Warwick the Kingmaker (18 page)

Somerset was the second husband of Eleanor, the second of the three Beauchamp sisters, and he really needed her inheritance to compensate for the inadequacies of his own endowment. It was helpful to him on all fronts that in December Shrewsbury returned to England from the pilgrimage to Rome that was a condition of his release from France. Shrewsbury’s military reputation was unassailable. He had been Somerset’s closest ally and associate in Normandy and did not agree that Henry VI’s other realm had been ‘sold’ to the French. He was, moreover, Somerset’s brother-in-law, the husband of Margaret, the eldest of the Beauchamp coheirs, believed himself to be rightly earl of Warwick, and was committed to making the most of her Beauchamp and Berkeley inheritances.

On 26 December 1450, only six days after parliament was prorogued, all four Beauchamp sisters were granted the custody of the Duchess Cecily’s dowerlands of which they were heiresses (the Beauchamp not the Despenser lands) at a farm to be agreed by midsummer.33 This suspended Warwick’s title, contradicted several inquisitions, and signalled a sustained attack on the earl’s tenure of the whole Beauchamp inheritance. An immediate effect was that the earl lost his latest acquisition, the chamberlainship of the exchequer. Objections were raised at the exchequer, perhaps by the other chamberlain Lord Cromwell, who was also chamberlain of the king’s household. Colt was suspended from the office, which was exercised jointly pending adjudication by Cromwell and Beauchamp of Powicke, the treasurer. Warwick, the king declared on 24 January, had acted improperly and even illegally by not obtaining exchequer consent for his actions and in ‘grete derogacion of our right’. This was nonsense, for Warwick had royal authority for his action, a patent under the great seal with a
non obstante
(notwith-standing) clause, which had both been registered by the exchequer. But the pretext sufficed. The king pronounced the chamberlainship as properly the inheritance of all four sisters. Warwick was excluded and Brome was reinstated as Warwick chamberlain.34

The evidence is better for the chamberlainship than for other properties, but it seems that custody was exercised over at least some properties by all four sisters. On 6 June 1451 Thomas Throckmorton was appointed steward of Cecily’s Worcestershire dowerlands by Somerset, Warwick, Shrewsbury and Latimer jointly: the patent bears all their seals, including the bear-and-ragged-staff emblem of Warwick himself.35 Four days later, on 10 June 1451, the king licensed all four sisters to enter those of the Duchess Cecily’s dowerlands of which all four were heirs. There is no evidence that any of the other Beauchamp lands held by the infant Anne in 1449 passed to the three elder half-sisters at this time.

Nor was Warwick’s only setback in the Warwick inheritance dispute. On 5 May 1452 a Gloucestershire inquisition found the manor of Wickwane to belong not to his countess, but to their distant cousin Beauchamp of Powicke as heir general of Earl William (d. 1298).36 Beauchamp remained Warwick’s trusted ally in other respects. Beauchamp, Sudeley, Norris and Nanfan continued to operate as surviving Despenser feoffees despite the unfavourable Gloucestershire inquisition of 1450 that found Tewkesbury and Sodbury to be held in chief. The exchequer moved slowly and it was not until 4 April 1453 that George’s moiety of Ewyas Lacy was leased out, to Warwick himself. It was a recognition of reality that on 28 May the feoffees appointed John Throckmorton parker of Tewkesbury park at the request of the earl and countess,37 clear evidence of their intention to maintain the trust to Warwick’s advantage for as long as possible regardless of the inquisition verdict. Repeated royal licenses to Bergavenny to enter Abergavenny took no effect.

Whilst these were significant setbacks to Warwick, who certainly did not accept them as final, they do not seem to have had any immediate effect on his tenure of his estates. Glamorgan remained in his hands, as husband of his countess and custodian for George Neville, and the inquisition that found Tewkesbury not to be enfeoffed was simply ignored. Even the Beauchamp licence was of limited value, for it neither specified what lands were involved nor how they were to be divided. Whilst Margaret and Eleanor seem to have known very well what was involved, their desires were not confirmed by inquisitions, all of which recorded Anne as sole heir. It is probably because of their weakness locally where Warwick was so strong that no new inquisitions were sought. Moreover on 11 June 1451, one day after the Beauchamp sisters’ licence to enter, the king granted Warwick’s father Salisbury the custody on grounds of idiocy of the person and lands of his brother George Lord Latimer, husband of the youngest sister Elizabeth.38 This countermeasure surely prevented Margaret and Eleanor from acting effectively? The Countess of Warwick was now no longer the sole dissenting voice. No attempt was made at this stage to revive the sisters’ claims to those parts of the Beauchamp inheritance that Cecily had not held in dower. The various licences were unenforceable and the disputes hung fire for nearly two years.

