Warwick the Kingmaker (22 page)

And yet they went to the wire. Warwick attended a council meeting on 4 February but even on 6 February, five days before parliament was resumed, there was no agreement on who should open it: ostensibly an empty but symbolic role, but one that involved another delegation of ‘the kinges power’. Council prorogued the session for another three days. The Lords met in the great council chamber at Westminster on 13 February to decide. Perhaps more were present, but again relatively few subscribed, twenty-nine in all: less than half the peerage, less than half the bishops or secular lords, including no dukes, abbots or viscounts. Warwick and Salisbury were there, as they were to be on all important occasions during the session, and signed their names. Council nominated York to preside as king’s lieutenant and, greatly daring, ‘to do all thyng that shalbe necessarie therfore to any of the premisses’.2 Did this ambiguous sentence authorize him to exercise the royal assent? It is surely not coincidental that only two days later, on 15 February, Warwick secured a definitive judgement in his favour over the Warwick chamberlainship of the exchequer.

That Buckingham was simultaneously appointed to the highly prestigious but largely honorific stewardship of England identifies him as an alternative lieutenant. Buckingham also was a great-grandson of Edward III, the grandson of that king’s youngest son Thomas of Woodstock, another descendant of Edward I through his daughter Joan of Acre, and allied by marriage to the Beauforts. He was as royal a duke as York, Somerset and Exeter. His compliance or co-operation had to be secured. A steward was needed to acquit Devon. Did York also hope, unrealistically, that Buckingham would be needed to sentence Somerset? Buckingham presided over the Garter chapter at Windsor on 11 May.3

This parliament had been highly favourable to the king and Somerset the previous year and had not altogether changed. The Commons were critical and the Lords decidedly cautious. No agreement could be reached on major issues for the first six weeks of the session. York and his allies were in the ascendant, however, and exploited the possibly temporary opportunity to their factional advantage whilst they could. Some of their rivals had unwisely absented themselves from the parliament, others had legitimate reasons for absence such as attendance on the king, and the majority of the lords merely absented themselves to avoid commitment. York, once the voice of public opinion, had already taken the offensive against Thorpe, securing his imprisonment during the vacation and thus deflecting the promised charges. Now he defied the Commons by rejecting their complaint and directing the election of a replacement. The new Speaker was the Middlesex knight Thomas Charlton, who saw some career advantage in the post; he features on the Salisbury Roll as grandson of Maud Franceys, Warwick’s great-grandmother. On 14 March the charges of treason against Devon arising from the Dartford affair were revoked, York taking the opportunity once again to affirm his loyalty.

York’s supporters also took the offensive. Cromwell petitioned against Exeter and the Nevilles against the Percies. The Nevilles roundly condemned Egremont and his brother Richard Percy; they wisely omitted Northumberland and Poynings. Both bills passed. Exeter was required to surrender Ampthill by Whitsun on pain of £10,000 and the Percies on pain of forfeiture and outlawry were to attend on the chancellor: their opponent Salisbury! The November oath to obey conciliar commands became a statute backed by forfeiture.4

The Warwick inheritance dispute proceeded more surreptitiously. Warwick was already in possession of the chamberlainship on 13 February, when the Lords inspected the coffers and keys in pursuit of fraud, and was confirmed in possession on the 23rd, when he was also granted backpay from 6 December 1450 totalling £1 6
s
. There could be no opposition. With Latimer insane in Salisbury’s custody and Somerset in prison, there was only the Countess Margaret to oppose: her husband and son had fallen at Châtillon; the new earl of Shrewsbury, her stepson, was no friend of hers as she added the Talbot–Talbot dispute to her other feuds. Lord Treasurer Worcester, Warwick’s erstwhile brother-in-law, who presided at the exchequer, had found in Warwick’s favour once before. This decision implies Warwick’s entitlement to the whole of the Duchess Cecily’s dower. Partial Somerset may have been, but not like this.

