Part 10

The truth is, the Duke of York had not yet succeeded in establishing the government upon anything like a firm or satisfactory basis. In times like our own there is little difficulty in determining the responsibility of ministers; but in the rough judgment of the ‘Commons’ of those days an error in policy was nothing short of treason. Whoever took upon him to guide the king’s counsels knew very well the danger of the task; and York (if I understand his character aright) was anxious, until he was driven desperate, never to assume more authority than he was distinctly warranted in doing. He could not but remember that his father had suffered death for conspiring to depose Henry V., and that his own high birth and descent from Edward III. caused his acts to be all the more jealously watched by those who sought to estrange him from his sovereign. He therefore made it by no means his aim to establish for himself a marked ascendency. He rather sought to show his moderation. I find, indeed, that at this particular period he not only removed two members of the Council, Lord Dudley and the Abbot of St. Peter’s at Gloucester, but sent them prisoners to his own castle of Ludlow.[86-2] This, however, he could hardly have done without permission from the king, as it was the express object of his petition above referred to, that persons accused of misconducting themselves in high places should be committed for trial; and judging from the terms of the king’s answer, I should say that it must have been done by the authority of the new Council, which Henry therein declared it to be his intention to constitute.

[Footnote 86-2: Stow’s _Chronicle_, p. 392.]

This new Council was probably what we should call in these days a coalition ministry. [Sidenote: The Duke of Somerset.] York’s great rival, the Duke of Somerset, had come over from Normandy a little before York himself came over from Ireland. On the 11th of September, while Cardinal Kemp, who was then Lord Chancellor, was sitting at Rochester on a commission of _Oyer and Terminer_ to try the Kentish rebels,[87-1] he affixed the Great Seal to a patent appointing Somerset Constable of England.[87-2] In that capacity, as we have already seen, the duke arrested one of the new Kentish leaders that started up after Cade’s rebellion had been quelled. There is no doubt that he stood high in the king’s confidence, and that he was particularly acceptable to Queen Margaret. He was, nevertheless, one of the most unpopular men in England, on account of his surrender of Caen and total loss of Normandy in the preceding year; and as the Parliament was now called, among other reasons, expressly to provide for the defence of the kingdom, and for speedy succours being sent to preserve the king’s other dominions in France,[87-3] it was impossible that his conduct should not be inquired into. The short sitting of Parliament before Christmas was greatly occupied by controversy between York and Somerset.[87-4] On the 1st of December the latter was placed under arrest. His lodgings at the Black Friars were broken into and pillaged by the populace, and he himself was nearly killed, but was rescued from their violence by a barge of his brother-in-law the Earl of Devon. Next day the Dukes of York and Norfolk caused proclamation to be made through the city that no man should commit robbery on pain of death, and a man was actually beheaded in Cheap for disobeying this order. As a further demonstration against lawlessness, the king and his lords, on Thursday the 3rd December, rode through the city in armour, either side of the way being kept by a line of armed citizens throughout the route of the procession. It was the most brilliant display of the kind the Londoners of that day had ever seen.[88-1]

[Footnote 87-1: _See_ vol. ii. pp. 161-2.] [[Letter 131]]

[Footnote 87-2: Rymer, xi. 276.]

[Footnote 87-3: _Rolls of Parl._ v. 210.]

[Footnote 87-4: W. Worc.]

[Footnote 88-1: MS. Cott. Vitell. A. xvi. Stow in his _Chronicle_ dates this procession a day later.]

The Duke of Somerset did not long remain in prison. Very soon after Christmas the king made him captain of Calais, and gave him the entire control of the royal household.[88-2] The Court was evidently bent on the restoration of the old order of things, so far as it dared to do so. The chief obstacle to this undoubtedly was the Parliament, which was, on the whole, so favourable to the Duke of York, that one member, Young of Bristol, had even ventured to move that he should be declared heir to the crown.[88-3] Parliament, however, could be prorogued; and, as Young found shortly afterwards, its members could be committed to the Tower. The speech of the Lord Chancellor on the meeting of Parliament had declared that it was summoned for three important causes: first, to provide for the defence of the kingdom, and especially the safeguard of the sea; secondly, for the speedy relief of the king’s subjects in the south of France, and aid against the French; thirdly, for pacifying the king’s subjects at home, and punishing the disturbances which had lately been so frequent. But practically nothing was done about any of these matters before Christmas. An act was passed for the more speedy levying of a subsidy granted in the last Parliament, and also an act of attainder against the murderers of William Tresham. The Lord Chancellor then, in the king’s name and in his presence, prorogued the Parliament till the 20th of January, declaring that the matters touching the defence of the kingdom were too great and difficult to be adequately discussed at that time. The same excuse, however, was again used for further prorogations until the 5th of May; and meanwhile fears began to be entertained in the country that all that had been done hitherto for a more impartial administration of justice was about to be upset.[88-4]

[Footnote 88-2: W. Worc.]