This was possible only because Warwick’s opponents had other priorities. The disorders of 1450, which York had nurtured, caused the king to progress through southern and central England through much of 1451–3. He was accompanied by Somerset, by three senior magnates in Buckingham, Salisbury and Shrewsbury, and by the royal judges. His progress was punctuated by sessions of parliament and the great council. Somerset had his hands full defending himself and directing policy. Shrewsbury was appointed first to keep the seas in March 1451 and then, in September 1452, he was despatched to recover Acquitaine. As Lord Berkeley had already resorted to violence, Shrewsbury gave priority to settling that feud ahead of his dispute with Warwick. Already on 15 June 1451 Lady Berkeley warned her husband against Shrewsbury, who was soon recruiting retainers for the prosecution of private war. On 6 September 1451 in a surprise attack Lisle seized the Berkeleys within their castle. Next month at Chipping Norton (Oxon.) a judicial commission found against Lord Berkeley and imposed draconian penalties.39 Meantime Shrewsbury and Salisbury were ordered by the king to quell the Courtenay–Bonville dispute in the West Country, but were forestalled by York himself, who was anxious to save the Earl of Devon from punishment. Devon’s opponents, the Earl of Wiltshire and Lord Bonville, were imprisoned at the king’s command.

Yet these are almost York’s only recorded actions in the latter half of 1451. As English Gascony collapsed into French hands, a process completed in August, and as Calais and the south coast were threatened, so the case for reform, if anything, was strengthened. Yet the king had rejected most of York’s demands. He had declared his confidence in Somerset and thus, in his eyes at least, the question of treason was closed. To the king the quarrel between York and Somerset, a continuing source of political instability, was a private matter, to be settled as such private matters normally were, by arbitration. That, apparently, was one objective of the great council he held at Coventry in September 1451,40 to which York and Devon were summoned, but did not come. The duke saw no point in attending meetings which he could not influence at places where he could bring no power to bear. Evidently he did not accept the king’s pardoning of Somerset nor was he inclined to the sort of compromise that commonly emerged from arbitration. He determined instead to force his will upon the king: to oust Somerset; to take over direction of the war, which he certainly thought he could do much better; to purge the government and household; and presumably also to take on the direction himself. He appears impatient with Henry VI at the helm of affairs a great deal sooner than the other magnates.

There are remarkable parallels between York’s coercion of the king in 1450 and his attempted coup d’état in 1452. Again, the plan had been prepared several months earlier, perhaps in November. Once again, there were the widespread distribution of manifestos, disturbances on his estates, the raising of what was hoped to be overwhelming force, and the enlisting on his side of London. Once again, on 9 January 1452, he began by declaring his loyalty. His oath on the sacraments was witnessed at his invitation by two lords with court contacts: Shrewsbury, still his most expensive annuitant, and the courtier Bishop Boulers of Hereford. That was the context for what followed. Letters dated 3 February 1452 appealed for popular support: nothing had been done about reform; failures in Normandy and now Gascony were linked to imminent disaster at Calais and on the south coast; Somerset – again a ‘traitor’ – was denounced as the cause; York himself as humble liegeman was again to provide the cure; and violence was to be eschewed. With a large force, he marched on London and, failing to secure entry, sought to raise Kent once again.

However, 1452 was not like 1450. Henry VI and Somerset had matters under control and were well-informed of York’s movements, both because his letters crossed their own summonses to a great council at Coventry and because recipients forwarded his missives to the king. Whatever York may have believed – or sought to transmit through his overt declarations of loyalty – there was an enormous difference between constitutional action in parliament albeit backed by force and an insurrection that like all rebellions was treasonable. For Warwick and almost all other magnates, allegiance came first. Whatever the case for reform, King Henry could count on support from the magnates and from urban oligarchies. Most noblemen obeyed his summons, only Devon and Cobham overtly supporting York, London shut its gates and Kent failed to rise. York was pinned down at Dartford, admittedly in a strong position if he wished to fight. Of course, he did not and probably could not, for Henry was the undisputed king and to fight him was unquestionably treason.