On 15 March 1454 Henry’s infant son was recognized as Prince of Wales by the Lords, including Warwick and Salisbury.5 The young prince’s rights were reserved in what followed. Much needed to be done: to defend the realm, protect Calais, improve the administration of justice, and establish an effective form of government. No money was forthcoming; appropriate what you have, recommended the Commons, which York at least was willing to do. The sticking point was the form of the executive. Where was that ‘sadde and a wyse counsaill’ promised at Reading, asked the Commons? ‘They have noo knoweleche as yit.’ To this the chancellor promised ‘good and comfortable aunswere, without eny grete delay or tariyng’. That was on 19 March.6 Perhaps, it has been suggested, it was the chancellor himself, Cardinal Kemp, who was obstructive.7 Certainly it was his death on 22 March that removed the obstacle. That, however, may have been because decisions had to be taken, if even routine matters were legitimately to pass under the great seal. The appointment of a chancellor was no part of a council’s normal competence. It was only with utmost caution, after another visit had established that the king was
really
incapacitated, that royal prerogatives were vested in a protector, a chancellor and a council. And even the protector, as in 1422, was to be merely a chief counsellor with powers to defend the land against enemies within and without, not ‘no name that shall emporte auctorite of governance of the lande’, saving the rights of Prince Edward.8 That protector was agreed to be Richard Duke of York.

Yet York was not the only candidate. The queen, though young, inexperienced and French, had presented her case. She stood for continuity. What of the princes of the blood? Somerset, whether alone or
éminence grise
to the queen, was blamed for the recently extended run of foreign defeats, not credited with recent achievements, and had personal enemies made in power to add to York and his earlier foes. York was no less wealthy and well-born than in 1450, if somewhat tarnished by fading memories of Dartford. He was the critic of the existing regime for those who wanted change and were enemies of Somerset. His fright-eningly radical programme of 1450 was no longer current. Almost certainly, there was a fourth candidate, in Exeter, whose title was certainly superior to that of Somerset who, like the Nevilles, was descended from Gaunt’s mistress and eventual third wife. Exeter’s was a partisan case, that threatened defeat for Cromwell and the Nevilles; his credit must have suffered from Cromwell’s petition; its passage exposed his limited support. No chronicle writes of the claims of Margaret, Somerset or Exeter. Yet the Lords hesitated before endorsing York. If no longer a potential dynastic rival, he was decidedly not the man to whom King Henry would have confided his power, as York’s excuse for his absence from the Garter chapter on 11 May confirms:

That the Sovereign had for some time been angry with him, and therefore he durst not come nearer, for fear if he did so, of giving unnecessarily an Occasion of greater Offence, whereby the King being out of Order (which God avoid he said) his Resentment and perhaps his Distemper might gain ground.9

York had enemies too. And so the decision was postponed.

Cardinal Kemp died on Friday 22 March. Next day an authoritative commission of twelve peers was instructed to consult the king, Warwick among them. Finding Henry still incapacitated, ‘to their grete sorow and disconfort’, they reported back on Monday. On Wednesday 27 March York was appointed Lord Protector ‘for as long as it may please the king’. It was a solemn, indeed awesome, appointment, especially if it proved
not
to please the king or actions had later to be accounted for. Hence York wanted both the clearest definition of powers and the maximum support and sharing of responsibility. Without these, he said, he would not act. He did not claim, as in 1450, that he could do it all himself, but took the role not out of presumption, but ‘onely of the due and humble obeissaunce that I owe to doo to the king our most dredde and soverain lord’. At his request, the Lords defined his powers as defence not government, assigned him revenues, and nominated a council, all of which was enshrined, for greater security, in an act of parliament. He was not to be governor of the king, tutor of the young prince, or regent. The formal patent specified that he would hold office during pleasure until Prince Edward reached years of discretion and became protector instead.10

Choices of new bishops were made and Salisbury was appointed chancellor, all by the old council, Warwick being present.11 On 2 April the new council assembled for the first time. If York wished to share his responsibility with them, they were decidedly reluctant to take it on, and imposed several conditions. They wanted the rate for the job, each according to his rank, with some guarantee that it would be actually paid. They recommended that the government’s financial position and necessary expenses should be declared to the Commons, so that they could not be held responsible for the dire situation later on, and said they were acting only for the good of the king and the country. With memories of Tailbois’s murderous assault, Cromwell asked to come and go in safety. Each was asked directly by Salisbury as chancellor to serve and each sought to exculpate himself on grounds of health and other duties, which were scrupulously recorded; nevertheless each was persuaded to act. Their excuses were a convenient means of evading critical decisions. Even Warwick, who wanted the position, pleaded that he was ‘yonge of age’ – still only 25 – ‘and yonger of discrecyon and wysdome, so that was unable [incapable]’ to act. ‘Notwithstanding he wold with right good-wyll doo that wiche was in his poure.’12

