Warwick the Kingmaker (16 page)

Whilst Henry VI was notoriously generous and susceptible to the influence of those about him, it is questionable how accurate this overall interpretation is. Was the king really as extravagant and was his regime really as narrow as they have been portrayed? Existing enfeoffments to fulfil his predecessors’ wills meant that the king had only limited access to the duchy of Lancaster. It was with difficulty that he endowed his queen at a decidedly parsimonious level. His new colleges of Eton and King’s could proceed only slowly.7 There were relatively few big escheats or wardships and some at least of these, like the Beauchamp inheritance, were farmed and brought in revenue. Nobody was raised from the dust to opulence by royal patronage alone. Serious efforts were made to retrench. If the crown remained impoverished, this was due to accumulated debts and declining customs revenues rather than profligate grants. The call for the resumption of royal grants in and after 1449 was not the financial panacea that was predicted. Even sustained exploitation of an enlarged crown estate in time of peace after 1461 was to take twenty years to clear accumulated debts of £350,000.

The 1440s were remarkable for the number of elevations to the peerage and promotions within it, including the creation of six new dukes, which benefited most of the leading families. Considerations of royal blood prompted the promotion to dukedoms of two Beaufort Dukes of Somerset, John Holland Duke of Exeter, and Henry Stafford Duke of Buckingham. Conspicuous among them was the king’s friend Henry Beauchamp, Duke of Warwick, who patronized such royal favourites as James Fiennes, later Lord Say and Lord Treasurer. If the Warwick inheritance was run through two minorities by royal courtiers, it was because Duke Henry and indeed the whole Warwick affinity were part of the ruling elite. The most influential of the Despenser feoffees were Sir Ralph Boteler and Sir John Beauchamp, former councillors of the Regent Bedford, who were created lords Sudeley and Beauchamp of Powicke and who were appointed to ministerial and household offices. Salisbury, father-in-law of Duke Henry and lessee of his lordship of Barnard, may not have attended the royal council much, but, as we have seen, he obtained what he wanted from the government: the confirmation of his earldom, the permanent tenure of Richmond honour and the West March, more favourable assignments than his brother-in-law Northumberland, an effective share in the custody of Anne Beauchamp’s estates, and, in 1449, the earldom of Warwick for his son. Even his ostensibly impoverished brother-in-law York was granted an extensive appanage in Normandy, part of it earmarked for his younger son, the lordships of the Isle of Wight and Hadleigh (Essex), the elevation of two sons into earls, royal backing in his quest for a French princess to marry his heir, and the lieutenantcies in turn of France and of Ireland, where he was the greatest lord, with unparalleled powers and the option of withdrawal at will.8 There are no grounds before 1449 for depicting York at odds with Suffolk or his government. The benefits of Suffolk’s regime were broadly spread. The Nevilles had no obvious cause to move from their favoured position within the royal family into opposition.

Of course, all was not well. If Henry VI’s promise to surrender Maine was the necessary price for a truce, it was nevertheless a mistake and difficult to implement, and the French exploited each diplomatic opportunity. The attack on Fougères caused the resumption of hostilities that led to decisive defeat. Even financial retrenchment necessitated defence cuts that proved disastrous. All this is obvious with hindsight; not at the time. Our Warwick’s first parliamentary session, in June 1449, received reports on Fougères and approved the government’s course of action.9 The defeats that followed, including the capitulation of Rouen, aroused strong criticism of the regime – even denunciations of treason against Suffolk! – and demands for reform, but did not create a political crisis. Suffolk still enjoyed the confidence of the king and, probably, the House of Lords, who rejected as unsubstantiated the first articles of impeachment proposed by the Commons.10 Other charges followed. To counts of treason derived from his foreign policy, which Suffolk cunningly showed to have been shared with many others, were added more specific allegations of abuse of power in England. Without conceding the duke’s guilt, the king stopped his trial and exiled him: Suffolk was murdered on his journey abroad.