Fortunately for York, his opponents also wished to avoid extremes. Twice during his southward journey negotiations had taken place, though without conceding the duke’s demands. Even now Henry spared York’s life and property, agreed not to treat his campaign as either a rebellion or treason, in return for his capitulation and his formal, public, oath of allegiance. This was particularly solemn, sworn on 10 March 1452 on the Gospels, the True Cross and the consecrated host at St Paul’s Cathedral, and included his formal recognition that any breaches would result in degradation from ‘all maner worship, astate or dignite’. The conditions were remorselessly comprehensive. York swore to bear the king ‘feithe and trouthe’ and to withstand any treasons that came to his knowledge. He promised to attend whenever the king commanded. More specifically,

I shall never here after take upon me to gader any riottys or make any assemble of your people withoute your commandement or lycence or my leful defence,

such lawful defence being reported to the king and the Lords. He would not take ‘the weye of feete’ – resort to violent self-help against any subject – but would submit any grievances ‘to your highnesse and procede aftir the cours of your lawes’, nor would he ‘atempte by weye of feete or otherwise ageinste your roiall astate’.41 Humiliating though it was, York’s oath was an extremely light penalty for what could have been regarded as a treasonable conspiracy and could thus have destroyed the duke utterly. That York was treated so much more gently than Devon and Cobham, who were imprisoned, and than lesser men who suffered forfeiture, is ironic evidence that he was receiving the more favourable treatment appropriate for a duke and heir presumptive that he had been demanding! His articles against Somerset were ignored. Naturally. If he could not obtain his way from positions of strength, in the earlier negotiations, what hope had he when boxed into a corner? His disagreements with Somerset were once again treated as private matters, to be settled by arbitration by arbiters appointed on 13 March, who were to report almost at once, or, failing their award, by the king. That no award was made is no surprise: there was too little time. That none was made by the king was an unfortunate oversight. Perhaps nobody saw the need, since York was discredited and Somerset in the saddle. Why should Somerset compromise and make the inevitable concessions to his defeated opponent?

York chose not to recognize how generously he was treated. Against all the obvious evidence, he continued to believe that he had observed his allegiance and that he had acted honourably. He regarded the whole affair and the indictment of Devon as slurs on his honour and secured the acknowledgement of his loyalty at the first available opportunities by the great council in November 1453 and by parliament the following February. He considered his oath to have been extracted by duress, seeking papal release from it which he had allegedly obtained by 1460. Hence, perhaps, his refusal to attend councils and probably parliament too up until November 1453. He considered that he had been deceived by the negotiators, whom he believed had promised him Somerset’s trial, and harked back to it in 1455. And, very obviously, he considered the curious notion of self-defence displayed in 1452 and the ‘weye of feete’ to be perfectly legitimate for him (but not, of course, for anyone else) at the first battle of St Albans in 1455 and again in 1459.

Salisbury had been in attendance on the king for much of 1451 up to and including York’s Dartford demonstration, but his son was not. Warwick was at Cardiff on 12 March and at Warwick itself on the 29th and was back at Cardiff in June. On 12–13 July he received incompatible commissions: one requiring his action in the Channel Isles, the other instructing him and his uncle Buckingham to arrest Sir Thomas Malory and take sureties of him not to do harm to the Axholme charterhouse and to appear at council around Michaelmas; Buckingham it was who acted. Perhaps Warwick attended the September great council at Coventry, since his daughter was born that month at Warwick. He himself was at Warwick on 2 October, 20 November, and shortly before 14 January 1452, when he proceeded once again to Cardiff. Recalled by the king’s urgent summons, he joined him with a substantial force, some at least wearing the eighty-one yards of red-and-white cloth for arm-bands that cost the Warwick bailiff £6 12
s
. 10
d
.; doubtless this was also ‘the right grete necessite’ for which he was lent £9 6
s
. 8
d
.42 Warwick and Salisbury were among the six ambassadors who negotiated the armistice at Dartford on 1–2 March, an indication of their acceptability both to duke and king; Salisbury was one of the arbiters. Warwick was in London on 10 March, when he granted an annuity to Thomas Middleton, presumably at York’s oath-taking at St Paul’s, on 14 March, and probably for a fortnight after. It was on 17 March that Salisbury ordered Richard Musgrave, his receiver of the south parts, to pay £2 debts of his household in London from January and February. Warwick may have returned to Cardiff by 4 May, was certainly at Warwick on 5 and 18 July and 30 August. He passed through Stratford on 14 September on his way to Wales and was at Tewkesbury, presumably returning, on 20 October.43 Most likely he attended the knighting of the king’s two brothers on 5 January 1453, when his own brothers Thomas and John were also dubbed.44