he was obliged, on coming of age, to sell a manor which was

part of his inheritance and take service with Humphrey, Duke of

Gloucester in France; by whom, according to his own account, he had some

hope of obtaining restitution of the lordship of the Isle of Man, which

had belonged to his uncle the Earl of Wiltshire in the days of Richard

II. But Sir John Fastolf got him to give up his engagement with the duke

and serve with himself, which he did for several years, to the

satisfaction of both parties. Afterwards, however, on some dispute

arising, Scrope returned to England, when Sir John sent home word that

he must pay for his meat and drink. To do this he was driven to contract

a marriage which, by his own account, was not the most advantageous for

himself; and his stepfather, instead of showing him any compassion,

brought an action against him by which he was deprived of all the little

property that his wife had brought him.[154-2]

[Footnote 154-1: No. 97.]

[Footnote 154-2: Scrope’s _History of the Manor of Castle Combe_,

pp. 264-283. The MSS. formerly at Castle Combe, to which Mr.

Scrope refers in this work, have since been presented by him and

Mr. Lowndes, the present lord of the manor, to the British Museum.

One of them we have reprinted in No. 97.]

Of this first wife of Stephen Scrope we know nothing,[154-3] except that

she died and left him a daughter some years before we find any mention

of him in the Paston correspondence. His necessities now compelled him

to resort to the same evil system of bargaining in flesh and blood of

which he had complained in his own case. ‘For very need,’ he writes, ‘I

was fain to sell a little daughter I have for much less than I should

have done by possibility,’--a considerable point in his complaint being

evidently the lowness of the price he got for his own child. It seems

that he disposed of her wardship to a knight[155-1] whose name does not

appear; but the terms of the contract became matter of interest some

time afterwards to John Paston and his mother, when Scrope, who, besides

being disfigured in person, was probably not far from fifty years of

age, made an offer for the hand of Paston’s sister Elizabeth, a girl of

about twenty. The proposed match did not take effect; but it was for

some time seriously entertained. Agnes Paston writes that she found the

young lady herself ‘never so willing to none as she is to him, if it be

so that his land stand clear.’[155-2] The reader will perhaps think from

this expression that the young lady had been pretty early taught the

importance of considering worldly prospects; but there were other

motives which not improbably helped to influence her judgment. ‘She was

never in so great sorrow as she is now-a-days,’ wrote Elizabeth Clere to

John Paston, as a reason for concluding the matter at once with Scrope,

if no more desirable suitor presented himself. Her mother would not

allow her to see any visitor, and was suspicious even of her intercourse

with the servants of her own house. ‘And she hath since Easter the most

part been beaten once in the week or twice, and sometimes twice in one

day, and her head broken in two or three places.’[155-3] Such was the

rough domestic discipline to which even girls in those days were

occasionally subjected!

[Footnote 154-3: She is not unlikely to have been the lady

mentioned in No. 97. ‘Fauconer’s daughter of London, that Sir

Reynold Cobham had wedded.’ This I find need not have been, as I

have stated in a footnote, the widow of Sir Reginald Cobham of

Sterborough, who died in 1446; for there was an earlier Sir

Reginald Cobham, whose widow Elizabeth was married to William

Clifford as early as 1438. (_Inquisitions post mortem_, 16 Hen.

VI. No. 31.) Thus there is the less difficulty in attributing

Letter 97 to a much earlier date than that assigned to it by the

endorsement.]

[Footnote 155-1: Letter 94.]

[Footnote 155-2: No. 93.]

[Footnote 155-3: No. 94.]

Some years certainly elapsed after this before either Stephen Scrope

found a wife or Elizabeth Paston a husband. The former ultimately

married Joan, the daughter of Richard Bingham, judge of the King’s

Bench; the latter was married to Robert Poynings, whom we have already

had occasion to notice as an ally of Jack Cade in 1450, and a ringleader

in other movements a few years later. This second marriage appears to

have taken place about New Year’s Day 1459;[156-1] before which time we

find various other proposals for her hand besides that of Scrope.[156-2]

Among these it may be noted that Edmund, Lord Grey of Hastings, wrote to

her brother to say that he knew a gentleman with property worth 300

marks (£200) a year to whom she might be disposed of. No doubt, as in

similar cases, this gentleman was a feudal ward, whose own opinion was

the very last that was consulted as to the lady to whom he should be

united. But it is time that we return to the current of public

affairs.[156-3]

[Footnote 156-1: _See_ No. 374.]

[Footnote 156-2: Nos. 236, 250, 252.]

[Footnote 156-3: We ought not to leave unnoticed one fact in the

relations of Scrope and Fastolf which is much more creditable to

both of them than the disputes above mentioned. In the year 1450,

Scrope translated from the French and dedicated to Sir John, ‘for

his contemplation and solace,’ a work entitled _Ditz de

Philosophius_ (Sayings of Philosophers), of which the original MS.

is now in the Harleian Collection, No. 2266. That Fastolf was a

real lover of literature, and encouraged literary tastes in those

about him, there can be no question.]

_The Strife of Parties_

[Sidenote: The king’s recovery.] At Christmas, to the great joy of the

nation, the king began to recover from his sad illness. He woke up, as

it were, from a long sleep. So decidedly had he regained his faculties,

that, first, on St. John’s Day (27th December), he commanded his almoner

to ride to Canterbury with an offering, and his secretary to present

another at the shrine of St. Edward. On the following Monday, the 30th,

the queen came to him and brought with her the infant prince, for whom

nearly twelve months before she had in vain endeavoured to bespeak his

notice. What occurred at that touching interview we know from a letter

of Edmund Clere to John Paston, and it would be impossible to wish it

recorded in other words. ‘And then he asked what the Prince’s name was,

and the queen told him “Edward”; and then he held up his hands and

thanked God thereof. And he said he never knew till that time, nor wist

what was said to him, nor wist not where he had been whilst he hath been

sick, till now. And he asked who was godfathers, and the queen told him;

and he was well apaid. And she told him that the cardinal (Kemp) was

dead; and he said he knew never thereof till that time; and he said one

of the wisest lords in this land was dead.’[157-1]

[Footnote 157-1: No. 270.]

