Section 7 of the Wars of the Roses by Robert Balmain Moat. This Lubrovox recording is in the public domain, recording by Pamela Nagami. CHAPTER V. SUMMERSET AND YORK, PART I Henry VI was not a strong man, either in physique or in character, although in many respects he was one of the most attractive of the English kings. In piety, kindness, and generosity, he is to be compared with another saint on the throne, Louis IX of France. By the Roman Catholic Church he is held to be a martyr, and as such has been canonized. Throughout his life, although not wise, he was a consistently good man, and nothing evil has ever been reported of him. He had been well brought up by his mother, Catherine of France, and by the Duke of Exeter, and afterwards by his governor, the trustworthy Richard Beecham, Earl of Warwick, whose duties were defined by the Council. This ordinance of the Council is a very interesting document, couched like all the ordinances in the first person, as if the little six-year-old king was speaking. Henry, etc., to his Chancellor, greeting, whereas it is expedient and convenient to our youth that we be taught and learned in good manners, literature, language, nurture, and courtesy, and other virtues, and learning suitable to the royal person, in order that we may be the better able to hold and govern our self in the preservation of our honor and estates, when we come, through the grace of God, to greater age, we, with the advice and ascent, etc., have chosen the Earl of Warwick. The tutor's task was well performed, and young Henry grew up in all piety and learning, a simple quiet man. He came of a clever family, but not a very healthy one. So was a boy he was precocious and quick to learn. Being probably of a nervous temperament, he ought to have been kept back and not allowed to learn quickly, but the exigencies of state led the Council to bring him early into public life. At the age of four he was brought to the high altar at St. Paul's, led by the hand between the great Duke of Bedford and the Duke of Bedford, and after the ceremony he was placed on the back of a coarser and paraded through the streets of the city. Although he learned to hunt and hawk a little, he was always serious and precocious. This was the worst thing for a boy whose family history on both sides was so ominous. His paternal grandfather, Henry IV, had suffered from general weakness and a chronic skin condition, probably due to the excesses of John of Gaunt. His paternal grandfather, Charles VI of France, had suffered from severe though intermittent madness. Thus starting with a bad chance, Henry was doubly unfortunate in being thrown into a period which would have taxed the sanity of the most level-headed of monarchs. He was ruling a country where everything seemed to be going from bad to worse. Abroad there was war, at home quarreling in the Council, streets in the palace, and rebellion in the country. Gentle and compliant as he was by nature, he must have suffered fearfully from the interested advice and requests of his courtiers. The income of the crown on which he charged the public service of the state was impoverished by his generosity, so that the soldiers were unpaid, and justice left to itself was openly bought and sold. Considering the poverty of the crown, it is wonderful that Henry was able to do so much for his foundations at Eaton in 1440 and Cambridge in 1441. It is agreed that he showed much skill in buying up parcels of land to help the endowments of Eaton and King's colleges. As a man, he was tall and spare.  Unable to make out all the rights and wrongs of the factions between which he was torn, he allowed himself to be led passively by his handsome, spirited, and strong-willed wife. He used to complain of the noise made in the palace, so that he could scarcely read his books of devotion day or night. When more than usually tried or irritated, he would say for soothe, for soothe. But no oath was ever heard to pass his lips. Henry was entirely faithful to his friends, and in some ways this excellent quality brought him into trouble. The Lancastrian dynasty had originally justified itself as providing the country with constitutional monarchy, one which, as contrasted with the absolutism of Richard II, would defer to the wishes of the nation. Thus Henry IV had chosen his ministers and councils subject to the approval of parliament. Between Henry V and his parliament, complete accord seems to have prevailed. But with Henry VI, in some ways the most gentle and compliant of his family, a new system began. As soon as he was capable of managing his affairs, he began choosing his ministers and councillors without reference to parliament. And so, to some extent, he came under the old and disastrous charge of favoritism. He was said to keep in power men whom the people or parliament disliked. This was not exactly favoritism, for a favorite is usually taken to mean someone promoted to high position without having served a long and regular training in subordinate positions. But the ministers that Henry clung to so persistently were all tried men. Cardinal Kemp was an experienced man, and a wise and loyal servant of the Crown. The Duke of Suffolk came from a regular official family, and when he entered the council in 1431 he was already a veteran of the French War, with sixteen years' service behind him. The Duke of Somerset, too, was no quickly raised favorite, for all the Beauforts from their boyhood had been trained to the royal service and Edmund himself, by the year 1450, had at any rate twenty years' service behind him. Yet although Henry's advisors were no mere favorites of a whimsical monarch, they were not such as the nation at large approved of. The complaint of Jack Cade that the Duke of York was arbitrarily excluded from the council found an echo in many honest hearts. For although a medieval king had an undoubted right to choose his own servants who were also the ministers of state, yet that policy must be justified by success. It could only be done by a strong king who knew the right men and what was the right thing to be done, and so was content to go his own way without fear. But Henry's disregard of the wishes of his parliament was condemned by the failure of his policy. Normandy was lost. Calais itself was in great danger. The command of the sea was neglected. The finances were ruined. Public order was destroyed. The home administration was practically paralyzed. Probably England was never in a more disorganized state than when Somerset and York returned to England in 1450. Somerset, with a long record of defeat behind him, York with a record of eminently respectable, although not brilliant achievement. At this moment, Henry VI stood at the parting of the ways. The choice of York as chief advisor would be approved by the middle classes, the powerful and prosperous traders, and by a large section of the nobility. It would give peace to the realm, but it would mean something like the adoption of a colleague on the throne. Somerset, on the other hand, had no approval in the country, no recent successes to his credit, but rather the memory of failure. But his family, only semi-royal in origin, had always acted as faithful dependents of the Lancastrian house and would stand or fall with it. So Somerset was chosen, the evil genius he's been called of the House of Lancaster. On September 11th, he was made Constable of England. Possibly Queen Margaret had a great deal to do with this. French queens have seldom been a success in England, being often characterized by too much will and a desire to guide affairs in their own way. Henry VI was peculiarly amenable to such treatment, and Margaret was peculiarly able to exercise it. She was devoted to her husband and afterwards to her son, and had definite ideas with regard to government. Ever since Suffolk had brought her to England in 1445, she had identified herself with the Beaufort Party. She had been suspicious of Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, and after his death she had been suspicious of the Duke of York. It was apparently through the influence of herself and Suffolk that York was excluded from the council and sent to Ireland, and it was almost certainly through her influence that Somerset was appointed Constable in 1450, a position which carried with it the control of all the military forces of England. Margaret was undoubtedly an autocratic woman, and as the Wars of the Roses developed, she became hardened and indeed brutal, showing the same propensity as bloodthirsty men to execute prisoners after battle. Had she not been a foreigner, her commanding qualities might have been tolerated and even popular. An episode in one of her journeys in England related in the Pasten letters reminds the reader forcibly of Queen Elizabeth. The Queen, on one occasion, visiting Norwich, sent for Margaret Pasten's cousin, an unmarried lady. She was much pleased with the cousin's manner and forthwith told her to get a husband, and apparently took steps to find one. Here in the sphere of social relations, high spirit and a somewhat autocratic attitude, if combined with kindness and good nature, are not unattractive. But when transferred into national politics and especially into party politics, these qualities may engender hatred. A different impression from Margaret Pasten's is given of the Queen in a newsletter, written in January of the next year. The Queen hath made a bill of five articles, desiring those articles to be granted. The first demand was that she should have the whole rule of the country. The second was that she should have the appointment of the Chancellor and all Chief Officers of State. The third was that all bishoprics and benefices should be in her gift. The fourth was that inadequate income should be assigned to the royal family. The writer did not yet know what the fifth was, but it would seem there was nothing more for the fifth article to supply. One more defect in her character was often adverted to in her lifetime. She was believed to be greedy of money, eagerly taking a share of any lands that might fall to the crown, as, for instance, the estates of Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, after his death in 1447. Yet it must be remembered that she too, like her husband, was interested in charitable foundations, being with Andrew Docket, rector of St. Budoff's Cambridge, the foundress and patron of Queen's College. Richard of York had a personal score to settle with Somerset, for it was to him that York felt that he owed his banishment to Ireland. In 1446, after he had kept for five years, sound, sober, and wise government enormity, he had expected a renewal of his term of office, and in fact the council had renewed his appointment for another five years. But Somerset, who desired the appointment for himself, prevailed upon the king to annul the appointment and give it instead to himself. This, says John Withamsteed, the contemporary abbot of St. Albans, was the original cause or occasion of the Wars of the Roses. So Somerset went to Normandy with disastrous results to the English power, and York was given the left tenancy of Ireland as a place of honorable banishment. And now Somerset, after an uninterrupted series of defeats, was back in England, with the high office of Constable, controlling the military forces of the Crown, chief man, at the council table. Yet he was hated by the people at large, while York was almost universally looked up to as the one man who could save the kingdom. The characters of these two men are interesting. Somerset was not entirely bad. York was by no means wholly faultless.  