Warwick the Kingmaker (25 page)

The first Yorkist narrative, the Stonor version of the
Stow Relation
, may have been composed on Saturday 26 May or even Friday 25th for public distribution. Already concerned with reconciliation, it seeks to present an interpretation of the battle at variance with what actually happened. The emphasis was on the loyalty throughout of the Yorkists, from their initial protestations through to the ceremonies just described. They had requested the punishment of those unnamed who had deserved death but the king had declined to do justice. The battle itself occurred because they had to fight when the king ‘in his own words’ threatened them with forfeiture for treason and they were desperate: a clumsy explanation, but the best they could manage in a short time. For, with Somerset dead, there was no need to mention the long-term causes or issues that were divisive, like their demand for his execution or their own articles. The
Stow Relation
did not even mention the negotiations, which indicated that bloodshed could have been averted, or that messages had been concealed from the king, which would have required criticism of Buckingham with whom they hoped to deal. Relatively little is made of the battle, which is not actually well-recorded: there are no credits for distinguished conduct and no specific reference to the Yorkists’ own casualties. Still frightened of treason charges, the
Stow Relation
avoided identifying even the three Yorkist commanders in the earliest Stonor version.48 Wider approval was foreshadowed in the promise of a parliament, which was summoned on Saturday 26 May: the earliest possible opportunity. The regime’s legitimacy was reinforced by the royal crown-wearing in St Paul’s on Sunday, Whitsunday. It was important to stress that Henry was still an effective king and that no usurpation of his power had occurred. Anxious that only their version of events should be current, the new regime issued a proclamation forbidding discussion of the battle.

Updated versions of the
Stow Relation
were available over the weekend and early the next week. Already by Sunday, however, plans were changing. First of all, a decision was made to place the blame on particular individuals, on the dead Clifford and the living Sir Ralph Percy, Sir Thomas Tresham, Thomas Thorpe and William Joseph, as stated in the
Fastolf Relation
of 27 May.49
Pace
Armstrong, they were not selected because they did not matter. The presence of Clifford and Percy can be explained by their role in the Percy–Neville feud: they were there at the Nevilles’ behest. Thorpe had prepared articles against the duke in 1454: he was to have no further opportunity. It had been Thorpe, Tresham and Joseph who had proposed a guard at Windsor to safeguard the insane king. The pursuit of Thorpe and Tresham into the second and perhaps third session of the ensuing parliament by the Yorkists, who were determined on their utter ruin, demonstrates that it was not their
insignificance
that prompted their choice. They were courtiers committed to Somerset, suspicious of York, and
dangerous
. They may therefore have been the survivors of a list of ‘traitors’ and enemies in the articles York submitted before the fighting who were actually at the battle. Here the
Fastolf Relation
anticipates the
Parliamentary Pardon
enacted in July that blamed the whole affair on Somerset, Thorpe and Joseph, who had misled the king – who accepted that he was deceived – and caused him to attack the Yorkists. The act alleged that they had earlier concealed from him the letters of 20–21 May and thus the ‘trouthe’ of the Yorkist lords, who were declared not to be at fault for any of the events.50

The Yorkist lords could not condemn those who defended the king in line with their allegiance. In the parallel instance at Dartford at this very same session, they cancelled the penalties against those who rebelled, but had also to recognize that those on the king’s side (like Salisbury and Warwick) had acted only ‘as thaire duetee was by thaire allegiaunce’.51 Placing the blame on three scapegoats, who concealed the loyal intentions of the Yorkists, enabled both those who rebelled and those who fought for the king to be right: an essential requirement if wounds were to be healed and the Yorkists were to be accepted back as loyal subjects by their peers.

To emphasise the point, to continue the process of reconciliation, and to prevent any coups against themselves, a declared objective of the new parliament was

to sette a parfite love and rest amonge the Lordes of this lande to thentent that they mowe drawe directly togidres in oon union and accorde, in that they may be sowne to the honour, prosperite and welfare of the Kyng oure Soveraine Lord, and the politique and restful rule and governaunce of this lande and people.