That was in March 1450. In June Cade’s rebellion followed, starting in Kent, spreading as far west as Wiltshire, and attracting the sympathy not only of rustics and townsmen, but also local elites. This was a rising of people who saw themselves as loyal subjects, who posed no threat to the king or the monarchical system of government, but who were highly critical of the failings of Henry’s administration and its personnel: its ministers, household officials and courtiers, and councillors, especially bishops. The original grievances related to specific abuses of power in Kent by members of the royal government and household, who were denounced as traitors and indicted as such by terrified commissioners overawed by the rebels, and whose arrest and trial was even demanded by the retainers assembled by magnates to suppress the insurrection. The complaints were then codified in Cade’s second manifesto into a more general denunciation of the regime itself. The king

hath hadde ffalse counsayle, ffor his londez ern lost, his marchundize is lost, his comyns destroyed, the see is lost, ffraunse is lost, hymself so pore that he may not [pay] for his mete nor drynk; he oweth more than evur dyd kynge in Inglond, and zit dayly his traytours that beene abowte hyme waytethe whereevur thynge shudde coome to hyme by his law, and they aske hit from hyme.

In particular the household was accused of securing exemptions to the act of resumption; resumption of royal grants, rather than taxation, was the cure to the king’s poverty. What was required was a broader government headed by the ancient royal blood of the realm, in particular York himself.11

Following Suffolk’s fall and Cade’s rebellion, the king made new appointments to replace the murdered ministers. Cardinal Kemp took over as chancellor and Lord Beauchamp became treasurer. A welcome reinforcement was Somerset, the defeated commander in France, who returned in July/August, apparently convinced his critics of his good conduct in France, and immediately took his seat in the royal council. In somewhat ironic recognition of his military expertise, Somerset was appointed constable of England and started trying the recent rebels. The government’s priorities, as declared to parliament in November, were the defence of the realm and Acquitaine, the keeping of the seas, and the restoration of public order.12 Such a programme proved insufficiently radical. The treasonable nature of Cade’s rebellion, its defeat and his own death did not discredit demands for reform and for vengeance on the so-called traitors from the populace, from the parliamentary Commons, and even apparently among the Lords, who both in 1450 and 1453 found that Somerset had a case to answer. Unapologetic about Cade’s revolt, the Kentish jurors returned indictments in August against county officials for offences denounced in the rebel manifestos and against royal officers for oppressions arising from its suppression.13 Unpaid and defeated soldiery, who felt betrayed both by their commanders and the government, were a destabilizing influence easily manipulated by critics of the regime. Emboldened by York’s support, the Commons in the new parliament elected his chamberlain Sir William Oldhall as their Speaker and took up the call for resumption, reform and revenge.

At this point York himself took the centre of the political stage that he was to dominate for the next decade. For nearly twenty years he had pursued the conventional career of a great nobleman, commanding both in France and Ireland, without identifying a discernible role separate from the elite as a whole. Absent in Ireland as lieutenant from June 1449 to September 1450, York escaped direct implication in the political and military disasters of those months, and returned much changed. Henceforth, as we shall see, he was not merely one of the ancient royal blood of the realm, but
the
ancient royal blood, who demanded consideration by the king as an individual not as one among many noblemen, expected answers to his questions, refused to accept the king’s decisions as final, and conducted discussions and negotiations in the full glare of publicity. He identified himself with public criticism of the regime and repeatedly invoked public opinion on his side. He had his sword borne point uppermost ahead of him at his arrival at London on 23 November 1450.14 The nearest English medieval parallel before Warwick himself was Thomas of Lancaster under Edward II, also the greatest nobleman of his time and a prince of the blood royal.