Being descended in a direct line from John of Gaunt, he stood very near the throne. The Beauforts, although legitimized in 1396 and 1407, had in the latter act been debarred from the line of succession to the throne. This condition, of course, might again have been annulled by active parliament, but there is no indication that Somerset was ever tempted with this prospect. He was loyal to Henry VI before the birth of the king's son, and after the birth of the prince Edward, he fell fighting for the royal family in the first battle of St. Albans. Throughout all the attacks on Somerset in the council or in parliament, Henry and the queen stood obstinately by him and made his cause their own. It is clear that they never doubted his loyalty. His character was not a great one, but he had courage, fidelity, and, as his end showed, a capacity for self-sacrifice. On the other hand, he is said to have been greedy of money, and while governor of Normandy to have stooped to acts of doubtful honesty for the accumulation of it. The charges of maladministration are to be found in an indictment against him drawn up by the Duke of York in 1453. Here it is said, among other things, that Somerset appropriated to himself seventy-two thousand francs from the French government handed over as compensation to the Englishmen who had lost their livelihood through the session of Anjou and Men. A contemporary historian of France, the Bishop of Lysie, in a general way supports these charges. The charge of financial dishonesty is not proved. Under the Lancastrians, the accounts of the government at home and abroad were very badly kept, and there must have been great opportunities for peculation, especially among the subordinate officials. Salaries were, it seems, continually in a rear. A general, if he wished to keep his soldiers together, had to draw upon his private means, if he had any, to pay their wages, trusting to recover his expenses from the royal funds whenever they arrived. Thus a general, who had paid away from his private estate a thousand pounds to his soldiers or to the contractors for stores, might justly put into his pocket a thousand pounds which arrived six months or a year afterwards for the payment of the forces. If the accounts had been properly kept and the general's claims sent in to the government, and the monies when they arrived duly acknowledged, no question of dishonesty could have arisen. But as the accounts were usually in confusion, and as claims against the government might refer to many years back, it is no wonder that the line between legitimate recovery of some's advanced and sheer peculation was difficult to be distinguished. But one thing may be said in support of Somerset's honesty, he was a rich man, having inherited great sums from his uncle, Cardinal Beaufort. Out of these riches, he defrayed when he was captain of Calais between 1451 and 1453, the wages of the garrison, to the extent of twenty-one thousand six hundred and forty-eight pounds, ten shillings. In the last year, parliament passed an act to repay these sums to him, but it is not certain that the money was ever forthcoming. It would be easier to estimate the character of Richard of York had his life been longer, but his premature death at Wakefield cut him off before his objects had been realized, and before he had been tried by the possession of full power. He was a contrast to Somerset in some ways. There is no doubt that Richard was a sound statesman and a good soldier, although perhaps fidelity was not among his most eminent qualities. He had shown himself a good governor and a good soldier in France. In Ireland his tenure of office left behind it memories and an influence which kept Ireland loyal to the Yorkist name for many a year. He saw clearly what was the evil of England, namely lack of strong impartial government, entering the few months that he was protector of the realm in the first madness of Henry VI. He took the right measures to secure justice and order. The merchants and the middle classes were as unswerving supporters in parliament. This is the best testimony that could be borne to the soundness of his ideas of government. He stood for justice, order, and not too much interference. The interference of the Lancastrian government with the administration of justice in the provinces is alone sufficient to condemn that government. The rebels of Jack Cade's time had called upon Richard to come and rescue England from the internal evils that were destroying it. But the court party, the party of Margaret and Somerset, made good government impossible, for the country hated them, and yet through the obstinacy or conscience of the king they were left at the head of affairs. York, the best statesman in the land, the firmest administrator and the chief prince of the blood after the king was denied office through the meanest sort of backstairs influence he was kept idle with his gifts wasted. It is small wonder that he came at last, though slowly, to the conclusion that the first condition of that sad and wise government which the commons were always sighing for was the sweet boy the court party forcibly purged the council of all elements of weakness and put himself with the approval of all the peaceful classes at the direction of affairs. It is by no mean certain that York aimed at the crown, especially after the birth of Henry's son. Perhaps he would have been satisfied if he had won his way by force to the position of protector during the rest of Henry's life and the minority of Prince Edward. It may be that success would have spoiled him and that once in the position of guardian he would have proved to be but an earlier Richard III. But York was a very different man from his son Richard. His moral fiber had not been weakened by a generation of civil war. His spirit had not been soured by the consciousness of personal deformity. He had always shown great powers of self-restraint. Although he can never have forgotten that his father, Richard Earl of Cambridge had been executed as a traitor by Henry V, yet he appears not to have been actuated by any feelings of revenge against the Lancastrian family. It took twenty years of court intrigue against him to rouse him to arms. He had suffered in the King's service too, for as was the case with so many of the Lancastrian government officials, he had to do his work when he was offered it with little hope of pay. During his two years as Lord Lieutenant of Ireland he received no wages, and yet he managed to maintain an efficient rule. When he returned from Ireland in the autumn of 1450, the needy home government, instead of paying up the sums due to him, could only give him the right of exporting Wolt Calle for one year free of custom dues. When Henry VI, on September 11th, made Somerset Constable of England, he showed clearly that the old system of government was to continue, and that York was still to be excluded from the direction of affairs. By this insane act Henry defied the whole nation. It was probably about the same time that York crossed from Ireland to Beaumaris in Wales. Finding his entry into Beaumaris, resisted by royal officials, he passed on to some other point near at hand and safely affected a landing. He had left his duties and deserted his post. But he left Ireland in a safer condition than it had been for many years, and there was plenty of work for him to do in England. York's following was augmented by accessions from his Welshest States, and he gradually made his way toward London. A letter from one of his retainers to John Paston, dated October 6th, informs us that before this date the Duke had had an audience with the King in which the affairs of state had been duly discussed. York had especially urged that all men who were accused of treason should be given a lawful trial. Indeed, the whole conversation was all upon justice and much after the Commons' desire. So York reached London, probably at the end of September, having made the journey not altogether peacefully, for at the very last he had to beat down the spears of the guards at Westminster Palace. In a bill or statement which he presented to Henry, Richard declared himself the King's true liegemen and servant. In Henry sent him a written reply to declare, repute, and admit you as our true and faithful subject and as our faithful cousin. Henry moreover promised in another letter to establish a sad and substantial council, with more ample power than he had before permitted, and that York should be one of the councillors. Further the basis of reform was to be made as broad as possible, by the summoning of the greatest and the best, the rich and the poor. In accordance with this promise, Parliament met on November 6th to consider, as the Chancellor announced in the opening speech, three things, the defense of the realm, the defense of the King's subjects in Guyenne, and the settling of disorder at home. The Commons at any rate fully believed in the Duke of York. Elections in those days were often corrupt. Richard did not leave them to take their own course. The past and letters show us that in the county of Norfolk, he and the Duke of Norfolk, calmly decided beforehand on the two men who were to be elected as Knights of the Shire. It is true that only one of these two was elected, but the new candidate who was substituted was supposed to be favourable to the Duke of York. The speaker chosen by the Commons was Sir William Oldhall, one of the Duke's oldest friends and most active supporters. As Parliament was particularly invited to consider the affairs of the English in France, it was inevitable that the Duke of Somerset's conduct of the war should be inquired into. In the Middle Ages and for many years afterwards, if a minister pursued the wrong policy, he might have to submit not only to a vote of censure and the loss of office, but to a trial on a capital charge. Accordingly, the complaints of the Commons were met by Somerset's being confined at the King's Order to his house in Blackfriars, December 1st. But a mob fearing that the King might condone his faults, as he had attempted to condone those of Suffolk, broke into the house, and Somerset had to fly for his life in the barge of the Earl of Devon, his brother-in-law. The Duke of York immediately denied having had any part in this riot, by proclaiming throughout the city that no man should commit disorder on pain of death. The Order was duly enforced, and to show the new concord that had arisen, the King and the peers made a stately procession through the city. On December 18th, the King prorogued Parliament and went to Greenwich Palace, where he spent Christmas. He hoped that in the vacation, the question of a trial of Somerset would be forgotten. Before the year was out, he had made him Captain of Calais, the greatest post under the Crown. This appointment did not involve more than an occasional absence from England, and Somerset was to combine it with the position of Head of the King's household. The unpopular minister was to be more in the King's confidence than ever. Parliament reassembled on January 20th, and the pressure put upon the King was at once renewed that he might dismiss his unpopular ministers. It was the commons that made the petitions to the King, but they were clearly inspired by York. One petition prayed the King to dismiss from court thirty of his most prominent supporters, including the Duke of Somerset, Alice Duchess of Suffolk, widow of Henry's late minister, William Booth, Bishop of Coventry, and Litchfield, made Archbishop of York two years later, the Abbot of Gloucester, who had been a member of Council for the last seven years, and John Lord Dudley, who later fought for the King at the First Battle of St. Albans and at Bloor Heath. Henry yielded so far as to send the less important of these people from court, but the position of Somerset remained untouched. Next, one of the members of Parliament for Bristol, a certain Thomas Young, in view of the fact that the King had no offspring, proposed that the Duke of York should be declared heir apparent. This proposal seemed innocent enough for the Duke of York as grandson of Edmund of York and son of Anne Mortimer would naturally, if Henry VI had no issue, be considered legitimate successor to the throne. It is likely there was no other possible candidate. If Henry refused to accept the petition, it would show that he had someone else in mind. Now Henry was the last of the line of John of Gaunt and England, except the illegitimate branch of the Bulforts, who had been legitimated, however by act of Parliament, except with regard to succession to the throne. If Henry refused to exceed to Young's petition, it would appear very much as if rejecting the Duke of York's hereditary claim he was leaving away open for Bulfort to claim the throne. There were only two Bulforts who could be meant, Somerset or the Lady Margaret, daughter of his dead elder brother John. Henry rejected the petition. He knew that Somerset was an unsuccessful unpopular minister. He knew that the country as a whole earnestly desired him to have no power over the affairs of government. Yet he not merely refused to dismiss Somerset from the council, but even seemed to point him out as a likely successor to the throne in preference to the Duke of York. It was perhaps at this point that people began to consider it necessary not merely to change the ministry, but to change the dynasty. Such were the consequences of Henry's act in rejecting Young's petition. He himself, however, in all likelihood, did not mean definitely to deny York's title to the throne, in the event of the King's dying