[Sidenote: A.D. 1455.] On the 7th of January, Bishop Waynflete and the

Prior of St. John’s were admitted to speak with him, and finding his

discourse as clear and coherent as they had ever known it, on coming out

of the audience chamber they wept for joy.[157-2]

[Footnote 157-2: _Ibid._]

Joy was doubtless the prevailing sentiment among all ranks and classes

of people; but there was one to whom the news of the king’s recovery

must have afforded a delight and satisfaction beyond what any one

else--unless it were Queen Margaret--could possibly derive from it. The

Duke of Somerset had now lain in prison more than a year. The day

appointed for his trial had passed away and nothing had been done. It

certainly casts some suspicion upon the even-handed justice of the Duke

of York, that his adversary was thus denied a hearing; but the fault may

have been due, after all, to weakness more than malice. In cases of

treason, when once a trial was instituted against a leading nobleman,

a conviction was, in those days, an absolutely invariable result; but

this made it a thing all the more dangerous to attempt when it was

hopeless to expect the positive sanction of the king. The real cause,

however, why Somerset was not brought to trial can only be a matter of

conjecture. His continued confinement, however harsh, was, according to

the practice of those days, legal; nor was it till six weeks after the

king’s recovery that he was restored to liberty. A new day, meanwhile,

and not a very early one, was fixed for the hearing of charges against

him. On the morrow of All Souls--the 3rd of November following--he was

to appear before the Council. This was determined on the 5th of

February. Four lords undertook to give surety in their own proper

persons that he would make his appearance on the day named; and orders

were immediately issued to release him from confinement.[158-1]

[Footnote 158-1: Rymer, xi. 361.]

On the 4th day of March, he presented himself at a Council held before

the king in his palace at Greenwich. The Duke of York was present, with

ten bishops and twenty temporal peers, among whom were the Protector’s

friend, the Earl of Salisbury, Lord Chancellor, the Earl of Worcester,

Treasurer of England, and the king’s half-brother, the Earl of Pembroke.

His accuser, the Duke of Norfolk, was absent, probably not without a

reason. In presence of the assembled lords, Somerset then declared that

he had been imprisoned without a cause and confined in the Tower of

London one whole year and more than ten weeks over, and had only been

liberated on bail on the 7th of February. So, as he declared there was

no charge made against him for which he deserved to be confined, he

besought the king that his sureties might be discharged; offering, if

any one would accuse him of anything contrary to his allegiance, that he

would be ready at all times to answer according to law and like a true

knight. [Sidenote: Somerset released.] His protestations of loyalty were

at once accepted by the king, who thereupon declared that he knew the

duke to be his true and faithful liegeman, and wished it to be

understood that he so reputed him. After this, the mouths of all

adversaries were of course sealed up. The duke’s bail were discharged.

His character was cleared from every insinuation of disloyalty; and

whatever questions might remain between him and the Duke of York were

referred to the arbitration of eight other lords, whose judgment both

parties were bound over in recognisances of 20,000 marks, that they

would abide.[158-2]

[Footnote 158-2: _Ibid._ 362, 363.]

The significance of all this could not be doubtful. The king’s recovery

had put an end to the Duke of York’s power as Protector, and he was

determined to be guided once more by the counsels of the queen and

Somerset. On the 6th March, York was deprived of the government of

Calais which he had undertaken by indenture for seven years.[159-1] On

the 7th, the Great Seal was taken from the Earl of Salisbury and given

to Thomas Bourchier, Archbishop of Canterbury. These changes, or at

least the former, promised little good to the country; and in the

beginning of May we not only find that Calais stood again in imminent

danger of siege,[159-2] but that considerable fears were entertained of

an invasion of England.[159-3] But to the Duke of York they gave cause

for personal apprehension. Notwithstanding the specious appointment of a

tribunal to settle the controversy between him and Somerset, it was

utterly impossible for him to expect anything like an equitable

adjustment. A Council was called at Westminster in the old exclusive

spirit, neither York nor any of his friends being summoned to attend it.

A Great Council was then arranged to meet at Leicester long before the

day on which judgment was to be given by the arbitrators; and it was

feared both by York and his friends, the Earls of Salisbury and Warwick,

that if they ventured to appear there they would find themselves

entrapped. The ostensible ground of the calling of that council was to

provide for the surety of the king’s person; from which it was fairly to

be conjectured that a suspicion of treason was to be insinuated against

persons who were too deservedly popular to be arrested in London with

safety to the Government.[159-4]

[Footnote 159-1: Rymer, xi. 363.]

[Footnote 159-2: _Privy Council Proceedings_, vi. 234-8.]

[Footnote 159-3: On the _Patent Roll_, 33. Hen. VI. p. 19 _d._, is

a commission dated 5th May, for keeping watch on the coast of Kent

against invasion.]

[Footnote 159-4: _Rolls of Parl._ v. 280-1.]

[Sidenote: York and his friends take arms.] York had by this time

retired into the north, and uniting with Salisbury and Warwick, it was

determined by all three that the cause assigned for the calling of the

Council justified them in seeking the king’s presence with a strong body

of followers. On the 20th May they arrived at Royston, and from thence

addressed a letter to Archbishop Bourchier, as Chancellor, in which they

not only repudiated all intention of disloyalty, but declared that, as

the Council was summoned for the surety of the king’s person, they had

brought with them a company of armed followers expressly for his

protection. If any real danger was to be apprehended they were come to

do him service; but if their own personal enemies were abusing their

influence with the king to inspire him with causeless distrust, they

were determined to remove unjust suspicions, and relied on their armed

companies for protection to themselves. Meanwhile they requested the

archbishop’s intercession to explain to Henry the true motives of their

conduct.[160-1]

[Footnote 160-1: _Rolls of Parl._ v. 280-1.]

Next day they marched on to Ware, and there penned an address to the

king himself, of which copies seem to have been diffused, either at the

time or very shortly afterwards, in justification of their proceedings.

One of these came to the hands of John Paston, and the reader may

consequently peruse the memorial for himself in Volume III.[160-2] In

it, as will be seen, York and his friends again made most urgent protest

of their good intent, and complained grievously of the unfair

proceedings of their enemies in excluding them from the royal presence

and poisoning the king’s mind with doubts of their allegiance. They

declared that they had no other intent in seeking the king’s presence

than to prove themselves his true liegemen by doing him all the service

in their power; and they referred him further to a copy of their letter

to the archbishop, which they thought it well to forward along with

their memorial, as they had not been informed that he had shown its

contents to the king.

[Footnote 160-2: No. 282.]