[Footnote 88-3: _The Chronicle of London_ (p. 137) says that ‘all the Commons’ agreed to this proposition, and stood out for some time against the Lords on the subject.]

[Footnote 88-4: _Rolls of Parl._ v. 210-14.]

[Sidenote: A.D. 1451.] During the whole course of the succeeding year matters were in a very unsettled condition. At the very opening of the year we hear complaints that the sheriff, Jermyn, had not shown himself impartial, but was endeavouring to suppress complaints against certain persons at the coming sessions at Lynn. It was feared the king would pardon Tuddenham and Heydon the payment of their dues to the Exchequer for Suffolk; and if they did, payment of taxes would be generally refused, as Blake, the Bishop of Swaffham, having gone up to London, informed the Lord Chancellor himself. From London, too, men wrote in a manner that was anything but encouraging. The government was getting paralysed alike by debt and by indecision. ‘As for tidings here,’ writes John Bocking, ‘I certify you all is nought, or will be nought. The king borroweth his expenses for Christmas. The King of Arragon, the Duke of Milan, the Duke of Austria, the Duke of Burgundy, would be assistant to us to make a conquest, and nothing is answered nor agreed in manner save abiding the great deliberation that at the last shall spill all together.’ Chief-Justice Fortescue had been for a week expecting every night to be assaulted.[89-1] The only symptom of vigour at headquarters was the despatch of a commission of _Oyer and Terminer_ into Kent, for the trial of those who had raised disturbances during the preceding summer. As for the county of Norfolk, the only hope lay in a strong clamour being raised against oppressors. Sir John Fastolf showed himself anxious about the prosecution of certain indictments against Heydon, and his servant Bocking, and Wayte, the servant of Judge Yelverton, urged that strong representations should be made to Lord Scales against showing any favour to that unpopular lawyer.[89-2]

[Footnote 89-1: In earlier issues of this Introduction was added: ‘probably for no other reason than his high impartiality.’ Mr. Plummer, I find, who knows him better, has not the same opinion of Fortescue’s impartiality as a politician, but considers that he was in danger just because he was so strong a Lancastrian. _See_ Introduction to _The Governance of England_, p. 50.]

[Footnote 89-2: Nos. 167, 169-174.]

[Sidenote: Tuddenham and Heydon.] By and by it was seen what good reason the friends of justice had for their apprehensions. It had been arranged that Tuddenham and Heydon should be indicted at a sitting of the commission of _Oyer and Terminer_ at Norwich in the ensuing spring. Rumours, however, began to prevail in Norwich that they who had promoted this commission in the county of Norfolk--the Earl of Oxford and Justice Yelverton, as well as John Paston and John Damme--were to be indicted in Kent by way of revenge. John Damme had before this caused Heydon to be indicted of treason for taking down one of those hideous memorials of a savage justice--the quarter of a man exposed in public. The man was doubtless a political victim belonging to Heydon’s own party; but Heydon was now looking to recover his influence, and he contrived to get the charge of treason retorted against Damme. Symptoms were observed in Norwich that the unpopular party were becoming bolder again. ‘Heydon’s men,’ wrote James Gloys to John Paston, ‘brought his own horse and his saddle through Aylesham on Monday, and they came in at the Bishop’s Gates at Norwich, and came over Tombland and into the Abbey; and sithen they said they should go to London for Heydon. Item, some say that Heydon should be made a knight, and much other language there is which causeth men to be afeard, weening that he should have a rule again.’[90-1]

[Footnote 90-1: Nos. 179 and 180.]

Full well might Sir John Fastolf and others apprehend that if Heydon or Tuddenham appeared in answer to the indictment, it would be with such a following at his back as would overawe the court. No appearance was put in for them at all at several of the sessions of _Oyer and Terminer_. One sitting was held at Norwich on the 2nd of March. Another was held just after Easter on the 29th of April, and Justice Prisot, not the most impartial of judges, was sent down to Norwich to hold it. Strong complaints were put in against Tuddenham and Heydon on the part of the city of Norwich, and also by the town of Swaffham, by Sir John Fastolf, Sir Harry Inglos, John Paston, and many others; but, as Fastolf’s chaplain afterwards informed his master, ‘the judges, by their wilfulness, might not find in their heart to give not so much as a beck nor a twinkling of their eye toward, but took it to derision, God reform such partiality!’ The one-sidedness of Prisot, indeed, was such as to bring down upon him a rebuke from his colleague Yelverton. ‘Ah, Sir Mayor and your brethren,’ said the former, ‘as to the process of your complaints we will put them in continuance, but in all other we will proceed.’ Yelverton felt bound to protest against such unfairness. [Sidenote: Partial justice.] Yet even this was not the worst; for Prisot, seeing that, with all he could do, the result of the proceedings at Norwich would scarcely be satisfactory to Tuddenham and Heydon, took it upon him, apparently by his own authority, to remove them to Walsingham, where they had most supporters. And there, accordingly, another session was opened on Tuesday the 4th of May.[91-1]

[Footnote 91-1: Nos. 119, 185, 186, 192.]