Hence the formal renewals of allegiance sworn by every peer present; those absent were to swear later.52 The Yorkists needed to heal the breaches in unity that they had themselves created and to harness for their leadership the respect due to the king. Hence they tried to come to terms with Buckingham, Wiltshire, the new Lord Clifford, and probably the new Duke of Somerset. On 31 July there was a general pardon to which even Exeter, Egremont and Sir Richard Percy were admitted.53

The
Stow Relation
made no popular appeal. However misguided, popular opinion had been dangerously hostile to Somerset and still viewed York most favourably, because, one chronicle says, he loved the people. Probably, therefore, York deliberately associated himself with Humphrey Duke of Gloucester ahead of the opening of parliament, which rehabilitated the duke and declared that he had died a true liegeman.54 The parallel with York himself was obvious. When parliament opened, there was a renewed emphasis on reform, eight topics being identified for action. One was the peace among lords treated above. Another four dealt with the finances of the household, the defence of Calais and Berwick, the keeping of the seas, and disorder in Wales. On each of these committees of peers were established to prepare legislation.55 The Commons were encouraged to prepare reforming proposals.

Up to a point, the Yorkists were successful. Devon, Fauconberg and Berners, who had been with the king at St Albans, joined them also at once, yet the Yorkists remained a mere fraction of the Lords, who had effectively rejected the views of the majority by attacking the king when accompanied by a quarter of the lay peerage. They themselves were vulnerable to counterattack by the other peers and their armed retinues, at Leicester or approaching St Albans. They had created new enemies by their victory – the Percies, Beauforts and Cliffords now had extra grounds to be vengeful! – and their old enemies had not all disappeared. In July and again in February 1456 they feared assassination or a counter-coup, though fortunately, as was conceded on the second occasion, there was no obvious leader to undertake it. It was perhaps for this reason that in June they moved the king, queen and prince away from London to Hertford Castle; it was probably on this occasion that Queen Margaret went hunting in Salisbury’s park at Ware. York lodged at Ware friary, Salisbury at Sir Andrew Ogard’s splendid Rye House, and Warwick himself at Sir William Oldhall’s new mansion at Hunsdon.56 Nobody attempted a counter-coup. Political debate was postponed to the new parliament, where an impressive display of legitimacy and unity was staged. It was Henry VI who opened parliament in person (9 July), received oaths of allegiance in person (24 July), and prorogued parliament (31 July).57 The Commons, too, were certainly more inclined to reform and less favourable to the court than their immediate predecessors.

But the victors of St Albans did not get all their own way. They found the conditions set by Wiltshire to be unacceptable. Henry, the new Duke of Somerset and still a minor, who had been badly wounded at St Albans, was not conciliatory, and was placed in Warwick’s custody. Exeter was imprisoned at Wallingford and Dudley in the Tower.58 No chances were taken. Six of the triers of petitions for England, Ireland, Wales and Scotland were their adherents: York himself, Salisbury, Warwick, Viscount Bourchier, Fauconberg and Cromwell; Pembroke was the only exception. Little more than half of the peerage attended. None of the Yorkists were triers of Gascon petitions,59 which were less politically sensitive. In this context, therefore, it was unfortunate that the most striking event of the session, on 17 July, was a furious row in the king’s presence between Warwick and Cromwell:

in somuch as the Lord Cromwell wold have excused hym self of all the steryng or moevyng of the male journey of Seynt Albones; of the which excuse makyng, my Lord Warrewikke had knolege, and in haste wasse with the Kyng, and sware by his oath that the Lord Cromwell said not trouth but that he was begynner of all that journey at Seynt Albones; and so betwene my said ij. Lords of Warrewikke and Cromwell ther is that at this day grete grugyng, in somoch as the Erle of Shrouesbury hath loged hym at the hospitall of Seynt James, beside the Mewes, be the Lord Cromwell desire, for his sauf gard.60

At the very least, given the continuing effort to place responsibility on Somerset, Thorpe and Joseph, this was unfortunate. It is also difficult to see how it could be true, unless Warwick was harking back to Cromwell’s breach of unity among the Lords in 1450 that opened the way to Suffolk’s impeachment and the disasters that followed. It is not clear whether it is for this reason, ten days into the session, that the men of York, Salisbury and Warwick were going armed and in armour and that the three lords came to Westminster and went home daily in barges full of weapons. Presumably they feared an ambush. It is not clear from whom. All others were ordered to go unarmed. The Yorkists did get their
Parliamentary Pardon
enacted, though even among the Commons ‘mony a man groged full sore nowe it is passed’.61 They also secured acts annulling the con-victions of Oldhall and Devereux, both retainers of Warwick as well as York, and the resumption against those at Dartford, and the passage of a further act compensating Thomas Young for his imprisonment in 1451. Following the prorogation, a great council was continued until at least 6 August.