In point of fact, neither the letter to the archbishop nor the memorial

to the king himself was allowed to come to Henry’s hands. The

archbishop, indeed, had done his duty, and on receipt of the letter to

himself had sent it on, with all haste, to Kilburn, where his messenger

overtook the king on his way northwards from London. But the man was not

admitted into the royal presence; for the Duke of Somerset and his

friends were determined the Yorkists should not be heard, that their

advance might wear as much as possible the aspect of a rebellion. York

and his allies accordingly marched on from Ware to St. Albans, where

they arrived at an early hour on the morning of the 22nd. Meanwhile the

king, who had left London the day before, accompanied by the Dukes of

Buckingham and Somerset, his half-brother, Jasper Tudor, Earl of

Pembroke, the Earls of Northumberland, Devonshire, Stafford, Dorset, and

Wiltshire, and a number of other lords, knights, and gentlemen,

amounting in all to upwards of 2000, arrived at the very same place just

before them, having rested at Watford the previous night. Anticipating

the approach of the Duke of York, the king and his friends occupied the

suburb of St. Peter’s, which lay on that side of the town by which the

duke must necessarily come. The duke accordingly, and the Earls of

Salisbury and Warwick, drew up their forces in the Keyfield, outside the

barriers of the town. From seven in the morning till near ten o’clock

the two hosts remained facing each other without a blow being struck;

during which time the duke and the two earls, still endeavouring to

obtain a peaceful interview with the king, petitioned to have an answer

to their memorial of the preceding day. They were told in reply that it

had not been received by the king, on which they made new and more

urgent representations. At first, it would seem, they demanded access to

the royal presence to declare and justify their true intentions; but

when this could not be obtained, they made a still more obnoxious

request. They insisted that certain persons whom they would accuse of

treason should be delivered into their hands, reminding the king, as

respectfully as the fact could be alluded to, that past experience would

not permit them to trust to a mere promise on his part that a traitor

should be kept in confinement.[161-1]

[Footnote 161-1: No. 283. _Rolls of Parl._ v. 281-2.]

For the answer made to this demand, and for the details of the battle

which ensued, we may as well refer the reader to the very curious paper

(No. 283) from which we have already derived most of the above

particulars. We are not here writing the history of the times, and it

may be sufficient for us to say that York and his friends were

completely victorious. The action lasted only half an hour. [Sidenote:

Battle of St. Albans.] The Duke of Somerset was slain, and with him the

Earl of Northumberland, Lords Clifford and Clinton, with about 400

persons of inferior rank, as the numbers were at first reported. This,

however, seems to have been an over-estimate.[162-1] The king himself

was wounded by an arrow in the neck, and, after the engagement, was

taken prisoner; while the Earl of Wiltshire, and the Duke of York’s old

enemy, Thorpe, fled disgracefully. When all was over, the duke with the

two earls came humbly and knelt before the king, beseeching his

forgiveness for what they had done in his presence, and requesting him

to acknowledge them as his true liegemen, seeing that they had never

intended to do him personal injury. To this Henry at once agreed, and

took them once more into favour.[162-2]

[Footnote 162-1: John Crane, writing from Lambeth on Whitsunday,

three days after the battle, says, ‘at most six score.’ No. 285.

Another authority says, ‘60 persons of gentlemen and other.’

_English Chronicle_, ed. Davies, p. 72.]

[Footnote 162-2: Nos. 283, 284, 285.]

Thus again was effected ‘a change of ministry’--by sharper and more

violent means than had formerly been employed, but certainly by the only

means which had now become at all practicable. The government of

Somerset was distinctly unconstitutional. The deliberate and systematic

exclusion from the king’s councils of a leading peer of the realm--of

one who, by mere hereditary right, quite apart from natural capacity and

fitness, was entitled at any time to give his advice to royalty, was a

crime that could not be justified. For conduct very similar the two

Spencers had been banished by Parliament in the days of Edward II.; and

if it had been suffered now to remain unpunished, there would not have

existed the smallest check upon arbitrary government and intolerable

maladministration.

Such, we may be well assured, was the feeling of the city of London,

which on the day following the battle received the victors in triumph

with a general procession.[162-3] The Duke of York conducted the king to

the Bishop of London’s palace, and a council being assembled, writs were

sent out for a Parliament to meet on the 9th of July following.[162-4]

Meanwhile the duke was made Constable of England, and Lord Bourchier,

Treasurer. The defence of Calais was committed to the Earl of

Warwick.[162-5] There was, however, no entire and sweeping change made

in the officers of state. The Great Seal was allowed to continue in the

hands of Archbishop Bourchier.

[Footnote 162-3: No. 284.]

[Footnote 162-4: No. 283.]

[Footnote 162-5: No. 285.]

It remained, however, for Parliament to ratify what had been done.

However justifiable in a moral point of view, the conduct of York and

his allies wore an aspect of violence towards the sovereign, which made

it necessary that its legality should be investigated by the highest

court in the realm. Inquiry was made both in Parliament and by the

king’s Council which of the lords about the king had been responsible

for provoking the collision. Angry and unpleasant feelings, as might be

expected, burst out in consequence. The Earl of Warwick accused Lord

Cromwell to the king, and when the latter attempted to vindicate

himself, swore that what he stated was untrue. So greatly was Lord

Cromwell intimidated, that the Earl of Shrewsbury, at his request, took

up his lodging at St. James’s, beside the Mews, for his protection. The

retainers of York, Warwick, and Salisbury went about fully armed, and

kept their lords’ barges on the river amply furnished with weapons.

Proclamations, however, were presently issued against bearing arms. The

Parliament, at last, laid the whole blame of the encounter upon the

deceased Duke of Somerset, and the courtiers Thorpe and Joseph; and by

an Act which received the royal assent, it was declared that the Duke of

York and his friends had acted the part of good and faithful subjects.

‘To the which bill,’ said Henry Windsor in a letter to his friends

Bocking and Worcester, ‘many a man grudged full sore now it is past’;

but he requested them to burn a communication full of such uncomfortable

matter to comment upon as the quarrels and heartburnings of

lords.[163-1]

[Footnote 163-1: No. 299.]

[Sidenote: The Parliamentary elections.] But with whatever grudge it may

have been that Parliament condoned the acts of the Yorkists, it seems

not to have been without some degree of pressure that the duke and his

allies obtained a Parliament so much after their own minds. Here, for

instance, we have the Duchess of Norfolk writing to John Paston, just

before the election, that it was thought necessary ‘that my lord have at

this time in the Parliament such persons as long unto him and be of his

menial servants (!)’; on which account she requests his vote and

influence in favour of John Howard and Sir Roger Chamberlain.[164-1] The

application could scarcely have been agreeable to the person to whom it

was addressed; for it seems that John Paston himself had on this

occasion some thought of coming forward as a candidate for Norfolk.

