Shakespeare's Kings (20 page)

But
he
did
not
accept
it.
Instead,
he
made
a
formal
protest,
insisting that
neither
he
nor
his
Crown
should
be
in
any
way
prejudiced
by Parliament
or
Council,
nominating
his
friend
Sir
John
Beauchamp
as Steward
of
his
Household
-
thereby
breaking
his
promise
that
this appointment
should
be
made
only
with
the
Council's
advice
and
consent -
and
spending
Christmas
with
the
theoretically
disgraced
Suffolk
at Windsor.
In
February
1387
he
left
Westminster
for
an
extended
tour of
the
Midlands
and
the
North,
there
to
rally
supporters
and
to
establish a
strong
royalist
army
based
on
Cheshire
and
North
Wales.
Ostensibly this
recruiting
was
in
connection
with
de
Vere's
new
Duchy
of
Ireland, which
Richard
had
every
intention
of
exploiting
in
any
way
he
could; in
fact,
however,
it
gave
rise
to
that
invaluable
army
of
Cheshire
archers and
Welsh
pikemen
that
was
to
constitute
his
principal
support
in
the years
ahead.
And
it
was
during
this
tour,
in
August
1387,
first
at Shrewsbury
and
a
week
later
at
Nottingham,
that
he
sought
-
and obtained
-
legal
advice
against
the
Council.

The
judges
who
gave
this
advice
-
and
they
included
some
of
the highest
in
the
land,
including
Sir
Robert
Tresilian,
Chief
Justice
of
the King's
Bench,
Sir
Robert
Belknap,
Chief
Justice
of
the
Common Bench,
and
three
of
the
latter's
colleagues,
Sir
William
Burgh,
Sir
John Holt
and
Sir
Roger
Fulthorp
-
were
to
claim
in
the
following
year
that they
had
been
coerced
into
giving
the
judgement
they
did;
but
since in
1386
they
risked
virtually
nothing
(whereas
in
1387
their
lives
were in
grave
danger)
we
do
not
need
to
take
their
evidence
too
seriously. Besides,
that
judgement
was
perfectly
reasonable.
It
could
certainly have
been
argued
that
the
Council
was
injurious
to
the
royal
prerogative, while
the
impeachment
of
the
King's
servants
had
been
declared
illegal as
rece
ntly
as
1377.
The
judges
accordingly
pronounced
that
the
King had
indeed
been
impeded
in
the
exercise
of
his
prerogative,
and
that those
responsible
for
such
impediments
as
had
'accroached
the
royal power'
should
be
punished
as
traitors.

The
decision
was
exa
ctly
what
Richard
had
hoped
for;
but
he
was not
yet
ready
to
use
it.
Judges
and
witnesses
alike
were
sworn
to
secrecy until
such
moment,
after
his
return
to
London,
as
he
could
publish
it to
most
startling
effect.
That
return
took
place
on
10
November
1387. Even
the
King
was
surprised
by
the
warmth
of
his
reception
by
the Londoners,
who
escorted
him
in
procession,
like
a
triumphant
hero,
first to
St
Paul's
and
then
to
Westminster.
The
reasons
for
their
enthusiasm
are unclear.
The
English
fleet
under
the
Earls
of
Arundel
and
Nottingham had
indeed
gained
a
splendid
victory
against
the
French
and
Spanish off
Margate,
had
gone
on
to
destroy
the
fortifications
of
Brest
and
had returned
with
huge
quantities
of
wine,
which
had
been
sold
off
cheaply at
home;
but
that
had
been
almost
a
year
ago,
and
it
is
unlikely
that
the euphoria
—
far
less
the
wine
—
would
have
lasted
quite
so
long.
More significant,
perhaps,
was
the
fact
that
the
King
had
been
away
for
nearly ten
months.
He
always
tended
to
be
more
popular
during
his
absence; and
the
Londoners
had
perhaps
begun
to
despair
of
ever
seeing
him again.

The
general
excitement
at
the
King's
return
was
not
shared
by
his
two chief
antagonists,
the
Duke
of
Gloucester
and
the
Earl
of
Arundel. Despite
the
secrecy
on
which
he
had
insisted,
it
was
not
long
before they
heard
of
the
recent
judgement
against
them;
and
they
resolved
to strike
first.
Refusing
to
obey
the
royal
summons
on
the
grounds
that the
King
had
surrounded
himself
with
their
enemies,
they
withdrew first
to
Haringey,
a
few
miles
to
the
north
of
the
capital
—
where
they were
joined
by
Thomas
Beauchamp,
Earl
of
Warwick
-
and
thence
to Waltham
Cross
in
Hertfordshire,
where
they
began
to
rally
their
forces in
earnest,
issuing
proclamations
and
circulating
letters
to
the
leading citizens
of
London
and
the
principal
religious
houses,
setting
out
the case
against
the
King
and
calling
for
support.
The
response,
coming
as it
did
so
soon
after
his
enthusiastic
reception
only
a
few
days
before, was
enough
to
cause
Richard
serious
alarm.
His
favourites,
including the
Archbishop
of
York,
urged
him
to
fight;
but
there
were
all
too many
others,
like
old
Sir
Ralph
Basset
of
Drayton,
who
maintained that
though
they
would
be
happy
to
die
for
the
King,
they
were
rather less
keen
to
do
so
for
the
Duke
of
Ireland
and
his
friends.
Fortunately, eight
of
the
fourteen
members
of
the
hated
Council
were
also
in
favour of
a
settlement:
and
it
was
they
who
rode
on
14
November
to
Waltham, where
they
invited
Gloucester,
Arundel
and
Warwick
to
lay
down
their arms.
The
three
responded
with
a
formal
Appeal
(accusatio)
against five
of
Richard's
closest
associates
-
Suffolk,
de
Vere,
Tresilian,
the Archbishop
of
York
and
Sir
Nicholas
Brembre,
a
former
Mayor
of London
from
whom
the
King
had
borrowed
over
£1,300;
and
the eight
Councillors
thereupon
invited
them
to
return
with
them
to Westminster,
where
the
King
was
waiting
to
receive
them.