It was, according to Sir Thomas Howys, ‘the most partial place of all the shire.’ All the friends and allies of Tuddenham and Heydon, knights and squires, and gentlemen who had always been devoted to their pleasure, received due warning to attend. A body of 400 horse also accompanied the accused, and not one of the numerous complainants ventured to open his mouth except John Paston. Even he had received a friendly message only two days before that he had better consider well whether it was advisable to come himself, as there was ‘great press of people and few friends’; and, moreover, the sheriff was ‘not so whole’ as he had been. What this expression meant required but little explanation. As Sheriff of Norfolk, John Jermyn was willing to do Paston all the service in his power, but simple justice he did not dare to do.[91-2]

[Footnote 91-2: Nos. 189, 192.]

[Sidenote: John Paston and Lord Molynes.] He had but too good an excuse for his timidity. Of John Paston’s complaint against Tuddenham and Heydon we hear no more; we can easily imagine what became of it. But we know precisely what became of an action brought by Paston at this sessions against his old adversary Lord Molynes, for his forcible expulsion from Gresham in the preceding year. John Paston, to be sure, was now peaceably reinstated in the possession of that manor;[91-3] but he had the boldness to conceive that undermining his wife’s chamber, turning her forcibly out of doors, and then pillaging the whole mansion, were acts for which he might fairly expect redress against both Lord Molynes and his agents. He had accordingly procured two indictments to be framed, the first against his lordship, and the second against his men. But before the case came on at Walsingham, Sheriff Jermyn gave notice to Paston’s friends that he had received a distinct injunction from the king to make up a panel to acquit Lord Molynes.[92-1] Royal letters of such a tenor do not seem to have been at all incompatible with the usages of Henry VI.’s reign. John Paston himself said the document was one that could be procured for six-and-eightpence.

[Footnote 91-3: No. 178.]

[Footnote 92-1: No. 189.]

There was no hope, therefore, of making Lord Molynes himself responsible for the attack on Gresham. The only question was whether the men who had done his bidding could not be made to suffer for it. After the acquittal of their master, John Osbern reports a remarkable conversation that he had with Sheriff Jermyn in which he did his best to induce him to accept a bribe in Paston’s interest. The gift had been left with the under sheriff for his acceptance. Jermyn declined to take it until he had seen Paston himself, but Osbern was fully under the impression that he would be glad to have it. Osbern, however, appealed also to other arguments. ‘I remembered him,’ he tells Paston, ‘of his promises made before to you at London, when he took his oath and charge, and that ye were with him when he took his oath and other divers times; and for those promises made by him to you at that time, and other times at the _Oyer and Terminer_ at Lynn, ye proposed you by the trust that ye have in him to attempt and rear actions that should be to the avail of him and of his office.’ The prospect of Paston being valuable to him as a litigant had its weight with the sheriff, and he promised to do him all the good in his power except in the action against Lord Molynes’ men; for not only Lord Molynes himself but the Duke of Norfolk had written to him to show them favour, and if they were not acquitted he expected to incur both their displeasure and the king’s. In vain did Osbern urge that Paston would find sufficient surety to save the sheriff harmless. Jermyn said he could take no surety over £100, and Lord Molynes was a great lord who could do him more injury than that.[93-1]

[Footnote 93-1: No. 193.]

[[The gift had been left with the under sheriff _text unchanged: expected form “under-sheriff”_]]

The diplomacy on either side seems to have been conducted with considerable _finesse_. Jermyn declared that he had been offered twenty nobles at Walsingham in behalf of the Lord Molynes, but that he had never received a penny either from him or from any of Paston’s adversaries. Osbern then offered if he would promise to be sincere towards Paston, that the latter would give him a sum in hand, as much as he could desire, or would place it in the hands of a middle man whom Jermyn could trust. In the end, however, he was obliged to be satisfied with Jermyn’s assuring him that if he found it lay within his power to do anything for Paston, he would take his money with good will. The negotiator’s impression was that he was fully pledged to get Lord Molynes’ men acquitted, but that in all other actions he would be found favourable to Paston.[93-2]

[Footnote 93-2: _Ibid._]