Exception was taken to John Howard, one of the duke’s nominees (who,

about eight-and-twenty years later, was created Duke of Norfolk himself,

and was the ancestor of the present ducal family), on the ground that he

possessed no lands within the county;[164-2] and at the nomination the

names of Berney, Grey, and Paston were received with great

favour.[164-3] John Jenney thought it ‘an evil precedent for the shire

that a strange man should be chosen, and no worship to my lord of York

nor to my lord of Norfolk to write for him; for if the gentlemen of the

shire will suffer such inconvenience, in good faith the shire shall not

be called of such worship as it hath been.’ So unpopular, in fact, was

Howard’s candidature that the Duke of Norfolk was half persuaded to give

him up, declaring, that since his return was objected to he would write

to the under-sheriff that the shire should have free election, provided

they did not choose Sir Thomas Tuddenham or any of the old adherents of

the Duke of Suffolk. And so, for a time it seemed as if free election

would be allowed. The under-sheriff even ventured to write to John

Paston that he meant to return his name and that of Master Grey;

‘nevertheless,’ he added significantly, ‘I have a master.’ Howard

appeared to be savage with disappointment. He was ‘as wode’ (_i.e._

mad), wrote John Jenney, ‘as a wild bullock.’ But in the end it appeared

he had no need to be exasperated, for when the poll came to be taken, he

and the other nominee of the Duke of Norfolk were found to have gained

the day.[164-4]

[Footnote 164-1: No. 288.]

[Footnote 164-2: Nos. 294, 295.]

[Footnote 164-3: No. 291.]

[Footnote 164-4: No. 295.]

Besides the act of indemnity for the Duke of York and his partisans, and

a new oath of allegiance being sworn to by the Lords, little was done at

this meeting of the Parliament. On the 31st July it was prorogued, to

meet again upon the 12th November. But in the interval another

complication had arisen. The king, who seems to have suffered in health

from the severe shock that he must have received by the battle of St.

Albans,[165-1] had felt the necessity of retirement to recover his

composure, and had withdrawn before the meeting of Parliament to

Hertford; at which time the Duke of York, in order to be near him, took

up his quarters at the Friars at Ware.[165-2] He was well, or at all

events well enough to open Parliament in person on the 9th July; but

shortly afterwards he retired to Hertford again, where according to the

dates of his Privy Seals, I find that he remained during August and

September. [Sidenote: The king again ill.] In the month of October

following he was still there, and it was reported that he had fallen

sick of his old infirmity;--which proved to be too true.[165-3]

[Footnote 165-1: _See_ Rymer, xi. 366.]

[Footnote 165-2: No. 287.]

[Footnote 165-3: No. 303.]

Altogether matters looked gloomy enough. Change of ministry by force of

arms, whatever might be said for it, was not a thing to win the

confidence either of king or people. There were prophecies bruited about

that another battle would take place before St. Andrew’s Day--the

greatest that had been since the battle of Shrewsbury in the days of

Henry IV. One Dr. Green ventured to predict it in detail. The scene of

the conflict was to be between the Bishop of Salisbury’s Inn and

Westminster Bars, and three bishops and four temporal lords were to be

among the slain. The Londoners were spared this excitement; but from the

country there came news of a party outrage committed by the eldest son

of the Earl of Devonshire, on a dependant of the Lord Bonvile,

[Sidenote: Disturbances in the West.] and the West of England seems to

have been disturbed for some time afterwards.[165-4] From a local MS.

chronicle cited by Holinshed, it appears that a regular pitched battle

took place between the two noblemen on Clist Heath, about two miles from

Exeter, in which Lord Bonvile having gained the victory, entered

triumphantly into the city. A modern historian of Exeter, however, seems

to have read the MS. differently, and tells us that Lord Bonvile was

driven into the city by defeat.[165-5] However this may be, the Earl of

Devonshire did not allow the matter to rest. Accompanied by a large body

of retainers--no less, it is stated, than 800 horse and 4000 foot--he

attacked the Dean and Canons of Exeter, made several of the latter

prisoners, and robbed the cathedral.[166-1]

[Footnote 165-4: No. 303. _See_ also a brief account of the same

affair in W. Worcester’s _Itinerary_, p. 114.]

[Footnote 165-5: Jenkins’s _History of Exeter_, p. 78.]

[Footnote 166-1: _Rolls of Parl._ v. 285. It may be observed that

the bishopric was at this time vacant, and the dean, whose name

was John Hals, had received a papal provision to be the new

bishop, but was forced to relinquish it in favour of George

Nevill, son of the Earl of Salisbury, a young man of only

three-and-twenty years of age. Godwin _de Præsulibus_. Le Neve’s

_Fasti_. Nicolas’s _Privy Council Proceedings_, vi. 265.]

That one out of the number of those great lords who had been attached to

the government of the queen and the Duke of Somerset should thus have

abused his local influence, was pretty much what might have been

expected at such a juncture. But the effect was only to strengthen the

hands of York when Parliament met again in November. The situation was

now once more what it had been in the beginning of the previous year.

The day before Parliament met, the Duke of York obtained a commission to

act as the king’s lieutenant on its assembling.[166-2] The warrant for

the issuing of this commission was signed by no less than thirty-nine

Lords of the Council. The Houses then met under the presidency of the

duke.[166-3] The Commons sent a deputation to the Upper House, to

petition the Lords that they would ‘be good means to the King’s

Highness’ for the appointment of some person to undertake the defence of

the realm and the repressing of disorders. But for some days this

request remained unanswered. The appeal was renewed by the Commons a

second time, and again a third time, with an intimation that no other

business would be attended to till it was answered. [Sidenote: York

again Protector.] On the second occasion the Lords named the Duke of

York Protector, but he desired that they would excuse him, and elect

some other. The Lords, however, declined to alter their choice, and the

duke at last agreed to accept the office, on certain specific conditions

which experience had taught him to make still more definite for his own

protection than those on which he had before insisted. Among other

things it was now agreed that the Protectorship should not again be

terminated by the mere fact of the king’s recovery; but that when the

king should be in a position to exercise his functions, the Protector

should be discharged of his office in Parliament by the advice of the

Lords Spiritual and Temporal.[167-1]

[Footnote 166-2: _Rolls of Parl._ v. 285.]