without issue, or to recognize any claim on the part of Somerset. Henry's object was probably only to prevent a situation which would compel him to accept Yorkus' chief minister. If York had been declared heir, his claims to a high position in the government during Henry's lifetime could not have been disregarded. But Henry and Queen Margaret were afraid of York, and were determined to keep Somerset as their right-hand man. Hence the rejection of Young's petition. Henry, of course, was acting within his rights. He might have said in justification of his action that the petition was premature and unnecessary. He and the Queen were still young and might yet have a child. This would have been a reasonable position for Henry to take up, although it would have left people uneasy with regard to his intentions toward the Duke of Somerset and the succession. But Henry went much further than rejecting Young's petition. He publicly condemned it and its intention in every way he could. He kept Somerset as much in his confidence as ever, and as soon as Parliament was dissolved in June he had Young arrested and sent to the Tower. He would no doubt have arrested Young earlier, but he feared to commit such a flagrant violation of a Member's privilege when Parliament was still sitting. Yet it was bad enough to arrest Young at any time, for however rash his proposal he had said nothing that could bring him within reach of the law. The whole episode of the Retention of Somerset as Minister and still more the arbitrary and illegal imprisonment of Young showed that Henry VI was not really a constitutional monarch. Yet the Lancastrian House had been originally elevated to the throne, to the exclusion of more legitimate princes, in order that England might be ruled constitutionally and given good governance. Autocratic rule may be justifiable, but it was not on any such ground that the Lancastrians could claim to rule. CHAPTER V Somerset and York, PART II After the dissolution of Parliament in 1451 little happened in the kingdom for the next six months. Somerset was still the king's right-hand man, but the government was no more successful than before. Charles VII of France went on capturing one by one the fortresses which still acknowledged the rule of England in Gascany. At home the local troubles, as shown at any rate with regard to Norfolk and the past and letters, were going on, not very prominently it is true but still continuously. There are the same interminable lawsuits about pieces of land and manors, the same hints of illegal maintenance by men in high position of suits brought by humbler people in the Shire courts, the same old difficulties of collecting the revenues of the kingdom. The last months of 1451 seemed to have been spent by York in his estates on the Welsh march around Ludlow. Somerset was generally with the king. Guyenne was being reconquered by the French, Calais was in danger, York was expecting every moment that a charge of high treason would be brought against him at the instigation of Somerset. Accordingly, on January 9th, 1452 he sent a letter to Henry VI, protesting that he was the king's true liegeman, although the king was his heavy lord, and offering to swear to this on the Blessed Sacrament. But no notice seems to have been taken of this. On February 3rd York sent an address to the citizens of Shrewsbury in which he adverted to the disgrace of England in the French War, the failure of the Duke of Somerset, and his own danger at the hands of the said Duke, who laboreth continually about the king's highness for my undoing and to corrupt my blood, and to disinherit me in my heirs and such persons as be about me. York, working with the approval of Parliament and a great part of the country, had failed to get rid of Somerset by constitutional means. Henry VI, like Charles I in the impeachment of Buckingham, had merely dissolved Parliament and kept the hated minister in power. So York, after long sufferance and delays, resolved to try another way. Seeing that the said Duke ever prevaileth and ruleeth about the king's person, and that by this means the land is likely to be destroyed, I am fully concluded to proceed in all haste against him with the help of my kinsmen and friends.  This was the difficulty. York was about to use force, and he expected there would follow him his tenants and retainers, his friends among the knighthood and baronage, all those who in any part of England had adopted his badge and reckoned themselves to be his party. The frontier town of Shrewsbury, which in the turbulent life of the march was ever ready for war, was to be a starting point. This was York's first armed demonstration. It was a clear breach of the peace. The forces he took with him were very formidable, being at the lowest computation of 10,000 men, although the contemporary burgundian Varron puts them as high as 20,000, and this figure has been accepted as correct. He marshaled them as a regular army, and was even provided with artillery, an arm which was to play a great part in the wars of the roses. Henry with a large army, 30,000 men according to Wettemstead, was ready to meet him in the open field. The gates of London were closed, and York did not attempt to affect an entry by force. Instead he went into Kent to try his fortunes in that rich and frequently rebellious county. If the men of Kent had followed the imposter Cade, they would surely follow an even greater numbers the Duke of York himself. York pitched his camp near the historic town of Dartford, where the rebellion of Wat Tyler had started 70 years before. He must have been a skillful organizer, and have moved his forces quickly. He cannot have left Wales much before the middle of February, yet by the end of the month he seems to have encamped at Dartford. The royal army encamped at Blackheath was only eight miles away. Events seemed to be moving toward a great battle, but the forces of the crown were very large, about 30,000. York had only about two-thirds of that number at the most. Moreover, the people of Kent did not come flocking to his standard, and although his forces were formidable, yet there were few great lords among them. Only the Earl of Devonshire and Lord Cobham were on his side. The rest of the magnates, although many of them were distinctly friendly to him, still shrank from civil war, and so took their places in the King's army. Even the young Earl of Warwick, then 24 years old, who was to be the great protagonist of the White Rose of York, was at this time with the King at Blackheath. It was clear that York was not in a position to fight, and meanwhile the pious King was holding out the olive branch through intermediaries whom York could trust. Negotiations were carried on by the good Bishop Waynefleet of Winchester, Bishop Birchier of Ely, the Birchiers in the coming years were one of the great mainstays of the Yorkist cause, the two great Salisbury Nevels, Richard Earl of Salisbury, and his son, Richard Earl of Warwick. York thought it wise to accept the best terms offered, and he came to Henry's camp as a simple subject unarmed and with his head bare. He had dismissed his forces, and now, March 1st, he threw himself on the mercy of the King. Henry, of course, knew that York's party was as formidable as ever, and that the Duke could not be treated as a conquered rebel. He therefore pardoned him, and seems to have given him to understand that some reset would be held to answer the indictment which York had drawn up and brought forward against him. The whole episode is very obscure. Woodham Stead says York recognized the King's strength and came and submitted himself before any promise was made to him. Others say that he did not dismiss his forces and come to the King until he had a promise that he himself should be pardoned for his rebellion, and that some reset should be put on trial. All we can say now is that there was some misunderstanding. In complicated negotiations when understandings overt or tacit are substituted for definite written and signed terms, neither party is likely to be fully satisfied, and he who gets less than he expected is sure to feel tricked or deceived. Anyhow, as matters turned out, some reset was not put on trial, and York may have honestly believed that faith had been broken with him and that he had been cheated, but this does not prove that Henry broke any promise. In the first interview between them at Blackheath, York may have overestimated the King's compliance, Henry may have overestimated the Duke's submissiveness. On March 10th, a meeting was held in St. Paul's Cathedral, and York took a solemn oath not to disturb the Peace of the Kingdom in the future, nor to proceed against any of the King's subjects in any other than a legal way. Thus, in the words of Wettemstead, the Duke of Somerset escaped for a time from his hands. York retired to Ludlow. The King, happy in his reconciliation of all parties, offered on Good Friday a free pardon, with a few exceptions, to all who had taken part in the late stripes, and who should apply to the Chancellor for the pardon. About three thousand people in all, including the Dukes of York and Norfolk, took out the necessary letters patent. For the next fifteen months little of note happened in England. Local riots occurred in certain places, there were the usual lawsuits about landed property, the usual difficulties in obtaining justice in the county courts. The Duke of Norfolk was sent down into his county to try and bring law and order back there, to inquire of such great riots, extortions, horrible wrongs and hurts as his highness is credibly informed have been done in this country. Attempts were made to bring to justice some of the local men who were preying upon the county, but with little success. The King himself made a progress in the west from Exeter to Ludlow to pacify as far as he could all discontented elements and to show himself as king in the Duke of York's country. In October the expedition of Lord Talbot was sent off to Guyenne, where success for some time crowned his efforts till the fatal day of Castillon, July 17th, 1453. In January of this year a conspiracy got up by one of Jack Cade's former captains in Kent was dispersed. On March 6th, 1453, Parliament met at Reading, where party feeling was not likely to run so high as in London. The object of the session was to grant supplies and order that the services of the crown, such as the garrison of Calais might be paid. The Parliament proved favorable to the King's government as was shown by the liberal grants of supply and by the speaker whom the Commons chose for themselves. His name was Thomas Thorpe, a noted Lankastrian who was faithful and energetic in the royal service till he was beheaded by the Yorkists in 1461 after having fought in the First Battle of St. Albans from which he escaped by flight and in the Battle of Northampton. Parliament met in the Refectory of Reading Abbey and sat till March 28th. It reassembled after Easter at Westminster. The place of meeting proves that the royal government now felt strong enough to hold Parliament in London itself. It was prorogued again on July 2nd not to reassemble till November 12th at Reading in order that meanwhile the lords might get to their hunting and the Commons to their harvests. But before Parliament could meet again, the King was attacked by insanity. End of Section 8. Section 9 of The Wars of the Roses by Robert Balmain-Mowat. This LibriVox recording is in the public domain, recording by Pamela Nagami, Chapter 6, The King's Madness and the First Protectorate of York, Part 1. Nuka, that sitteth on E in Trona, helped the people in Hercretaneda, that truth and raison reña Marisonna, for then shall they leva out of Dreda. After the prorogation of Parliament on July 2nd, 1453, the general lack of good faith which characterizes these times was shown by the imprisonment of Sir William Oldhall, who had been Speaker of the Commons in 1450, on a charge of taking part in Cade's Rebellion and in the armed proceedings of the Duke of York at Dartford. Oldhall was one of those who had accepted Henry's offer of amnesty and had taken out Letters Patent of Pardon on June 26th, 1452. The process against him was only reversed in the Court of King's Bench, shortly after the victory of the Yorkists in the First Battle of St. Albans. The King had gone down to the Royal Palace of Clarendon in Wiltshire to spend July and August. On August 10th, he became ill, his malady taking the form of a total loss of memory and elapsed into childishness, so that although he could eat and drink and sit in a chair, he could not walk nor show