Part 15

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.