[Footnote 166-3: _Privy Council Proceedings_, vi. 262.]

[Footnote 167-1: _Rolls of Parl._ v. 285-7.]

On the 19th of November, accordingly, York was formally appointed

Protector for the second time. Three days afterwards, at Westminster,

the king, whose infirmity on this occasion could scarcely have amounted

to absolute loss of his faculties, committed the entire government of

the kingdom to his Council, merely desiring that they would inform him

of anything they might think fit to determine touching the honour and

surety of his person.[167-2] The business of the nation was again placed

on something like a stable and satisfactory footing; and Parliament,

after sitting till the 13th December, was prorogued to the 14th January,

in order that the Duke of York might go down into the west for the

repressing of those disorders of which we have already spoken.[167-3]

[Footnote 167-2: _Ibid._ v. 288-90.]

[Footnote 167-3: _Ibid._ 321.]

[Sidenote: A.D. 1456.] Unluckily, things did not remain long in a

condition so hopeful for the restoration of order. Early in the

following year the king recovered his health, and notwithstanding the

support of which he had been assured in Parliament, York knew that his

authority as Protector would be taken from him. On the 9th of February,

as we learn from a letter of John Bocking, it had been anticipated that

he would have received his discharge in Parliament; but he was allowed

to retain office for a fortnight longer. On that day he and Warwick

thought fit to come to the Parliament with a company of 300 armed men,

alleging that they stood in danger of being waylaid upon the road. The

pretence does not seem to have been generally credited; and the

practical result of this demonstration was simply to prevent any other

lords from going to the Parliament at all.[167-4]

[Footnote 167-4: No. 322.]

The real question, however, which had to be considered was the kind of

government that should prevail when York was no more Protector. The

queen was again making anxious efforts to get the management of affairs

into her own hands; but the battle of St. Albans had deprived her of her

great ally the Duke of Somerset, and there was no one now to fill his

place. It is true he had left a son who was now Duke of Somerset in his

stead, and quite as much attached to her interests. There were,

moreover, the Duke of Buckingham and others who were by no means

friendly to the Duke of York. But no man possessed anything like the

degree of power, experience, and political ability to enable the king to

dispense entirely with the services of his present Protector. The king

himself, it was said, desired that he should be named his Chief

Councillor and Lieutenant, and that powers should be conferred upon him

by patent inferior only to those given him by the Parliament. But this

was not thought a likely settlement, and no one really knew what was to

be the new _régime_. The attention of the Lords was occupied with ‘a

great gleaming star’ which had just made its appearance, and which

really offered as much help to the solution of the enigma as any

appearances purely mundane and political.[168-1]

[Footnote 168-1: No. 322.]

At length on the 25th of February the Lords exonerated York from his

duties as Protector; soon after which, if not on the same day,

Parliament must have been dissolved.[168-2] [Sidenote: Again

discharged.] An Act of Resumption, rendered necessary by the state of

the revenue, was the principal fruit of its deliberations.[168-3] The

finances of the kingdom were placed, if not in a sound, at least in a

more hopeful condition than before; and Parliament and the Protector

were both dismissed, without, apparently, the slightest provision being

made for the future conduct of affairs. Government, in fact, seems

almost to have fallen into abeyance. There is a most striking blank in

the records of the Privy Council from the end of January 1456 to the end

of November 1457. That some councils were held during this period we

know from other evidences;[168-4] but with the exception of one single

occasion, when it was necessary to issue a commission for the trial of

insurgents in Kent,[169-1] there is not a single record left to tell us

what was done at them.

[Footnote 168-2: _Rolls of Parl._ v. 321.]

[Footnote 168-3: _Ibid._ 300. A more sweeping bill for this

purpose, which was rejected by the Lords, states that the revenue

was so encumbered ‘that the charge of every sheriff in substance

exceedeth so far the receipt of the revenues thereof due and

leviable to you (_i.e._ the king), that no person of goodwill dare

take upon him to be sheriff in any shire, for the most party, in

this land.’ _Ibid._ 328. Additional illustrations of this fact

will be found in Nicolas’s _Privy Council Proceedings_, vi. 263-4,

272-3, and Preface lxxv-vi.]

[Footnote 168-4: Nos. 334, 345, 348.]

[Footnote 169-1: _Privy Council Proceedings_, vi. 287.]

Yet the machine of state still moved, no one could tell exactly how.

Acts were done in the king’s name if not really and truly by the king,

and by the sheer necessity of the case York appears to have had the

ordering of all things. But his authority hung by a thread. His acts

were without the slightest legal validity except in so far as they might

be considered as having the sanction of the king; and in whatever way

that sanction may or may not have been expressed, there was no security

that it would not afterwards be withdrawn and disavowed.

And so indeed it happened at this time in a matter that concerned deeply

the honour of the whole country. The outbreak of civil war had provoked

the interference of an enemy of whom Englishmen were always peculiarly

intolerant. The Duke of Somerset slain at St. Albans was uncle to James

II., the reigning king of Scotland, who is said to have resented his

death on the ground of consanguinity. [Sidenote: The King of Scots.] In

less than six weeks after the battle, ‘the King of Scots with the red

face,’ as he is called in a contemporary chronicle, laid siege to

Berwick both by water and land. But the Bishop of Durham, the Earl of

Northumberland, and other Lords of the Marches, took prompt measures for

the relief of the town, and soon assembled such a force as to compel

James not only to quit the siege but to leave all his ordnance and

victuals behind him.[169-2] How matters stood between the two countries

during the next ten months we have no precise information; but it is

clear that England, although the injured party, could not have been

anxious to turn the occasion into one of open rupture. Peace still

continued to be preserved till, on the 10th of May 1456, James wrote to

the King of England by Lyon herald, declaring that the truce of 1453 was

injurious to his kingdom, and that unless more favourable conditions

were conceded to him he would have recourse to arms.[169-3] A message

more calculated to fire the spirit of the English nation it would have

been impossible for James to write; nevertheless, owing either to

Henry’s love of peace, or to his lack of advisers after his own mind, it

was not till the 26th of July that any answer was returned to it. On

that day the Duke of York obtained, or took, the liberty of replying in

Henry’s name. To the insolence of the King of Scots, he opposed all the

haughtiness that might have been expected from the most warlike of

Henry’s ancestors. Insisting to the fullest extent on those claims of

feudal superiority which England never had abandoned and Scotland never

had acknowledged, he told James that his conduct was mere insolence and

treason in a vassal against his lord; that it inspired not the slightest

dread but only contempt on the part of England; and that measures would

be speedily taken to punish his presumption.[170-1]

[Footnote 169-2: _Three Fifteenth Century Chronicles_, 70 (edited

by me for the Camden Society): _Privy Council Proceedings_, vi.