Scarcely had the battle ceased on 22 May when the fruits of victory were being distributed. These were principally Somerset’s offices. York took the constableship of England. This time it was Warwick who was appointed captain of Calais, by Whitsunday itself, indenting at the August great council. Like York, he had to wait to get in, until April 1456. Wisely he secured parliamentary recognition that he was not liable for its loss before he secured effective possession.62 His other principal gain was in Wales, where on 31 May he was appointed steward and constable of both Monmouth and the Three Castles (Grosmont, Skenfrith and White Castle).63 Taken alongside a proviso reserving the reversion of St Briavels and the Forest of Dean on the deaths of lords Sudeley and Beauchamp of Powicke, this grant consolidated his power in the triangle marked by Glamorgan, Abergavenny and Tewkesbury. The lordship and hundred of Barton by Bristol were also exempted from resumption.64 In redemption of the promise of the previous year, Warwick’s youngest brother George, though under age, was appointed to the bishopric of Exeter. Salisbury became chief steward of the North Parts of the duchy of Lancaster, but the loss of his £80 annuity from the Carlisle feefarm and of the castle, honour and feefarm of Richmond was confirmed.65 That they lost anything suggests that the desire for economy was sincere.

Rewards were almost entirely confined to the relatively small group of Nevilles and Bourchiers on whom York could rely. Norfolk was nowhere to be seen. Devon, initially associated with the victors, rapidly became an embarrassment that required the government’s firmest actions. There was little more committed support for the new regime than for York’s first protectorate. Archbishop Bourchier was retained as chancellor and his brother Viscount Bourchier was appointed treasurer. In addition to Salisbury, it was now Warwick himself and Salisbury’s next brother Fauconberg who were among the most assiduous councillors.66 After his sojourn at Hunsdon, Warwick was at his castle of Hanley in Worcestershire on 28 June, returning to attend council at Westminster on 4 July and the opening of parliament on 9 July. He was again a trier of petitions, sitting on York’s committees on Calais and Berwick and, as a marcher lord, on Wales. He took the oath on 24 July and attended the great council at Westminster on 6 August. He was at Hanley once again on 2 September.67 No doubt it was as captain of Calais that he was consulted about negotiations with the French Duke of Alençon.68 On 28 October he, York and Salisbury were to fetch from Hertford to London the king, who was sick again.69 Warwick was at the council on 10 November that appointed York as lieutenant to reopen parliament next day, on the 12th and the 15th, sat on the committee to settle the details of York’s powers as protector, and attended the royal council at Westminster almost daily both before and after the dissolution on 13 December. He was probably one of the lords spiritual and temporal that were vetting provisos of resumption at this time.70

During the first session of parliament, from 9–31 July, the Yorkist lords were concerned primarily to exculpate themselves for their rebellion and to secure acceptance of their authority. Controversial legislation was introduced but apparently not pressed. During the second session, it seems, they wanted both to consolidate their power and to penalize their opponents. To achieve these ends they needed more authority, for York to be protector once again. They had not succeeded in overawing their fellow peers, nor indeed the king. Whilst it is not altogether clear when such events occurred, a considerable number of radical Commons bills approved by the Lords were vetoed by the king. These included the initial bill to destroy Thorpe and Tresham by resuming their grants and imprisoning them for twelve years. It was therefore fortunate that the king was ill again, though it is clear that he was never as incapacitated as before; he insisted on being informed about matters affecting ‘the honour, wurship and suertee of his moost noble persone’.71 On 12 November 1455, the day after the reopening of parliament, there was a Commons delegation to the Lords led not by the Speaker, but by Walter Burley, a retainer of the duke. He asked that an able person be appointed protector, both as the addressee of petitions and to deal with the revival of private war in the West Country between Devon and Bonville. The Lords agreed to consider it. Three days later Burley returned to repeat his request and again on the 17th. The Lords reluctantly accepted that a protector was needed, each being asked individually, and agreed that York was the only possible candidate. The limitations to his power were as before. He was to rule with the council until Prince Edward was of age. York agreed to the same conditions as before, adding an additional salary, a down-payment, and, potentially crucially, the condition that he could be dismissed only by the king in parliament.72 This could have given him greater security of tenure had King Henry recovered when parliament was not in session.