[Sidenote: Parliament.] About this time Parliament, which had now been prorogued for nearly five months, met again at Westminster. The king’s necessities were doubtless the all-sufficient cause why its meeting could no longer be dispensed with. The Crown was already in debt to the sum of £372,000, and was daily becoming more so. The expenses of the royal household amounted to £24,000 a year, while the yearly revenue out of which they should have been paid was only £5000. Nor was it by any means advisable to remedy the matter by imposing fresh taxation; for the people were so impoverished by the payment of subsidies, the exactions of the king’s purveyors, and the general maladministration of justice, that the experiment could hardly have been made with safety. An act of resumption was the only expedient by which it seemed possible to meet the difficulty; and all grants of crown lands made to any persons since the first day of the reign were accordingly recalled by statute.[93-3] In return for this the Commons preferred a petition to the king that he would for ever remove from his presence and counsels a number of persons to whom they alleged it was owing both that his possessions had been diminished, and that the laws had not been carried into execution. Foremost on the list was the Duke of Somerset; and with him were named Alice, widow of the late Duke of Suffolk, William Booth, Bishop of Chester (that is to say, of Coventry and Lichfield),[94-1] Lord Dudley, Thomas Daniel, and twenty-five others. It was petitioned that they should never again be permitted to come within twelve miles of the royal presence, on pain of forfeiture of lands and goods. But the days had not yet come when a petition against ministers by the Commons was tantamount to their dismissal. The king indeed felt it best on this occasion to yield somewhat; but he yielded on no principle whatever. He declared in reply that he himself saw no cause for their removal; but he was content to dismiss the most of them for a year, during which period accusations brought against any of them might be inquired into. Those who were Peers of the realm, however, he refused to send away; and he insisted on retaining the services of one or two others who had been accustomed continually to wait upon him.[94-2]

[Footnote 93-3: _Rolls of Parl._ v. 217.]

[Footnote 94-1: The modern see of Chester was separated from this diocese in the time of Henry VIII.]

[Footnote 94-2: _Rolls of Parl._ v. 216.]

Parliament seems shortly after this to have been dissolved, and no parliament met again till two years later. Of course the influence of Somerset increased when both Lords and Commons were dismissed into the country; and we perceive that by the end of the year Thomas Daniel, one of the old unpopular adherents of the Duke of Suffolk, who, nevertheless, had not always been acceptable to the Court, was expecting to recover favour by means of Somerset.[94-3] He is represented as having cultivated the Duke’s friendship for a quarter of a year; so that we may conclude Somerset’s ascendency was at this time unmistakable. With what degree of discretion he made use of it there is little evidence to show. One advantage that Daniel hoped to gain through his influence was the friendship of Tuddenham and Heydon, by whose means, and by the good offices of Lord Scales, he expected to be allowed to re-enter the manor of Bradeston, of which he had already dispossessed one Osbert Munford last year, but had subsequently been dispossessed himself. The value of a disputed title in any part of England probably depended very much upon who was supreme at Court.

[Footnote 94-3: No. 206. Daniel had been out of favour at one time during Suffolk’s ascendency. _See_ No. 75, p. 86.]

But high as Somerset stood in the king’s favour, the course of events did not tend to make him more acceptable to the people. The loss of Normandy, in the preceding year, was itself a thing not likely to be readily forgotten; but the misfortunes of the English arms did not end with the loss of Normandy. So great, indeed, was the despondency occasioned by that event that, in the opinion of French writers, Calais itself would not have been able to hold out if the French had immediately proceeded to attack it. But Charles was afraid he might have been deserted by the Duke of Burgundy, whose interests would hardly have been promoted by the French king strengthening himself in that quarter, and he declined to attempt it.[95-1] Relieved, however, of the necessity of maintaining a large force in Normandy, he found new occupation for his troops in completing the conquest of Guienne, of which a beginning had already been made by the capture of Cognac and of some places near Bayonne and the Pyrenees. In November 1450 the French laid siege to Bourg and Blaye on the Garonne, both of which places capitulated in the spring of the following year. They were the keys of the more important city of Bordeaux, which, now perceiving that there was no hope of succour from England, was obliged to follow their example. This was in June 1451. [Sidenote: Loss of Gascony and Guienne.] Two months afterwards Bayonne, too, was obliged to capitulate; and with it the whole of Gascony and Guienne was as completely lost to the English as Normandy had been in the preceding year. Calais was now all that remained to them of their conquests and possessions in France; nor were they without considerable apprehension that they might be expelled from Calais too.

[Footnote 95-1: Basin, i. 247-48.]

These disasters, which were but the natural sequel to the loss of Normandy, only served to make more bitter the reflection how the government of that duchy had been taken out of the able hands of the Duke of York and given to the incompetent Somerset. The jealousy with which the latter regarded his rival was heightened by the consciousness of his own unpopularity. The Duke of York was living in seclusion at his castle of Ludlow, but Somerset seems to have regarded him with daily increasing apprehension. He was continually instilling into the king distrust of York’s fidelity as a subject; until at last the latter thought it expedient to make a public declaration of his loyalty. [Sidenote: York’s manifesto.] He accordingly issued the following manifesto:--

[Sidenote: A.D. 1452.]