248-9.]

[Footnote 169-3: Lambeth MS. 211, f. 146 b.]

[Footnote 170-1: Lambeth MS. 211, f. 147. Rymer, xi. 383.]

A month later the Duke of York addressed a letter to James in his own

name, declaring that as he understood the Scotch king had entered

England, he purposed to go and meet him. He at the same time reproached

James with conduct unworthy of one who was ‘called a mighty Prince and a

courageous knight,’ in making daily forays and suddenly retiring

again.[170-2] The end of this expedition we do not know; but we know

that not long afterwards Henry changed his policy. The letter written by

the Duke of York in the king’s name was regularly enrolled on the Scotch

Roll among the records of Chancery; but to it was prefixed a note on the

king’s behalf, disclaiming responsibility for its tenor, and attributing

to the duke the usurpation of authority, and the disturbance of all

government since the time of Jack Cade’s insurrection.[170-3]

[Footnote 170-2: Lambeth MS. 211, f. 148. This letter is dated

24th August 1456.]

[Footnote 170-3: Rymer, xi. 383.]

The glimpses of light which we have on the political situation during

this period are far from satisfactory. Repeated notice, however, is

taken in these letters of a fact which seems significant of general

distrust and mutual suspicion among the leading persons in the land. The

king, queen, and lords were all separated and kept carefully at a

distance from each other. Thus, while the king was at Sheen, the queen

and her infant prince were staying at Tutbury, the Duke of York at

Sandal, and the Earl of Warwick at Warwick.[171-1] Afterwards we find

the queen removed to Chester, while the Duke of Buckingham was at

Writtle, near Chelmsford in Essex. The only lord with the king at Sheen

was his half-brother the Earl of Pembroke. His other brother, the Earl

of Richmond, who died in the course of this year, was in Wales making

war upon some chieftain of the country whose name seems rather

ambiguous. ‘My Lord [of] York,’ it is said, ‘is at Sendall still, and

waiteth on the queen, and she on him.’[171-2] The state of matters was

evidently such that it was apprehended serious outrages might break out;

and reports were even spread abroad of a battle in which Lord Beaumont

had been slain and the Earl of Warwick severely wounded.[171-3]

[Footnote 171-1: Nos. 330, 331.]

[Footnote 171-2: No. 334.]

[Footnote 171-3: No. 331.]

[[Earl of Warwick severely wounded.[171-3]

_text has superfluous close quote_]]

[Sidenote: The king and queen.] The separation of the king and queen is

especially remarkable. During May and June they were more than a hundred

miles apart; and in the latter month the queen had increased the

distance by removing from Tutbury in Staffordshire to Chester. It was

then that she was said to be waiting on my Lord of York and he on her.

The exact interpretation of the position must be partly matter of

conjecture, but I take it to be as follows. The Duke of York, as we find

stated only a few months later, was in very good favour with the king

but not with the queen;[171-4] and we know from Fabyan that the latter

was at this time doing all she could to put an end to his authority. It

appears to me that by her influence the duke must have been ordered to

withdraw from the Court, and that to prevent his again seeking access to

the king’s presence, she pursued him into the north. At Tutbury[171-5]

she would block his way from Sandal up to London; and though for some

reason or other she removed further off to Chester, she still kept an

anxious watch upon the duke, and he did the same on her. Very probably

her removal did give him the opportunity she dreaded of moving

southwards; for he must have been with the king at Windsor on the 26th

of July when he wrote in Henry’s name that answer to the King of Scots

of which we have already spoken.

[Footnote 171-4: No. 348.]

[Footnote 171-5: Tutbury was one of the possessions given to her

for her dower. _Rolls of Parl._ vi. 118.]

However this may be, Margaret soon after had recourse to other means to

effect her object. In consequence of the Duke of York’s popularity in

London, it was expedient to remove the king some distance from the

capital.[172-1] He appears to have been staying at Windsor during July

and the beginning of August. In the middle of the latter month he took

his departure northwards. By the dates of his Privy Seals we find him to

have been at Wycombe on the 18th, at Kenilworth on the 24th, and at

Lichfield on the 29th. In September he moved about between Lichfield,

Coventry, and Leicester; but by the beginning of October the Court seems

to have settled itself at Coventry, where a council was assembled on the

7th.[172-2] To this council the Duke of York and his friends were

regularly summoned, as well as the lords whom the queen intended to

honour; but even before it met, changes had begun to be made in the

principal officers of state. On the 5th, Viscount Bourchier, the brother

of the Archbishop of Canterbury, was dismissed from his office of Lord

Treasurer, and the Earl of Shrewsbury was appointed in his room. On the

11th, the archbishop himself was called upon to surrender the Great

Seal, and Waynflete, Bishop of Winchester, was made Chancellor in his

stead. Laurence Booth, afterwards Bishop of Durham, was made Lord Privy

Seal.

[Footnote 172-1: Fabyan.]

[Footnote 172-2: No. 345.]

The new appointments seem to have been on their own merits

unexceptionable,--that of Waynflete more especially. Whether the

superiority of the new men was such as to make it advisable to supersede

the old is another question, on which we would not attempt to pronounce

an opinion, either one way or other. One thing, however, we may believe

on the evidence of James Gresham, whose letters frequently give us very

interesting political intelligence: the changes created dissatisfaction

in some of the queen’s own friends, particularly in the Duke of

Buckingham, who was half-brother to two of the discharged functionaries,

the Archbishop of Canterbury and Viscount Bourchier. Either from this

cause or from a mere English love of fair-play, it would appear that

Buckingham now supported the Duke of York, who, it is said, though at

this time he had some interviews with the king and found Henry still as

friendly as he could desire, would certainly have been troubled at his

departure if Buckingham had not befriended him. About the Court there

was a general atmosphere of suspicion and distrust. On the 11th October,

the very day on which Waynflete was appointed Chancellor, an encounter

took place between the Duke of Somerset’s men and the watchmen of the

city of Coventry, in which two or three of the citizens were killed. And

probably it would have gone hard with the duke’s retainers, had not

Buckingham used his good offices here too as peacemaker; for the

alarm-bell rang and the citizens rose in arms. But by the interposition

of Buckingham the tumult was appeased.[173-1]

[Footnote 173-1: No. 348.]