any comprehension of what was going on about him, recognizing none of his household, not even the Queen. He remained in this condition for fifteen months. The malady, of course, puzzled the physicians of the time and indeed this species of insanity is still very mysterious. The King was frequently asked questions by ministers and others, but he never gave any sign of comprehension, and when he recovered from his insanity in December of 1454, he declared that he remembered nothing whatever since he fell ill. It must be borne in mind that Henry's maternal grandfather, Charles VI of France, had been subject to similar fits of madness, that the Constitution of very few of the Lancastery and Princes after John of Gaunt was really sound, and that Henry VI had gone through a period of storm and stress and disappointment that might have unhinged a much stronger mind. When the King became incapable of performing his royal functions, the right in duty of appointing some form of regency fell according to the Constitution upon the House of Peers, or more strictly speaking the Great Council of the Peers. But nothing was done for two months as it was expected that every moment the King would recover his senses again. On October 13th, a son was born to Henry and Queen Margaret. The child received the name of Edward. For eight years the King had had no heir, and everyone seems to have assumed during that time that the Lancastery and dynasty would become extinct and that by a mere process of weighing the Duke of York would become King. But that hope was frustrated. The power of England had never stood so low. Only a little over two months before, on July 17th, the last battle of the Hundred Years' War was fought, Castillon in Guyenne, a total and irreparable defeat for the English arms. This crisis in the history of the House of Lancaster cannot be better explained than in the words of Stubbs. The final loss of Guyenne destroyed all the hold which the government still had on the respect of the country. The King's illness placed the Queen and the Duke of York in direct rivalry for the Regency. The birth of the heir of Lancaster cut off the last hope which the Duke had of a peaceful succession to the Crown on Henry's death. The logic of events was steadily pressing the Yorkist House to reach out for the Crown. But there is no sign that the Duke of York was yet aiming at it. The King himself had fallen into abeyance, but the King's government went on. No Regency was declared, but the Council carried on the affairs of state as if the King was still actively at his head. This condition of affairs however could not continue, especially as the keeper of the Great Seal, the Chancellor Archbishop Kemp, was an old man and nearing his end. The choice as Regent lay between the Queen, the Duke of Somerset, and the Duke of York. It was not long before York established himself as head of the government. He began to prepare the way about the time of the birth of the Prince Edward by bringing an action in the court of Exchequer against Thomas Thorpe, who had been Speaker of the last Parliament and a dowdy opponent of the Duke. The ground of the action was that Thorpe, who was a baron of the Exchequer, had made seizure of some arms belonging to the Duke of York in the London House of the Bishop of Durham. Whether this seizure of York's property was strictly legal is not known, but the Duke was now awarded damages in the Court of Exchequer to the extent of one thousand pounds. Thorpe was put in the fleet prison until he should pay this sum. Thus one champion of the Lancastrians was at least for a time out of the way. The Yorkists evidently thought Thorpe a redoubtable opponent, otherwise they would not have beheaded him eight years later. The Parliament which had been prorogued from July 2nd met as had been intended at Reading on November 12th, but the King was no better, and so it was prorogued again till February 1454. Meanwhile the Old Feudal Assembly, the Great Council of All Barons of the King, was summoned to meet on November 21st. An attempt seems to have been made, first not to summon the Duke of York, and then when that was found too illegal another obscure attempt was made to warn off some of his chief friends and supporters from attending the Council. The Duke naturally protested when he came to the Great Council at Westminster against this mean intrigue. All the Lords present agreed with him. The Duke in his speech had referred to his excluded friends as diverse persons such as of long time have been of his Council. This is perhaps the first reference to the existence of a distinct Yorkist party. The Duke of Norfolk who was at this time a kind of right hand man to York brought forward another bill of charges against Somerset who did not appear at the Council, to the effect that the previous accusations had been sufficiently proved by the deeds that have followed thereof. And he demanded in a somewhat curious fashion that Somerset should be brought to trial for the loss of Calais and Guyenne according to the laws of chivalry as found in the book called Larbre de Bataille. The Duke was therefore arrested and put into the Tower in the first days of December. At the end of the year 1453 or beginning of 1454 when it was clear that only the King's personal action could prevent the Duke of York from getting the chief control of affairs an attempt was made by Margaret and her friends to penetrate to the mind of Henry through his infant son. The Prince was taken down to Windsor and the Duke of Buckingham took him in his arms and presented him to the King in goodly wise beseeching the King to bless him and the King gave no manner answer. It was clear that nothing was to be made of Henry. If the Duke of York was to be checked force must be used. The Great Lancastery and lords began to collect men and arms. The Earl of Wiltshire and Lord Bonville in Somersetshire, the Duke of Exeter in the West Riding of Yorkshire and others. Even the old Cardinal Archbishop Kemp commanded all his servants to be ready with bow and arrows, sword and buckler, cross bows and all other habiliments of war. Thomas Thorpe was employing his enforced leisure in the tower by drafting a bill of indictment against the Duke of York. An officer of the Duke of Somerset had prudently bespoken all the lodgings available round about the tower and the Queen had capped these expressions of the energy of her party by sending up to the council a bill of five articles demanding that she should be made regent with very wide powers of government. But the other party was too strong, and by the time Parliament met at Westminster, not at Reading as originally intended, on February 14th, the Duke of York had a commission from council in the name of the King to open the proceedings. The usual business was transacted, Thorpe was still left in the tower and a new speaker was elected, the defense of Calais was taken into consideration, a sad and wise council was asked for. The way was made easier for York by the death on March 23rd of Cardinal Kemp, Archbishop of Canterbury and Chancellor of the Kingdom. He was a faithful friend of the Lancastrian House, a good man in his way, one of those sound and honest clerical statesmen who gave their talents and learning to the service of the secular government, leaving the work of their diocese to be performed largely by others. His last days were disturbed by threats of violence from the Duke of Norfolk, the overzealous agent of the Duke of York. When the King almost a year later came back to consciousness and learned that the Archbishop was no more, he remarked that one of the wisest lords in the land was dead. One more attempt was made to extract some sign of volition from the King at Windsor, but without effect. Accordingly, on March 27th, the peers took the inevitable step and appointed a protector. The choice fell on the Duke of York, the claims of Margaret being passed over in silence. The period of the Duke of York's first protectorate seems to have been comparatively peaceful. England had been suffering so long from lack of governance that the presence of a strong man at the head of affairs could not but be beneficial. The protectorate indeed was short-lived, and it was not in any sense epoch-making, although some useful work was done in Parliament. But in an old established country like England there was already a good condition of society in the country if only peace and order could prevail. The Duke in his short time did something to give that peace and order. The period of the protectorate was to be limited by the duration of the King's infirmity or the coming of age of the Prince Edward. The Council also appointed York Captain of Calais in place of the Duke of Somerset for a period of seven years. Thus he was at the head both of the home government and of all that was left of the English possessions abroad. The places vacated by the death of the Chancellor Archbishop Kemp were filled up. The Earl of Salisbury was made Chancellor and the Bishop of Ely, Thomas Birchier, was made Archbishop of Canterbury. But the existing ministers except Somerset seem not to have been displaced. The King's son Edward was created Prince of Wales on June 9th. A French fleet was beaten off from Jersey and Guernsey, the islanders killing or capturing no less than five hundred of the enemy. The Duke of York visited the turbulent north of England where a feud was going on between the Nevels and the Percy's. The Percy's were supported by the Duke of Exeter, a most vigorous opponent of York's. But Exeter, after giving a good deal of trouble including the difficulty of getting him out of sanctuary in Westminster, was safely lodged in the Royal Castle of Pontefract. A strong bench of judges including the Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas and a Justice of the King's Bench was sent into Yorkshire to deal with all criminal cases, so the hand of the law extended into the most disturbed area in England. The Earl of Devonshire, who was an old partisan of the Duke of York and who with Lord Cobham had been the only great supporter of the Duke in the critical military demonstration at Dartford in 1452, now broke the peace by a private war against Lord Bonville. York had him at once arrested. Lord Cobham was already in prison for having taken arms for York at Dartford, but the Duke let Justice take its course and made no attempt to release him. The Duke of Somerset was kept in the Tower without a trial. York has been blamed for denying Justice to him, but considering the charges which York had so often brought against Somerset and also taking into account the latter's great unpopularity, one cannot help thinking that perhaps the Duke was as well without a trial at this time, it probably saved his life. End of Section 9 Section 10 of The Wars of the Roses by Robert Balmain Mowat. This Librobox recording is in the public domain. Recording by Pamela Nagami. Chapter 6 The King's Madness and the First Protectorate of York, Part 2 So matters went on till suddenly Henry recovered his senses at the end of the year, Christmas 1454. The recovery was as sudden and mysterious as the illness had been. Two days after Christmas the pious king ordered his almaner to ride to Canterbury with a thank offering. On the 30th the Queen brought his 14 months old son to him. The King asked what his son's name was and when the Queen told him Edward, Henry held up his hands and thanked God. And he said he never knew till that time nor wist not what was said to him nor wist not where he had been while he hath been sick till now. The good Bishop Wayne Fleet of Winchester and the prior of St. John saw him on January 7th and when they found him speaking just like his old self they wept for joy. Henry was a glad man now, for he had recovered his woods fully and had a son to succeed him, and he was in charity with all the world and so he would all the lords were. Well might he say so, for his recovery was really the occasion of renewed party strife and of sanguinary warfare. The first public step which Henry took was to make certain changes in the government. It was these changes that made York feel that his life was in danger and that the evils from which the land had suffered before the King's illness were to be renewed. He could not complain because he was no longer protector. That office necessarily and properly came to an end with the recovery of the King, but he was alarmed at the other changes. A speech made by him to his supporters shows his sentiments clearly. It is reported in different words by the chroniclers, Wethamstead and Varron, the former the