[ The King’s Prostration]
Whether it was in any degree owing to this national calamity,—in which case, the impression made by the event may well have been deepened by the knowledge that it was attributed to the remissness of Somerset,—or whether it was due entirely to physical or other causes quite unconnected with public affairs, The king falls ill. in August the king fell ill at Clarendon, and began to exhibit symptoms of mental derangement.[130.3] Two months later an event occurred in which, under other circumstances, he could not but have felt a lively interest. After eight years of married life, the queen for the first time bore him a child. It was a son and received the name of Edward; but for a long time afterwards the father knew nothing of the event. So entirely were his mental faculties in abeyance, that it was found impossible to communicate to him the news. The affairs of his kingdom and those of his family were for the time equally beyond his comprehension.
The failure of royalty to perform any of its functions, however weakly they might have been performed before, was a crisis that had not occurred till now. A heavier responsibility lay with Somerset and the Council, who could not expect that acts done by their own authority would meet with the same respect and recognition as those for which they had been able to plead the direct sanction of their sovereign. And now they had to deal with a factious world, in which feuds between powerful families had already begun to kindle a dangerous conflagration. In the month of August, probably of the year before this, Lord Thomas Nevill, a son of the Earl of Salisbury, married a niece of Lord Cromwell at Tattersall in Lincolnshire. After the wedding the earl returned into Yorkshire, when, having reached the neighbourhood of York, some disturbance arose between his retainers and those of Lord Egremont, son of the Earl of Northumberland.[131.1] As to the cause of the dispute we are left entirely ignorant; but it grew into a serious quarrel between the Nevills and the Percys. The chief maintainers of the feud were, on the one side, Sir John Nevill, a younger son of the Earl of Salisbury, and on the other Lord Egremont. Both parties were repeatedly summoned to lay their grievances before the Council; but the most peremptory letters and mandates had hitherto been ineffectual. Illegal gatherings of people on either side continued in spite of every prohibition; and the whole north of England seems to have been kept in continual disorder.[131.2]
The case was not likely to be improved when the source of all legal authority was paralysed. And yet so bad was the state of matters before, that the king’s illness, instead of being an aggravation of the evil, positively brought with it some perceptible relief. The Council were no longer able to avoid calling in the aid of one whose capacity to rule was as indisputable as his birth and rank. A Great Council was summoned for the express purpose of promoting ‘rest and union betwixt the lords of this land’; and according to the usage in such cases, every peer of the realm had notice to [132] attend. Gladly, no doubt, would Somerset have omitted to send such notice to his rival; and it seems actually to have been the case that no summons was at first sent to the Duke of York. But afterwards the error was rectified, and York being duly summoned, came up to Westminster and took his seat at the Council-table[132.1] on the 21st of November. Before taking part in the proceedings, however, he addressed himself to the lords then assembled, declaring how he had come up in obedience to a writ of privy seal, and was ready to offer his best services to the king; but as a previous order had been issued, by what authority he could not say, to certain old councillors to forbear from attending the king’s councils in future, he required that any such prohibition might be removed. This was unanimously agreed to, and the government of England was at once restored to a free and healthy condition.[132.2]
The Duke of Somerset was not present at this meeting of the Council. He doubtless saw too clearly the storm gathering against him. To his former responsibility for the loss of Normandy was now added further responsibility for the loss of Guienne. The accusations against him were accordingly renewed; but they were taken up this time, not by York but by the Duke of Norfolk. Norfolk accuses Somerset. A set of articles of impeachment was drawn up by the latter, to which Somerset made some reply, and was answered again by Norfolk. The accuser then pressed the matter further, urging that the loss of Normandy and of Guienne should be made a subject of criminal inquiry according to the laws of France; and that other misdemeanours charged upon him should be investigated according to the modes of procedure in England. Finally, lest his petition should be refused by the Council, Norfolk desired that it might be exemplified under the king’s Great Seal, protesting that he felt it necessary, for his own credit, that what he had done in the matter should be known as widely as possible.[132.3]