York’s new appointments were appropriate: Salisbury as chancellor had ample experience for his new role. The council was balanced between the various estates. It contained the archbishop of York, four bishops, and the dean of St Severin’s at Bordeaux. Apart from the protector and chancellor, there were two other dukes (Buckingham and Norfolk), four other earls, both viscounts, three barons, a knight and an esquire. ‘It was, in fair’, observed Virgoe, ‘a council representative both of official activity and experience and of most of the interests of the English nobility’.13 But the appointments were not balanced politically. Salisbury was York’s brother-in-law. York as chief councillor was ever-present, but no place was found for his rivals the queen, for Somerset, or Exeter, or even for the king’s half-brothers. This was the council to do York’s will. No wonder Viscount Beaumont, the queen’s chamberlain, felt isolated and anticipated the disagreements with some trepidation. Reserving his services to her, he reminded councillors of a standing order allowing free speech ‘without any displeasure, indignacyon or wrothe of any other person for his sayinge’.14

If the new regime was to secure consent, it needed to be better balanced: hence the prompt addition of Sudeley, Dudley and Stourton, barons of relatively little weight associated with the court, and Thomas Bourchier Bishop of Ely as archbishop-designate.15 Doubtless all 22 councillors wished to share in the happy task of creating the Prince of Wales and investing the infant with the gold circlet on his head, the gold ring on his finger, and the gold rod for which they commissioned themselves on 13 April.16 Most council business, even during the protectorate, was humdrum routine. Those attending to it were predominantly ministers, churchmen and administrators, not lay magnates. About half the councillors attended each meeting.17 Those present at parliament had been so few that on 28 February fines had been instituted for absentee peers. The turnouts at great councils in June/July and October/November were also very poor; in these cases, doubtless, because decisions had to be made and responsibility taken. Most knights absented themselves from the Garter chapter, some pleading sick-ness; perhaps they did not want to make elections for which they could later be held responsible? Even Warwick’s father Salisbury pleaded bad feet that prevented him from walking or riding.18

The new protector was the saviour to provide direction to government and cope with pressures both at home and abroad. He, his chancellor, and council did fill the vacuum. Routine decision-making resumed, letters being warranted on occasion by York’s own signet,19 and firm action was taken, as we shall see, both to condemn lawlessness and to impose order. If nothing could be done to recover Normandy and Gascony, action was taken to save Calais and to protect the coast against French raids. York himself succeeded Somerset as captain of Calais and four earls headed by Salisbury were appointed keepers of the sea. The Commons refused to vote new taxes and there was to be no act of resumption, perhaps because the last one had been so effective: as we have seen, the duke sought some accommodation with the court, none of whom were treated like Somerset. There was no purge. If there was no new money, what there was could be better used. It was applied to the obvious priorities, by appropriation to Calais and household, to which serious economies were at length made in November:20 a year after the king’s malady became known.

As a reforming programme, it is not impressive, and it is not obviously compatible with other aspects of a regime which served the self-interest of the duke and his principal allies. The new chancellor, archbishop (Thomas Bourchier), and bishop of Ely (William Grey) were York’s relatives. So was Warwick’s youngest brother George, who was promised the next bishopric. York himself was again lieutenant of Ireland and took on as captain of Calais the principal military command from Somerset. He was authorized to retain eighty individuals on behalf of the crown. Salisbury was keeper of the seas for three years in lieu of Exeter, hereditary admiral of England, and was assigned the whole tunnage and poundage in support, to which was added the constableship of Portchester Castle in November.21 It is probably at this point that Warwick recovered possession of the Channel Isles, adding it to his chamberlainship of the Exchequer.22 Already joint wardens of the West March for twenty years, operable from 12 December 1453, the two Neville earls surrendered their patent and renewed for another twenty years from June, this time for £1,250 a year rather than the £983 Salisbury had accepted in 1443; £80 was now secured on the Carlisle feefarm,23 late of lord Poynings, a more certain, convenient and locally prestigious source. How could this conform to York’s drive for economy? There is also a case for arguing that it was their personal interests that motivated York’s drive for public order rather than any abstract notion of justice. It is ‘difficult to believe’, as Johnson has said, ‘that it was in the best interests of the nation that the earl of Salisbury should hold the great seal.’24 It suited Warwick.