reports is obviously apocryphal, but they agree so closely in substance that we cannot doubt their sense is authentic. The King complained that Somerset had not merely been released from the Tower but had been restored to the closest intimacy with the King, and that the man who already had lost England, Normandy, and Guyenne was now in a position to ruin the whole kingdom. Henry had obtained the release of Somerset on February 7th, 1455, and a month later restored him the captaincy of Calais, disregarding the appointment of York which had been majoring the King's illness to last for seven years. The Earl of Salisbury, another of York's appointments, ceased at the same time to be Chancellor. His place was filled by the Archbishop of Canterbury. John Tiptoft, Earl of Worcester was removed from the treasure ship and his place was given to the Queen's favorite, the Earl of Wiltshire. The dispute between York and Somerset was referred to arbitration. A board of peers was to give judgment within two months, and each Duke had to enter into a bond for 20,000 marks, 13,333 pounds, six shillings, eight pence, as a pledge that they would accept the Peers' Award. York had no confidence in the arbitration. This being so, he ought not to have agreed to accept it. It is clear he did not act with absolute honesty. Nor on the other hand was he treated quite fairly. For though he had held with distinction the greatest office in the kingdom only three months back, he now found himself no longer summoned to the council table. The King had lost no time in letting the old clique become his sole advisors. York and his friends were left out. Finally the King summoned a great council of peers to meet at Leicester. This time York was summoned, but he feared he was only called for his condemnation. It is stated that at this time York went into the North and called to himself the Earls of Warwick and Salisbury, and made the above mentioned speech to them. It is not clear where exactly this meeting took place. Varron says it was in the city of York, but that is hardly likely. The Earls agreed there was no resource left but arms. So with a band of retainers and liverymen, they started off on their great adventure. Their forces numbered about three thousand men. On May 21st they addressed a memorial to the King saying that they came to show their faith and allegiance and begging him not to give confidence to the sinister, malicious and fraudulent labours of their enemies, but to admit York and the Earls to his presence. This was on May 21st and was sent from where in Hartfordshire. It is said that Somerset prevented the memorial ever reaching the King, but whether this is true or not makes no difference, for Henry could not now in honour have considered York's demands unless the Duke would lay down arms and dismisses unlawful forces. A letter had also been sent to Archbishop Burchier the day before. This letter, which states that York only took up arms under compulsion owing to the suspicions of the government towards him, is interesting as a sort of appeal to public opinion, as represented by the highest dignitary of the Church in England and by the first constitutional advisor of the Crown. But on the 21st the King with his forces had reached Hartford from Westminster. They spent the night at Hartford and next day advanced to St. Albans and took up their position inside the town. The Duke of York with his men was in key field just outside the town by the River Vare. The town of St. Albans, although one of the most ancient in England, had never achieved the dignity of the other municipalities. Throughout the 15th century it was still subordinate to the Abbey and within the jurisdiction of the Lord Abbot. This is probably the reason why it had no walls nor military defences at that time. The monastery of St. Albans would not let the town's people or via, gird themselves like other cities with a great wall, lest they should become too independent and filled with the corporate spirit. The monks could expect that under the shadow of this rich and powerful monastery and hedged round by the sanctity of the Catholic Church the town would be immune from the troubles of war. But the influence of the monastery could not save the town from being the scene of two sanguinary battles nor did the presence of the monastery soften for the town's people the calamities that war brings to peaceful inhabitants. The intimate connection of St. Albans with the Wars of the Roses accounts for the excellence of the information in the register of the Second Abbey of John Wethemstead, which is one of the chief authorities for this period. The king erected his banner in St. Peter's Street. One estimate gives his forces at three thousand, another at two thousand and more. The Duke of York also had about three thousand. The entrances to the town were barricaded and held against the Yorkists. So the hostile forces waited from seven in the morning till ten o'clock. Another attempt at pacification took place but broke down on the Duke of York demanding that some reset should be handed over to him. This Henry naturally refused to do. Rather than they shall have any lord here with me at this time, I shall this day for their sake and in this quarrel myself live or die. The Duke of York recognized too that he must submit his demands to the arbitrement of the sword and between eleven and twelve o'clock his forces were led to assault the town. But Lord Clifford defended the main barriers so that York could not affect an entrance. It was the young Earl of Warwick. He was now twenty-seven years old who actually turned the defenses of the king's side. For while York's assault on the barriers was fully occupying the attention of the defenders, Warwick got his men together in one body and rushed to the gardens between the Key Inn and the Checker Inn which stood in Holwell or Hollywell Street. Once within the town they gave a great shout, a Warwick, a Warwick, as a signal for York's men to redouble their attack and keeping close together they set upon Lord Clifford's men from behind. The Lancastrians did not stand long for the whole fight was over in half an hour. The king's forces cannot have fought very persistently, otherwise the struggle would have lasted much longer, especially if the defenders had taken to the houses and maintained an irregular warfare from the narrow streets. But St. Dolpens was not Carthage nor Jerusalem. The inhabitants had no desperate determination to defend their homes to the last. To them the fight was an alien struggle between the king with his lords and retainers against some other great lords with their retainers. Even the forces on either side did not fight with any great determination. The rank and file seemed to have very little interest in the struggle. When the tide turned against them they turned and fled. The killed did not number more than one hundred and twenty. Only the nobles fought as if some principle was at stake. The role of their dead compared with the total number killed was tremendous. The handsome Earl of Wiltshire, it is true, fled with Thorpe and they left their harness behind them cowardly. But the rest stayed till they died or only left the field wounded. The Duke of Somerset was killed, fighting for the cause, which was his more than the king's. The Earl of Northumberland, like so many purses, met his death thus in an internecine war. Lord Clifford, the defender of the great barricade, lost his life there with knights and squires. Among the wounded were the Duke of Buckingham, struck by an arrow in the face. He escaped to the sanctuary of the Abbey. His son, Lord Stafford, struck by an arrow in the hand. The Earl of Dorset so grievously hurt that he had to be carried home in a cart. The king himself left all alone by his standard in St. Peter's Street, refused to fly in the face of defeat, although wounded by an arrow in the neck. Finally, he took refuge in the house of a small tradesman until the Duke of York came to him. On the Yorkist side, the losses were few, but Lord Clinton was killed and also Sir Robert Ogle, who had led six hundred men from the Welsh march and had done good service in fighting his way to the marketplace. The Duke of York's influence on the Welsh march had stood him in good stead, for the light Welsh archers were now probably the best in England, and the execution done by Bow and Arrow explains to a certain extent the small losses on the Yorkist side. It should be remembered that an earlier Richard, King Richard II, who had declared the house of March, the Duke of York's house, to be his heir, had kept a bodyguard of archers from the Welsh border who were devoted to him. The phrase Welsh archers does not necessarily mean simply men of Welsh blood, it comprehended any who came from the turbulent march from Chester, Shrewsbury, and Hereford. With them stead remarks that the King's men, who were mainly drawn from East Anglia, were of a much softer type. St. Albans was a great victory for the Duke of York. He had risked his fortune on the issue of the day and won. Had he chosen to wait one more day he would have fought with greater chances of success, although the result would not have been better. For on the day after the battle the Duke of Norfolk arrived with, it is said, six thousand men, and the Earl of Shrewsbury, Lord Cromwell and Sir Thomas Stanley were following with no less than ten thousand men. When the Duke of York came to the King, who was in the house of a small tradesman, he protested that he was a faithful Liegeman of the Crown, ready to show this with all his men, now or at any time. He congratulated Henry on the removal of the Duke of Somerset, whose death he said was a subject of joy to all the people, so he led the King reverently to the royal quarters in the town, and on the Morrill which was Friday he escorted the King to London, where lodgings were prepared in the Palace of the Bishop of London. Henry was kept there till the Feast of Pentecost was passed. A Parliament was summoned in the King's name to meet at the earliest opportunity in July. The battle was disastrous to the town of St. Albans itself, for the men who composed a great part of the Yorkist forces, men of the Welsh and North March, looked on the town as their legitimate spoil, the reward that came to them rarely enough for their dangerous trade of war. They but took themselves therefore to the horrors of the sack, unchecked by the Duke of York. The Abbey itself was only saved from Spoliation, says Wethamstead, by the special intervention of St. Albans. But it was owing to the saint he explains when the royal forces first came to St. Albans that the King did not take up his quarters in the monastery, and so the fury of the Yorkists was not drawn to the monks. The dead lay about the streets and open places of the town, and for fear of the Duke of York's anger no one dared to bury them. But the Abbot, John Wethamstead, was moved to pity, hearing especially that the bodies, even of the Duke of Somerset, the Earl of Northumberland, and the Lord Clifford, were still miserably lying in the street. So he boldly rebuked the Duke of York and asked permission to bury them. Richard agreed. The three great lords were buried together in the Lady Chapel of the Monastic Church. Thus the Yorkist cause was triumphant. The King was virtually a prisoner in London. A parliament was shortly to meet, and it may be surmised that any pressure brought to bear on the electors would not generally be unfavorable to the Yorkist cause. The Duke of Somerset was dead, and his removal was the only thing which York had consistently demanded as the sole condition necessary to bring about peace. Why was it then, that peace did not ensue? There was no more open war for two years. The King them enjoyed an armed peace. The credit for this must be given to the Good King, to his spirit of forgiveness and self-sacrifice. He showed himself willing to forget the past, and now that the Duke of Somerset was no more, to allow York to be his chief advisor. But the Queen looked further than this. In her eyes York was the enemy of her husband and of her son. If the young Prince Edward was ever to reign, York must never be given chief power. She looked around for support, this she found not merely within the country, but in the Court of France, from her relative, Charles VII, and in Scotland, the Scottish King, James II, through his mother Joan Bofort, being a first cousin of the late Duke of Somerset, and a first cousin once removed of Henry VI. The Duke of York in the course of his career had given Queen Margaret plenty of ground for uneasiness, but