[Sidenote: A.D. 1457.] For about a twelvemonth from this time we find

that the Court continued generally at Coventry,[173-2] occasionally

moving about to Stafford, Coleshill, Chester, Shrewsbury, Kenilworth,

Hereford, and Leicester.[173-3] The queen evidently feared all the while

to bring her husband nearer London, lest he should fall once more under

the power of the Duke of York. Meanwhile the want of a vigorous ruler

became every day more apparent. Not only was Calais again in danger of

siege,[173-4] but the coast of Kent was attacked by enemies, and within

the kingdom a dangerous spirit of disaffection had shown itself in

various places. On the Patent Rolls we meet with numerous commissions

for keeping watch upon the coasts,[173-5] for arraying the country

against invasion,[173-6] and for assembling the _posse comitatus_ in

various counties, against treasonable attempts to stir up the

people.[173-7] During April the Court had removed to Hereford,[174-1]

apparently in consequence of some disturbances which had taken place in

Wales under Sir William Herbert. Its sojourn upon the Welsh borders had

an excellent effect, the burgesses and gentlemen about Hereford all

declaring themselves ready to take the king’s part unless a peace were

made. On the 1st of May it was reported in London that Herbert had

offered, on being granted his life and goods, to return to his

allegiance and appear before the king and lords at Leicester; so we may

conclude the insurrection did not last long after.[174-2]

[Footnote 173-2: Accounts of the pageants shown before Queen

Margaret at Coventry are noticed as contained in the earliest Leet

Book of the City. See _Historical MSS. Commission Report I._,

100.]

[Footnote 173-3: Privy Seals in Public Record Office.]

[Footnote 173-4: No. 356.]

[Footnote 173-5: _Patent Roll_, 35 Hen. VI. p. 1 m. 16 _d._ (26

Nov.); m. 7 _d._ (19 May).]

[Footnote 173-6: _Ibid._ p. 2 m. 5 _d._ (29 Aug.).]

[Footnote 173-7: _Ibid._ (18 July).]

[Footnote 174-1: No. 356. There are Privy Seals dated at Hereford

between the 1st and the 23rd of April.]

[Footnote 174-2: No. 356. By the 4th of May the king had left

Hereford and gone to Worcester, from which he proceeded to

Winchcombe on the 10th and Kenilworth on the 13th. (Privy Seal

dates.)]

But though the personal influence of the king was doubtless great and

beneficial within his own immediate vicinity, it could do little for the

good order and protection of the country generally. Distrust,

exclusiveness, and a bankrupt exchequer were not likely to obtain for

the king willing and hearty service. Notwithstanding the commissions

issued to keep watch upon the coasts, the French managed to surprise and

plunder Sandwich. [Sidenote: The French attack Sandwich.] On Sunday, the

28th August, a large force under the command of Pierre de Brézé,

seneschal of Normandy, landed not far from the town, which they took and

kept possession of during the entire day. A number of the inhabitants,

on the first alarm, retreated on board some ships lying in the harbour,

from whence they began presently to shoot at the enemy. But de Brézé

having warned them that if they continued he would burn their ships,

they found it prudent to leave off. Having killed the bailiffs and

principal officers, the Frenchmen carried off a number of wealthy

persons as prisoners, and returned to their ships in the evening, laden

with valuable spoils from the town and neighbourhood.[174-3]

[Footnote 174-3: _English Chronicle_ (Davies), 74. _Three

Fifteenth Century Chronicles_, 70, 71, 152-3. _Contin. of

Monstrelet_, 70, 71.]

The disaster must have been keenly felt; but if Englishmen had known the

whole truth, it would have been felt more keenly still. Our own old

historians were not aware of the fact, but an early French chronicler

who lived at the time assures us that the attack had been purposely

invited by Margaret of Anjou out of hatred to the Duke of York, in order

to make a diversion, while the Scots should ravage England![175-1] It

was well for her that the truth was not suspected.

[Footnote 175-1: De Coussy, 209.]

_Reconciliation and Civil War_

At length, it would seem, the Court found it no longer possible to

remain at a distance from the metropolis. In October the king had

removed to Chertsey,[175-2] and soon after we find him presiding at a

Great Council, which had been summoned to meet in his palace at

Westminster in consequence of the urgent state of affairs. Though

attended not only by the Duke of York, but by a large number of the

principal lords on both sides, the meeting does not appear to have led

to any very satisfactory results. All that we know of its proceedings is

that some of them, at least, were of a stormy character,--one point on

which all parties were agreed being the exclusion from the council

chamber of Pecock, [Sidenote: Bishop Pecock.] Bishop of Chichester, an

ardent and honest-minded prelate, who, having laboured hard to reconcile

the Lollards to the authority of the Church by arguments of common sense

instead of persecution, was at this time stigmatised as a heretic and

sedition-monger, and very soon after was deprived of his bishopric. It

augured little good for that union of parties which was now felt to be

necessary for the public weal, that the first act on which men generally

could be got to agree was the persecution of sense and reason. There

were other matters before the council on which they were unable to come

to a conclusion, and they broke up on the 29th November, with a

resolution to meet again on the 27th January; for which meeting

summonses were at once sent out, notifying that on that day not one of

the lords would be excused attendance.[175-3]

[Footnote 175-2: Privy Seal dates.]

[Footnote 175-3: _Privy Council Proceedings_, vi. 290-1.]

It was, indeed, particularly important that this meeting should be a

full one, and that every lord should be compelled to take his share of

the responsibility for its decisions. The principal aim was expressly

stated to be a general reconciliation and adjustment of private

controversies[176-1]--an object to which it was impossible to offer

direct opposition. But whether it was really distasteful to a number of

the peers, or obstacles started up in individual cases, there were

certainly several who had not arrived in town by the day appointed for

the meeting. [Sidenote: A.D. 1458.] The Earl of Salisbury’s excuse,

dated at Sheriff Hutton on the 24th of January,[176-2] does not refer to

this, for it appears certainly to be of a different year. Fabyan says

that he had already arrived in London on the 15th January. He made his

appearance there at the head of 400 horse, with eighty knights and

squires in his company. The Duke of York also came, though he arrived

only on the 26th, ‘with his own household only, to the number of 140

horse.’ But the Duke of Somerset only arrived on the last day of the

month with 200 horse; the Duke of Exeter delayed his coming till the

first week of February; and the Earl of Warwick, who had to come from

Calais, was detained by contrary winds. Thus, although the king had come

up to Westminster by the time prefixed, a full Council could not be had

for at least some days after; and even on the 14th of February there was

one absentee, the Earl of Arundel, who had to be written to by letters

of Privy Seal.[176-3]

[Footnote 176-1: _Privy Council Proceedings_, vi. 293.]