York’s extensive lands in Ireland, Wales and England made him marginally richer, though always indebted, than the greatest of his peers. He was the premier duke. He was a prince of the blood royal of Europe as well as England who cherished hopes of a Spanish crown and of marrying his heir to a French princess. Together with an elevated sense of honour and objection to slurs on it, his pride had brought him into conflict with Bishop Moleyns, caused him now to denounce ministers ‘broughte up of noughte’, and was shortly to feed his feud with Somerset himself.15 York’s descent in the female line via the Mortimers from Edward III’s second son Lionel gave him a claim to the throne perhaps superior to the king himself, but it could not be published without provoking a confrontation that York could not win. The duke was identified in genealogies as a supporter of the house of Lancaster.
His
claim to be next heir to the king after the death of Gloucester in 1447 surely arose through his grandfather Edmund, fourth son of Edward III and younger brother of John of Gaunt. This gave him precedence over descendants of the fifth son Thomas, grandfather of Buckingham and the Bourchiers. He was heir male of the king himself, unless the legitimized Beaufort line was admissible. His maturity advantaged him over Henry Holland, Duke of Exeter and Margaret Beaufort, two alternative Lancastrian candidates who had their advocates.

Hence it was that York was apparently identified as heir presumptive by several groups of rebels in 1449–50: by the mariners who murdered Bishop Moleyns at Portsmouth in January; by Jack Cade, who used the already significant
alias
of Mortimer and who called for York’s involvement in government; and, perhaps most significantly, ‘by divers fals pepyll...in divers of
your
tounes’.16 Next year the Commons were to demand York’s recognition as heir presumptive through the mouth of the Bristol MP Thomas Young, a client of the duke who was surely acting in his master’s interests. In the highly disturbed conditions of 1450, it is no wonder that ‘diverse langage’ was uttered to the king ‘which shoulde sounde to my [York’s] dishonour and reproch’, that spies were posted at ports to intercept any communications between the rebels and the duke, that the king ordered his officials in North Wales to obstruct York’s return, sent messengers to discover his intentions, and closed Chester and Shrewsbury to him. As Henry himself put it, they feared that he intended taking upon himself what he ought not, presumably the crown.17 Hence, no doubt, the arrival of some of the so-called traitors to seek his protection: there would have been no point if York was not to be in a position of power! York denied these suspicions in a series of bills and protested his loyalty, which the king accepted. His actions indicate political intentions that the regime if not the king were right to fear.

It is improbable that York was directly involved in any of the disturbances of the first half of the year. Surely he cannot have foreseen in advance how formidable Cade’s rebellion was to become! On 12 June, when the king’s vanguard against Cade reached London, York was still preoccupied with the non-payment of his own salary as lieutenant of Ireland and threatened to abandon his charge in consequence.18 That he did indeed return to England in September was not for this reason, which is mentioned in none of his subsequent bills. Nor does it appear to be because of the return of Somerset, his hostility for whom emerged later. Between 15 June and 22 August, York heard that he was implicated in the rebellion and petitioned the king for exoneration, offering – if need be – to appear in person to confront his accuser. That, apparently, was before unfounded rumours reached him that he had actually been indicted of treason, which was most probably his real reason for returning to England. Departing about 28 August, he was obstructed by royal agents at Beaumaris, Chester and Shrewsbury. Proceeding slowly westwards, to Denbigh (7 September), via Shrewsbury (12 September), Stony Stratford and St Albans to London (27 September), he presented a fuller bill with appropriate humility to the king in person and received in response an interim royal letter of exculpation as a loyal and obedient subject which promised a fuller explanation later. Having failed to stop York, Henry sought to remove him from the list of potential opponents. He failed. Combined with intelligence received and promises of support, the king’s answer enabled York to take the strong political line that, perhaps, he had already intended.

York’s first bill, the king’s reply, and York’s second bill all date between 27 September and 6 October. Describing himself as the king’s humble liegeman and declaring his commitment to his safety and prosperity and to the welfare of the realm, York adopted the language of reform and aligned himself firmly with opponents of the regime. It was generally accepted, he pronounced, that the law was not properly administered. In particular, those royal servants indicted as traitors by the rebels – in the king’s eyes, surely improperly indicted – were not punished. York demanded that they should be, offering his ‘devoir’ to this end, and requested the king to instruct his officers to arrest them, so that they could be imprisoned and subjected to due process of the law. Presentation of this bill may have been backed by a display of force, ‘the grete bobaunce and inordinate people...harneised and arraide in manere of werre’ subsequently alleged. Henry reserved his response for due consideration and replied in writing. Had York’s bill been granted, he could have purged all those most unpopular in the country from the royal government and household.