her determined an incessant opposition drove him further and quicker on the road toward resisting the crown. The Duke of Somerset was gone, but as long as the Queen remained, the Duke of York could never be at complete peace with King Henry. It is useless to speculate on what might have been. Margaret's suspicions appear to have been justified by the subsequent actions of York. Yet her suspicions and method of expressing them may have had something to do with producing those subsequent actions. After the King's return to London, the influence of the Duke of York was immediately felt in a change of ministry. There he made new certain officers, as one of the past in letters informs us on May 25, three days after the Battle of St. Albans. The offices held by the late Duke of Somerset were divided. York became constable of England, while Warwick, who had played a distinguished part at St. Albans, became captain of Calais. Thus one controlled all the forces of the crown inside England, while the other controlled the royal forces which were stationed outside the country. The Earl of Wiltshire, who had fled from the Battle of St. Albans, was superseded as treasurer by Lord Birchier, whose brother was already Archbishop and Chancellor. Then the great men dispersed for a time to prepare themselves for the coming Parliament, which it was hoped would do much to settle the affairs of the nation. The king and queen with their young son went to Hartford. The Duke of York found hospitality in the monastery at Wehr. Warwick, taking his captives and the Earl of Dorset with him, took up his quarters at Hunston. His father, the Earl of Salisbury, at Rye. It is obvious the chief Yorkists did not mean to go far from London lest some stroke should be attempted against them there. Three of Henry's servants were thought to have planned an assassination of York in the king's chamber, but when examined on this point the men were able to clear themselves. Meanwhile careful efforts were made by the Yorkist lords to secure the return of favourable members of Parliament. The Duchess of Norfolk, on behalf of her husband, wrote to John Paston on June 8, requesting him to use his influence to secure the election in Norfolk of John Howard, a cousin of the Dukes, and Sir Roger Chamberlain. John Paston was only a private gentleman, and there could be little objection to his canvassing in the interests of the Dukes' nominees. But he apparently took a more direct way, and communicated with the undersher of himself, who was acting as returning officer at the elections in the county court. But after the elections were held, the undersher of informed him that the voting had been in favour of Master Bernie, Master Gray, and Paston himself. Nevertheless, the Dukes' nominees, Howard and Chamberlain, were the names returned on rits as Knights of the Shire, and they took their seat when Parliament met. The Commons chose for Speaker and active Yorkist Sir John Wenlock. This Parliament had a checkered career. Its first session lasted twenty-two days, from July 9 to July 31. One of the chief pieces of business that was done was to clear the memory of Humphrey Duke of Gloucester, who died under suspicion of treason in 1447. As chief of the War Party toward the end of the Hundred Years' War, he had been much opposed by the Beauforts and Queen Margaret. He was now publicly declared in Parliament to have been clear of any taint of treason. This curious and belated action of Parliament can have had no other cause at this time than a desire on the part of the victorious Yorkists to justify a great opponent of the Queen, and hence to show that their own opposition had a good precedent. Following this vindication of Gloucester's memory came a vindication of all who had lately fought against the King. A declaration was made on behalf of the Duke of York, and all the lords, knights, squires, archers, and the rest who had fought at St. Albans. Their innocence was established so that no legal action could be taken against any of them for deeds done in connection with the battle. The responsibility for the late Troubles was put upon Edmund, Duke of Somerset, who was now dead, Thomas Thorpe, Baron of the Exchequer, who was now a prisoner in the Tower, and Sir William Joseph, one of the King's household. Time was also found to consider measures for the defense of England from its foreign foes, the French and Scots, especially the latter, whose King with the red face had this year besieged Baruch, all the one successfully. For a time it did not seem as if the piece of England was going to be any better kept in spite of this parliament, for two great Yorkist lords, the Earl of Warwick and Lord Cromwell, disputed in front of King Henry, each one trying to shift the full responsibility for the fight at St. Albans upon the other. Poor Henry must have been puzzled by this argument, which struck him no doubt as an attempt on the part of the pot to call the kettle black. Lord Cromwell began to be afraid of his life, even in London itself under the King's peace, and by his own request he had himself shut up for safety in the house of the Earl of Shrewsbury. For the Earl of Warwick and other great Yorkists were trusting to no peace, but were going about with their armor on and with their weapons, their barges which they used daily on the river between their houses and Westminster were full of weapons, too. The King thereupon made a proclamation against the bearing of arms, but it is unlikely that the order was obeyed. The Yorkist lords were evidently afraid of a counter-revolution, but they took a new oath of allegiance to Henry to show their loyalty. A week later the parliament was pro-rogued, July 31st. The past and three months afterwards the King was again ill. The country it is clear had not been much quieter in respect of local troubles. The county of Norfolk, as the past and letters show, was never quiet in the reign of Henry VI. But there is evidence from other counties, too. In Devonshire in October there was a very bad case of arson and murder. The Lancastrian Earl of Devonshire, Edward Courtney, had a quarrel with the Yorkist Lord Bonville. Accordingly the Earl's son went one night with a band of men and set fire to the house of one Radford, a friend of Lord Bonville's. Radford was an old man, and when taken away he prayed that he might be allowed to ride, but they forced him to walk.  This was only one episode in the feud between the Earl of Devonshire and Lord Bonville. A little later the two noblemen with large forces met in a pitched battle near Exeter. There was some doubt about the result of the battle, but anyhow the Earl of Devonshire was able to plunder Exeter Cathedral. The strain of affairs had again been too much for Henry. He had probably never been quite right since the wound and the shock he received at the Battle of St. Albans. His malady was the same as had attacked him in 1454, although now it was in a less acute form. Anyhow he was incapacitated from the task of government and some form of regency or protectorship had to be arranged. The parliament which had been prorogued in July met again on November 12th, and after the usual formalities the lords appointed the Duke of York to be protector. This position he held for the rest of the year and till February 1456 when the King again recovered his reason. This period the Duke of York's second protectorate and the ensuing time till the renewal of the Civil War is a somewhat inglorious one for England. Three things are to be noted about it. Firstly, the King's peace really extended no further than the limits of the court, but within those limits the efforts of the King were not without effect. Secondly, local fights and disorders continued, riots in London and armed outbreaks in the counties. Thirdly, the frontiers of England were not safe. The King of Scots, James II, had repudiated a truce made in 1453 and although the English government threatened much it did nothing. Worse than this the French having previously suffered so long from English invasions were not now to be deterred from setting foot on English soil and plundering one of the sink ports. The second protectorate of York was too short to have much effect, but one thing is significant. The commons showed more zeal in procuring the appointment of the Duke than did the lords. However, the King soon recovered and the protectorate came to an end. The Parliament had met again on January 14th, 1456. It must have known that the King was in a fair way to recovery, for York and Warwick took the precaution of coming up to Parliament with three hundred men in coats of mail and brigandines, although none of the other lords brought armed companies. By February 9 the King was well again, but according to the terms of the appointment, York's protectorate did not necessarily come to an end till the King relieved him of it. Henry showed some inclination to continue him in office, not of course as protector, but as chief counselor and lieutenant. But the Queen, a great and strong labored woman, was not likely to allow Henry to do this. York was accordingly relieved of his office of protector and left without an official position. From this point the condition of the government becomes one of drifting. The ordinary machinery of government had for long been greatly disturbed. The revenue was in a bad state. The good King was too easily prevailed upon, and the result was a kind of extravagance which it is always very difficult to stop. Extravagance not on himself, but in gifts to his friends or to charitable foundations. Accordingly a bill was introduced and passed to the effect that the King should take back everything that he had given away since the first days of his reign. All honors, castles, lordships, vills, villates, manors, lands, tenements, wastes, forests, chases, rents, reversions, fees, farm services, issues, profits of county, presentations of priories, churches, hospitals or free chapels, and all other revenue and what pertains to them. This act, though passed, could never be carried out. Its manifest injustice made it impossible. It would have made all property in England insecure and would have put into the hands of the officials charged with its administration a power of extortion, blackmail and personal maliciousness which would speedily have provoked revolution. It will be remembered how the reduction office of Sweden two hundred years later became an engine of extortion and tyranny. Before Parliament was dissolved, the Earl of Warwick was confirmed in his position as Captain of Calais. This was the strongest point left in the Duke of York's position. The political history of England now becomes very scanty. The erudite historian of the period notices that for nearly two years, from January 1456 to November 1457, the records of the Privy Council are blank. Yet the result was better than might have been expected. The pieces well kept wrote John Bocking to John Paston on May 8, although there was trouble in London between the citizens and the foreign merchants. The different parties were watching each other. The King was sometimes in London, later at Sheen than Coventry. The Duke of York was much at his castle of Sandal in the West riding of Yorkshire. The Queen, with the young Prince, took up her abode in the castle of Tutbury, where Mary Queen of Scots was subsequently imprisoned, in Staffordshire, doubtless in order that she might be prepared for any movements of the Duke of York. The Duke of Buckingham, the faithful but not very vigorous supporter of the House of Lancaster, spent part of his time at Riddle in Essex rather ill at ease because the Londoners were so much of the party of the Duke of York. The Earl of Warwick knew better than to go to his command in Calais for the next two months, May, June, he stayed quietly in the castle of Warwick. No doubt he kept his armour bright all the time and his artillery powder in a safe, dry place. So the parties were dispersed till the middle of the year. The Queen moved up to Chester, but York stayed on at Sandal and he waited on the Queen and she upon him. But he did not neglect his trusty citizens of London. The Earl of Salisbury and the two Birchier brothers, Chancellor and Treasurer, were staying there. About the middle of August the King left London and met the Queen, and with them the whole court went on a regular and prolonged progress through the Midlands. After visiting various places they settled at Coventry and in October a council was summoned there. The Duke of York was not excluded and there he came face to face with the young Duke of Somerset, a worthy