In the end it was determined that the Duke of Somerset should be arrested and committed to the Tower. This resolution was carried into effect a little before Christmas, and the different lords retired during the festive season to their own country quarters. But all who had given their votes against Somerset knew well that they stood in considerable danger. The battle that he had lost would have to be fought over again with the queen, who now put in a claim to be intrusted with the entire government of the kingdom. Every man of Somerset’s party got his retainers in readiness, and while other lords were out of town, the harbinger of the Duke of Somerset secured for his company all the lodgings that were to be got in Thames Street, Mark Lane, St. Katherine’s, and the neighbourhood of the Tower. The Duke of Norfolk was warned by a faithful servant to beware of parties in ambush on his way to London. Everything clearly showed that the faction which had been dispossessed of power had sanguine hopes of reinstating themselves at an early opportunity.[133.1]
And this, it is probable, they might have done with the greatest possible ease, were it not that the king’s loss of his faculties was so complete and absolute that it was impossible, by any means whatever, to obtain a semblance of acting upon his authority. A.D. 1454. About New Year’s Day, when the new-born prince was conveyed to Windsor, the Duke of Buckingham took the child in his arms and presented him to the king, beseeching him to give him a father’s blessing. Henry returned no answer. The king and his child. The duke remained some time with the child in the king’s presence, but could not extract from him the slightest sign of intelligence. The queen then came in, and taking the infant in her arms, presented him to his father, with the same request that the duke had made before her. But all their efforts were in vain; the king continued dumb, and showed not the slightest perception of what they were doing, except that for one moment only he looked upon the babe, and then cast down his eyes again.[133.2]
There were no hopes, therefore, that the king himself would interfere in any way to protect his favourites in the [134] Council. Every man looks to himself. Every man felt it necessary to see to his own security. The Lord Chancellor himself, Cardinal Kemp, ‘commanded all his servants to be ready, with bow and arrows, sword and buckler, crossbows, and all other habiliments of war, to await upon the safeguard of his person.’ The Duke of Buckingham caused to be made ‘2000 bends with knots—to what intent,’ said a cautious observer, ‘men may construe as their wits will give them.’ Further from the court, of course, the old disturbances were increased. ‘The Duke of Exeter, in his own person, hath been at Tuxforth beside Doncaster, in the north country, and there the Lord Egremont met him, and the two be sworn together, and the duke is come home again.’ The Earl of Wiltshire and the Lord Bonvile made proclamations in Somersetshire, offering sixpence a day to every man that would serve them; and these two noblemen, along with the Lords Beaumont, Poynings, Clifford, and Egremont, were preparing to come up to London each with as strong a body of followers as he could possibly muster.[134.1]
The Duke of York and his friends on their side did the same; and it was high time they should, otherwise the machinations of Somerset would certainly have been their ruin. The latter had spies in every great household, who reported to him everything that could be construed to the disadvantage of his opponents. The Duke of York and Thorpe. Among York’s private enemies, moreover, was Thomas Thorpe, Speaker of the House of Commons, who was also a Baron of the Exchequer. In the former capacity his functions had been for some time suspended; for Parliament, which had been prorogued to the 12th November at Reading, only met on that day to be prorogued again to the 11th February, in consequence of the mortality which prevailed in the town. Meanwhile, in Michaelmas term, the Duke of York took an action of trespass against him in his own Court of Exchequer, and a jury had awarded damages to the amount of £1000. On this judgment was given that he should be committed to the Fleet till the damages were paid, and in the Fleet the Speaker accordingly remained till the next meeting [135] of Parliament.[135.1] In his confinement he was now busily employed in drawing up a bill of articles against the Duke of York, which doubtless, with the aid of a little favour at Court, would have been highly serviceable to the cause of Somerset.[135.2]
The legal proceedings of which Thorpe was a victim appear doubtless to have been connected with party politics. His son and heir, Roger Thorpe, at the beginning of the reign of Henry VII. procured an Act of Parliament in his favour, showing that both he and his father had suffered injustice in the cause of the House of Lancaster, and that the Duke of York’s action of trespass against his father was owing to his having arrested, at the king’s command, ‘certain harness and other habiliments of war of the said duke’s.’[135.3] No doubt this must have been the case, but was the king’s command constitutional? Or was it, perhaps, only the command of Somerset given in the king’s name? An agent had no right to obey an unconstitutional order.