[Footnote 176-2: No. 361.]

[Footnote 176-3: No. 364. _Privy Council Proceedings_, vi. 293.]

[Sidenote: A Great Council in London.] But by the 14th Warwick had

arrived in London with a body of 600 men, ‘all apparelled in red

jackets, with white ragged staves.’[176-4] The town was now full of the

retinues of the different noblemen, and the mayor and sheriffs trembled

for the peace of the city. A very special watch was instituted. ‘The

mayor,’ says Fabyan, ‘for so long as the king and the lords lay thus in

the city, had daily in harness 5000 citizens, and rode daily about the

city and suburbs of the same, to see that the king’s peace were kept;

and nightly he provided for 3000 men in harness to give attendance upon

three aldermen, and they to keep the night-watch till 7 of the clock

upon the morrow, till the day-watch were assembled.’ If peace was to be

the result of all this concourse, the settlement evidently could not

bear to be protracted. The Duke of York and the Earls of Salisbury and

Warwick had taken up their quarters within the city itself; but the

young lords whose fathers had been slain at St. Albans--the Duke of

Somerset, the Earl of Northumberland and his brother, Lord Egremont, and

the Lord Clifford--were believed to be bent upon revenge, and the civic

authorities refused them entrance within their bounds.[177-1] Thus the

lords within the town and those without belonged to the two opposite

parties respectively; and in consequence of their mutual jealousies,

conferences had to be arranged between them in the morning at the Black

Friars, and in the afternoon at the White Friars, in Fleet

Street.[177-2] The king, for his part, having opened the proceedings

with some very earnest exhortations addressed to both parties, withdrew

himself and retired to Berkhampstead.[177-3] The Duke of Somerset and

others went to and fro to consult with him during the deliberations.

Meanwhile the necessity of some practical arrangement for government

must have been felt more urgent every day. Sixty sail of Frenchmen were

seen off the coast of Sussex; and though Lord Falconbridge was at

Southampton in command of some vessels (probably on his own

responsibility), there was a general feeling of insecurity among the

merchants and among dwellers by the sea-coast. Botoner had heard

privately from Calais that the French meditated a descent upon Norfolk

at Cromer and Blakeney.[177-4] And the news shortly afterwards received

from the district showed that his information was not far wrong.[177-5]

[Footnote 176-4: _Chronicle_ in MS. Cott., Vitell. A. xvi.]

[Footnote 177-1: _English Chronicle_ (ed. Davies), p. 77. Hall.]

[Footnote 177-2: Letter 366.]

[Footnote 177-3: Whethamstede, 417-18. Letter 365.]

[Footnote 177-4: Letter 365.]

[Footnote 177-5: Letter 366.]

[Sidenote: Terms of agreement.] At last it was agreed on both sides that

old animosities should be laid aside, and that some reparation should be

made by the Yorkists to the sons and widows of the lords who had fallen

on the king’s side at St. Albans. The exact amount of this reparation

was left to the award of Henry, who decided that it should consist of an

endowment of £45 a year to the Monastery of St. Albans, to be employed

in masses for the slain, and of certain money payments, or assignments

out of moneys due to them by the Crown, to be made by York, Warwick, and

Salisbury, to Eleanor, Duchess Dowager of Somerset and to her son, Duke

Henry, to Lord Clifford, and others, in lieu of all claims and actions

which the latter parties might have against the former.[178-1] With what

cordiality this arrangement was accepted on either side we do not

presume to say. Historians universally speak of it as a hollow concord,

unreal from the first. But it at least preserved the kingdom in

something like peace for about a twelvemonth. It was celebrated by a

great procession to St. Paul’s on Lady Day, which must have been an

imposing spectacle. The king marched in royal habit with the crown upon

his head, York and the queen followed, arm in arm, and the principal

rivals led the way, walking hand in hand.[178-2]

[Footnote 178-1: Whethamstede, 422 _sq._ _Engl. Chron._ (Davies),

77, 78.]

[Footnote 178-2: Hall.]

[Sidenote: A sea fight.] The keeping of the sea was now intrusted to the

Earl of Warwick, and it was not long before he distinguished himself by

an action which probably relieved the English coasts for some time from

any immediate danger of being attacked by the enemy. On the morning of

Trinity Sunday word was brought to him at Calais of a fleet of 28

Spaniards, of which 16 were described as ‘great ships of forecastle.’

Immediately he manned such vessels as he had in readiness, and went out

to seek the enemy. The force at his command was only five ships of

forecastle, three carvels, and four pinnaces; but with these he did not

hesitate to come to an engagement. At four o’clock on Monday morning the

battle began, and it continued till ten, when the English obtained a

hard-won victory. ‘As men say,’ wrote one of the combatants, ‘there was

not so great a battle upon the sea this forty winter; and forsooth, we

were well and truly beat.’ Nevertheless, six of the enemy’s ships were

taken, and the rest were put to flight, not without very considerable

slaughter on either side.[178-3]

[Footnote 178-3: Letter 369. Compare Fabyan. Whethamstede, who

writes with some confusion in this part of his narrative, speaks

of a great naval victory won by Warwick on St. Alban’s Day, the

22nd June 1459, over a fleet of Genoese and Spanish vessels, in

which booty was taken to the value of £10,000, and upwards of a

thousand prisoners, for whom it was difficult to find room in all

the prisons of Calais. It is not impossible that this may have

been a different action, which took place on the very day, month,

and year to which Whethamstede refers it; but the silence of other

authorities about a second naval victory would lead us to suppose

he is simply wrong in the matter of date. It must be observed that

Whethamstede immediately goes on to speak of the Legate Coppini’s

arrival in England, which took place in June 1460, as having

happened _circa idem tempus_, and as if it had been in the same

month of June, only a few days earlier. This shows great

inaccuracy.]