successor of his father and a determined and valiant opponent of York. Some changes were made in the ministry. Bishop Wayne Fleet of Winchester succeeded Archbishop Birchier as Chancellor. The Earl of Shrewsbury succeeded Lord Birchier as Treasurer. But these changes cannot be considered as inimical to the Duke of York. They certainly annoyed the King's strong supporter, the Duke of Buckingham, who was half-brother to the two Birchiers. Wayne Fleet was no partisan and Shrewsbury was a Yorkist. The Duke of York in fact was on very good terms with the King as indeed no one could help being if given a fair chance. But the Queen did not tend to sweeten their intercourse. No doubt York was not very conciliatory to her. Indeed had not the Duke of Buckingham exercised a timely influence, he might have stood in some danger at the hands of the Queen's men. About the middle of October the King with the Court moved to Chester. Winter of this year, 1456 and spring of the next, were spent at one place or another in the West with a view possibly to divert pleasantly the delicately balanced mind of the King. In February 1457 they were at Coventry again, where a great Council was held and a peace made between the Duke of Somerset and the Earls of Warwick and Salisbury with whom the Duke had a family feud on account of the death of his father at the Battle of St. Albans. In May the Court was at Hereford and the disorders of the March were temporarily quieted by the King's presence. In autumn the Court moved back gradually to London and a great Council was held at Westminster attended by all the great lords including Richard of York. The proceedings chiefly concerned the trial of Bishop Peacock of Chichester for heresy. At the end of the month the Council dispersed for Christmas to meet again on January 27th. Thus the year 1457 closed in comparative peace. This happy and unusual condition of affairs must have caused much joy to the King, who would feel that his prayers had been answered. Now is the time to set a seal upon it by some public demonstration of concord. So the King resolved that the great Council should meet again on January 26th, 1458 in order that the magnates under his influence might arrange some mutual and final reconciliation. So the great men came up to London one after another, not punctually, however, and with no great display of enthusiasm. Each nobleman showed his distrust of the others by bringing with him to town a hundred or so sturdy fighters dressed in their lords' particular livery. The King, who had probably been spending Christmas at Windsor, came up to Westminster at the appointed time, and seems to have found very few there. This indifference and lack of common courtesy shown by the lords must have been a blow to Henry, finding himself thus treated as a man of no account. But the Duke of York, to his credit, was punctually at the appointed place, bringing with him as a contemporary letter-writer rather quaintly says, his own household only to the number of a hundred and forty horse. Evidently a lord who brought only one squadron of cavalry was showing studied moderation. Anyhow he was not shamelessly breaking the laws against livery and maintenance if he called them all of his own household. The third greatest Yorkist, the Earl of Salisbury, Warwick's father, was there too, with no less than four hundred horsemen of the rank and file and eighty knights and squires. Warwick, who had been at his post at Calais, would have arrived by this time too, but contrary winds delayed him. The Lancastrian lords seemed not so ready to appear. The Duke of Somerset was nearly a week late, January 31st, while the Duke of Exeter was not expected till the following week, coming with a great fellowship and strong. When at last most of the great lords had come together the council was formally held and the king made his speech on the subject of peace, reminding them at the end that God is charity and that he who lives in charity lives in God and God in him. And having made his speech he retired with his household to the royal manner of Burkhamstead, so that untrammeled by his proximity the lords might freely discuss the affair. The rich city of London was left with the lords and some thousands of armed and unscrupulous retainers, but the civic authorities, though anxious, knew how to take care of themselves and seemed to have organized a sufficient and competent police. The debates of the magnates progressed favourably. The king was near enough to be visited by lords who wished to confer with him. His desire for peace would not receive less attention because of the timely arrival of the Lancastrian Earl of Northumberland with three to four thousand people. These were not received inside the city, for the Londoners approved only of the Yorkist lords. The discussions seemed to have taken place not on the council chamber at Westminster, but in separate party conferences. The lords Yorkist, who lodged within the city meeting at the Blackfriars, those Lancastrian, who lodged within the city meeting at the Whitefriars in Fleet Street. By March 15 it was believed that sufficient agreement had been reached for the king and queen to come to London to celebrate it. The magnates offered to submit to his award, which was given on March 24 as follows. There were to be peace, love, and concord between everyone, and old scores were to be wiped away. In satisfaction of all animosities which had arisen out of the battle of St. Albans and the troubles of that time, the Yorkist lords were to offer a certain compensation. On the one hand were named Richard, Duke of York, the Earl of Warwick, and the Earl of Salisbury, and on the other, Henry, Duke of Somerset and his widowed mother, Henry, Earl of Northumberland and his mother, John, Lord Clifford, and his brothers and sisters. Thus two distinct parties were recognized, the Yorkist party which had conquered at St. Albans and the Lancastrian party whose chiefs had suffered death at that battle. The Yorkist lords were to wipe away the bitterness of those deaths by giving in perpetuity to the monastery of St. Albans forty-five pounds annually to be spent in masses for the souls of the Duke of Somerset and the Duke of Northumberland and Lord Clifford who were buried there. Further, the Duke of York was to pay over to the Dowager Duchess of Somerset and her son, the present Duke, the sum of five thousand marks, that is, three thousand three hundred and thirty-three pounds, six shillings, eight pence, from the wages which the crown still owed him for his services in Ireland. The wording of the award seems to imply that Richard was to find the money and the crown would consider its own debt to him discharged. In the same way the Earl of Warwick was to give Lord Clifford one thousand marks from the wages which the crown owed the Earl. The Earl of Salisbury, as his share of the compensation, was to pay back to the Earl of Northumberland if he had already received them, the eight thousand marks which the latter had been a judge to pay him in a lawsuit lately held in the sessions of Euler and Terminer in the county of York. The parties concerned in this award were to enter into bonds in chancery for great sums as a guarantee that they would obey. Next day the great lords went with the king in a procession to St. Paul's to celebrate the reconciliation. The pious king rode at the head, clad in robes of majesty, happy in being the peacemaker of his people. The others, former enemies, followed arranged amically in pairs according to their rites of precedence, ranging from the queen who came second on the arm of the Duke of York. And all people were rejoiced to see the lovely countenance that was between them. When Charité is chosen with staz in stonda, steadfast and skilla with ute des towns, then Roth might be exiled ute of this launder, and God ought a guide to have the Gauvin announced. Wisdom and wealth with all a plazaunce, mairicht vor reña and prosperité. This the second great reconciliation at St. Paul's, the first was after the Duke of York's unsuccessful show of force at Dartford in 1452, marks the highest point in the two years peace, or comparative peace, which followed the first battle of St. Albans. The king, having successfully finished this good work, was able to take his rest for a time. It must not be assumed that there was an entire absence of local disorder during this period of two years, but it was less acute than formally. Nevertheless, there are a few striking instances. Although King Henry by his presence did much to bring quiet to the districts which he visited, yet even the perlues of the court were not free from violence. The liverymen of the magnates could not help coming into collision with the civic authorities, for the noble profession of arms becomes debased when it serves only private ends, or is not guided by an honest and powerful government. Ten years' weak rule in England was alluring the soldiery to assume something of the character which we see in the condottieri of the Italian republics or the mercenaries of the Thirty Years' War. And yet, the condition of England never became really bad, for the growing middle class in town and country were an obstacle to disorder, while the leaders among the nobility showed a praiseworthy desire to avoid the plunder of the peaceful people. The difficulty was that there were too many masters. Sovereignty was divided between the king, the magnates, and the chartered municipalities. When the king with the court was at Coventry in October 1456, an affray arose between the men of the Duke of Somerset and the watchmen of the city. It is difficult to see how the affray could have arisen at all, except through the Duke's men wantonly infringing the quiet of the streets. Some of the men of the town, two or three say the past and letters, were killed. The alarm bell, the toxin of the citizens, was rung. The town arose, and we can imagine the citizens pouring out of their houses, each hastily tying the strings of his quilted tunic, burning now for a hard blow at the courtiers, at whose supercilious manners the good townsmen had been chafing. Matters would have gone hard with the men of Somerset, had not the Duke of Buckingham, whose influence was regularly exercised on the side of peace and moderation, come up and manage to allay the strife. In the west of England it was seldom that absolute quiet prevailed. Although the Duke of York was strong on the Welsh march around Ludlow, yet further south in the Severn Valley the cause of King Henry had a good following. Jasper Tudor, son of Queen Catherine's second marriage and therefore half-brother to Henry VI, was Earl of Pembroke. His family had strong local influence as Henry VII found 30 years later when he landed at Milford Haven. But at this time there was a small war going on between the Earl of Richmond, Edmund Tudor, brother of the Earl of Pembroke, and a Welsh chieftain whose name was reported as Griffith Suo. This tumult was more than a mere local trouble, it seems to have involved the causes of Lancaster in York for nearly a year later, May 1st, 1457, fighting was still going on. The head of the rebellion, being now Sir William Herbert, a determined Yorkist, who subsequently gained for himself the Earl of Pembroke after Jasper Tudor had been attainted. But the presence of the king and queen at Hereford seems to have had a salutary effect, and to have brought about a pacification with the rebellious Herbert. Yet it was not merely in the outlying parts of the country that the din of arms was still heard. The commons of Kent, as they were won't, are not well disposed, for there is in doing among them whatever it be. Something was evidently threatened in Kent, where the king's party was unpopular, but for the time it came to nothing. In London, however, a real fight arose. The cause was not political, but economic. The Lombards or Italian merchants, from the great commercial republics of Venice and Florence, did much business in the city, as may be judged from the present name of Lombard Street, with its long tradition of banking and of staple business enterprise. But in the fifteenth century the chief business of the Italian merchants in London lay probably in wool of which commodity they acted as brokers on a large scale for the needs of the countries around the Mediterranean. Their cities, especially Venice, still held the gorgeous east in fee, for although the Turk had now captured Constantinople, 1453, the alternative route from the east round the Cape of Good Hope had not yet been discovered. The wines of the Mediterranean country still more the silks and spices of Asia were carried by the Italian cities. Western Europe stood permanently in their debt. Accordingly the commercial resources of the Italian merchants were enormous, their influence correspondingly great. But in the Middle Ages foreigners were never popular in England. First the prosperous Jews, then the opulent Italian merchants, were regarded with bitter jealousy by the merchants at home. For although their interests were ultimately the same, although the commanding position of the city, its riches and its long history of unrobial economic life would have been impossible without these foreigners, their enterprise, their capital, their connections, yet this truth was not always within the narrower purview of individual interests. And between individuals just causes of friction are always arising and affect what would otherwise be the common interests of two interdependent classes. So in the years of peace between the First Battle of St. Albans and the renewal of the war at Bloorheath there was serious friction. A great hurling in English chronicler calls it, between the mercers of London who dealt in cloth and the resident Lombards who dealt in cloth and wool. The forces which should have kept order, the mayor and the aldermen, were on the side of the mercers. So the Lombards were badly treated, some of them being seized and put in prison, while others for their safety left London and settled in Southampton in Winchester, where in their opulent way they leased old mansions causing the landlords to spend much in repairs. But Henry summoned the chief mercer William Cantillot to appear before him and the council at Coventry. Cantillot was forthwith arrested at the king's command and imprisoned by Lord Dudley in Dudley Castle. So it would seem that in the judgment of the council, which was not likely to favour them, justice was on the side of the Lombards. Therefore those who had prepared to migrate from London to Winchester found it unnecessary to do so, and the leases which they had taken of the old mansions were cancelled. Accordingly, the landlords who had made great repairs in their mansions for the newcomers were left to face a loss. When the court moved up to London, a collision which would have renewed the wars of the roses at once was with difficulty averted. A great council was summoned for November 1457. The Duke of York and the Earl of Salisbury came in a boat in London. The Lancastrian chiefs were also to the fore. The Duke of Somerset, the Earl of North Thumberland with his son, Lord Egremont, taking up lodgings between Temple Bar and Westminster. Their retainers filled all the houses around St Giles Church. They were, it was believed, deliberately massing themselves for an attack on the Duke of York and his party. The Earl of Warwick hastened over from Calais to help the Duke and his father. But the Londoners had no desire that a sanguinary battle should be fought in the heart of their city. So the Mayor Jeffrey Bolin collected a strong force from the citizens, and showed so firm a determination to prevent any breach of the peace that no rising took place. It is significant that when Civil War did break out again in September 1459, it was in the turbulent and remote Welsh march where an orderly municipal life like that of the Londoners was almost unknown. The period between the first outbreak of Civil War at St Albans in 1455 and the second great outbreak at Bloor Heath in 1459 was indeed one of comparative peace and order, one of the best periods of Henry the Sixth's reign. And yet, as has been indicated, the control exercised by the government was weak, and breaches of the king's peace were by no means unknown. Nor were the frontiers of the kingdom kept in violet, in spite of the activity shown by the Earl of Warwick as Captain of Calais. The King of England was no longer Lord of the Narrow Seas. A not unnatural reaction from the English invasions of France in the Hundred Years' War is seen in French raids on the coast of Kent. An obnoxious feature of the period is the attitude of Queen Margaret, who was secretly on communication with the French invaders. A great raid was made upon Sandwich on August 28th, 1457. The leaders were Pierre de Brès or de Brésil, Seigneur de Warren, and Sainte-Charles of Normandy, and Robert de Flocke, Baillier Vervureux. They were said to have come at the invitation of Queen Margaret. These, too, with some other Norman lords, left Arfleur on the 25th with 4,000 men and good supply of artillery. They cruised along the coast of Sussex and Kent, but found no favorable place for landing till they came to a spot six miles from Sandwich. On Sunday, August 28th, at six o'clock in the morning, the Sainte-Charles landed with eight hundred men, and marshalling them in three companies he set out on foot, this ships as much as possible keeping in touch with him from the sea. The only difficulty which the French had first found in their march was the badness of the road. The English government, by its apathy or feebleness, seemed to have done everything else that was necessary to make their journey easy. But shortly afterward they found some real opposition, when the way was barred by a ditch filled with water and a bulwark made from the earth thrown up out of the ditch. After a sharp fight the bulwark was taken, the defenders made off to Sandwich, and the French continued their march without troubling to take the precaution which they had hitherto observed of keeping a guard in advance and in the rear. Arriving at Sandwich, they were harassed by the firing of guns from a great Carrick, and three ships of war which the townsmen had manned in the harbor. But on the Sainte-Charles of Normandy sending word to them that he would burn their ships unless they stopped firing, they did so, and remained quietly on the ships and ceased to annoy the Frenchmen. The Sainte-Charles then issued strict orders among his men that the property of churches should be respected, that no woman should be molested, that nothing should be set on fire, and that no one should be killed in cold blood. These orders are said to have been honorably carried out. The French then entered the town and their ships made their way into the harbor. This part of their work was easy, but once inside the town they had several hours of hard fighting. The townspeople strenuously contesting every street, and being driven from one, only to offer an equally valiant resistance in another. The narrow, winding streets with the high, close packed houses of a medieval town offered splendid opportunities for this sort of defense, compared with the great squares and broad straight streets of modern towns, which are constructed in this way partly to make any sort of irregular warfare on the part of the citizens impossible. By five o'clock the French were becoming exhausted. Many of their men were wounded although none had appeared slain. The men of Sandwich had many wounded too in a few slain. Reinforcements were continually dropping in from the country around, and no doubt many more would have come had people seriously believed that the French had landed in England. When informed of the invasion people said they would believe it when they saw it. Accordingly, they came and were convinced when they found themselves skirmishing against the enemy. About five o'clock the French leaders considering that the fighting had not slackened at all, and that their men were not in the best condition owing to the discomfort caused by the crossing by bad seas, gave the order to retire. So they retreated to their ships without serious loss, except for nine men who with three others were holding a wicket upon a bridge against the English when the planks gave way and the nine men were plunged into the water and drowned. Some others had got intoxicated with the good wine they found, but they were got away to the ships without mishap. So on Sunday evening the French sailed back to the point at which they had originally landed in near where their reserves were lying at sea. There they remained all Monday much annoyed by a cannon which the English kept continually firing off at them from the shore, but no one molested them from the sea. On Tuesday they sailed back to Arfleur, taking with them the three great ships of war which they had captured in Sandwich Harbor. When they reached Arfleur the prisoners whose possible ransoms were a marketable commodity were put up to auction and all the booty taken was divided among the leaders and men each one receiving his proper share. The expedition had been well managed and had come at a time when the coast of England except for the courage of the local inhabitants was quite undefended. Such raids though not unknown previously in English history only came when the government was very weak as in the earlier years of Richard II and Henry IV. Next year, 1458, the Earl of Warwick who was already captain of Calais was appointed admiral in place of the Duke of Exeter who was compensated for his loss with one thousand pounds out of the Hanapur Enchantery. The change was entirely for the better. The vigor of the new admiral soon made itself felt. Calais all this time was continually threatened with a siege from the French or more often from the Duke of Burgundy who regarded Calais as being his by rights. The victualing of the town was badly administered but Warwick had done much to remedy this defect by appealing for supplies to the patriotism of the men of Canterbury in Sandwich. A successful sally was made into the Boulognois with eight hundred men and some valuable cargos of gasp and wine were captured in ships. In the same year on May 28th, 1458, the Earl set out from Calais Harbor with a squadron of twelve ships, five large ships of folksal, three carvels, and four penises to meet twenty-eight sail of the Spaniards who were reported to be not far off. The Spanish fleet included sixteen great ships of folksal against Warwick's five. At four o'clock in the afternoon of the twenty-ninth he met the enemy and had once engaged them in one of the hardest, although not one of the longest, of England's sea-fights. John Journingham, one of Warwick's officers, at the very beginning boarded a Spanish ship of three hundred tons and took it with twenty-three men. But in turn he himself was captured and remained a prisoner for six hours. In the end, after a battle the like of which had not been seen for forty winters, the Spaniards were defeated with a loss of six ships captured, two hundred and forty men killed, and five hundred wounded. The English lost eighty men and two hundred wounded. This battle did much to regain for England control of the narrow seas and especially it gave the Earl of Warwick that commanding position at Calais and on the sea, which had so momentous a result for the Yorkist cause in the next few years. A short while after this battle against the Spaniards he set upon a fleet of merchant men from Lubeck which refused to lower its colors to the English flag. He captured seventeen large and several smaller vessels laden with salt. Warwick, Scotland was only avoided owing to the instability of English policy. A significant feature about the government at this time is that it seems to have had no definite representative for foreign affairs. The brief second protectorate of the Duke of York came to an end on February 25th, 1456, and yet just five months after this he is found sending a dispatch almost an ultimatum in the name of the royal government to the Scottish King, who had renounced the truce made in 1453. Evidently the Duke although holding no special office was still an official mouthpiece of the government. The message which he sent was very sharpen vigorous and made it clear that the piece of the English frontier was not likely to be broken. This dispatch was followed next month in August by another from the Duke to James II. In this Richard pointed out that the Scots king having disregarded the last message and having invaded the north of England would now have to face a regular war at the hands of the Duke of York acting for Henry VI. This was the proper way to act, never to threaten without following up the threats of disregarded with deeds. But just at this critical point the policy of the government suddenly changed and another dispatch was hastily sent to the Scottish King canceling the last and declaring that the announcement of war had been sent without the King's authority. Whether this was true or not it is equally discreditable to the organization of the government and eloquent of the way in which foreign affairs were mismanaged at this time. End of section 12