Jack Cade and his rebellion of Kentish Men in the reign of Henry VI, 1450.

JACK CADE REBELLION 1450 2014

JACK CADE REBELLION 1450

BACKGROUND AND CAUSES

In 1431 several men were burnt at the stake as rebels. Thiswas the beginning of a radical condemnation of poverty that many found themselves in against the Archbishop of Canterbury. The lowest local clergy were very badly paid indeed; this compared with the great wealth of the most senior bishops. There those who wanted to displace the aristocracy and coined their own titles to replace aristocrats with peasants.

Jack Sharp of Wigmoreland the name taken by rebel William Perkins had echoes of Mortimer country and its Yorkist resonances that would redound later in the century. Perhapsin Oxfordshire the reference was unimportant. Perkins and confederates planned to ransack Salisbury Cathedral.

On 15 May 1431 Lollards touting the ideas of protest laid down by John Wyclif the English heretic, launched an attack on Abingdon. Humfrey, Duke of Gloucester, the King’s uncle,captured Perkins four days later and had them executed, being hanged, drawn and quartered. John Russell, already a known criminal, was captured on the run two months later andhanged as a common thief.

There were Lollard centres in Hampshire and Sussex. In north Kent marshes, Sir John Oldcastle, a noted rebel heretic was taken from Colling Castle and executed for treason. There was another Lollard rising in 1438.

Henry VI was never in charge of the government for very longbefore he fell ill. He fell under the influence of Duke of Suffolk and his willing lieutenants the Bishops of Salisburyand Chichester. The trouble began to ebb confidence from the death of Cardinal Henry Beaufort in 1447. Beaufort had


been a stabilizing influence over the young, naïve king. His influence had also won friends for England at Rome.

Suffolk was accused of using his lieutenants in Kent and Sussex to evict tenants unlawfully from their land. His arbitrary conduct was enforced by Stephen Slegge, Sheriff ofKent 1348-9. Suffolk was accused of incompetence and financial mismanagement. Thomas Tuddenham of Oxburgh was MPfor Norfolk and a notorious thug of Suffolk’s affinity. He intimidated court officials, such as the coroner, and was known to falsify court records. He forged court records andwas accused of sheep-rustling. A famous account was the attack made by John Heydon and Lord Moleyns on John Paston’sfamily. Paston was a friend of Sir John Falstoff, the London merchant. He also owned a house in the Weald at Benenden. Lord Moleyns and a small private army attacked Paston’s wife, Margaret Mautby at her home, Gresham Manor driving her out. Paston appealed directly to the King:

‘Please it your highness, if this great insurrection, riot and wrongs and daily continuance thereof so heinously done against your Crown’s dignity and peace…should not be duly punished it shall give great boldness to them and all other misdoers to make congregations and final destruction of your liege people and laws.’1

In 1449 the King was almost bankrupted. The War in France was grinding to a halt through lack of funds and a succession of defeats at the hands of the French. Parliament refused to raise any more money for a government it distrusted. The cloth trade from City of London guilds was prevented from exporting to Flanders for fear of the French ships invading. The loss of trade and tax revenues crippled chances of recovery.

1 Schama, S History of Britain (2000) BBC Books, I, 272.29/11/20142 | P a g e


Without the Pope’s support, John Beaufort, Earl of Somerset lost battles and Gavray and then the siege of Rouen. This was the last English capital of Normandy. The humiliation and retreat from France threatened to end the Lancastrian monarchy, running a deficit of £320,000 pa. On 9 Jan 1450 afurious mob of unpaid soldiers attacked Lord Moleyns, who with Suffolk had been accused of embezzlement, and they murdered the Bishop.

Thomas Cheyne, brother of Lollard Sir John Cheyne marched with a band on London demanding the heads of the government’s leaders. A week later on 31 Jan, Cheyne was taken outside Canterbury to Westminster, where he was tried and taken to be hanged, drawn and quartered at Tyburn gallows.

Days earlier, Suffolk was impeached by Parliament accused oftrying to surrender Wallingford Castle to the French. 17 March 1450, the King issued the banishment of Suffolk from the realm effective from 1 May. The duke fled to Eastthorp his manor in Suffolk but was chased there by the angry Londoners. As he was trying to get to the continent, the duke was spotted and men of Nicholas of the Tower boarded his vessel in the Channel and behaded him on board. The body washed up on Dover beach.

On 15 April 1450, the French had defeated the English force at Battle of Formigny, leaving 4000 English dead. In the meantime, the French had raided the Isle of Sheppey at Queensborough, burning the houses to the ground. They also raided the ports of Rye and Winchelsea. News of these revolts and incursions spread like wildfire through the May Fairs. The fairs were an ideal meeting-place for local gossip to travel through the community of the realm.

Kentishmen gathered on Calehill Heath, north of Ashford. InJune 1450, “the hoste” appointed Jack Cade, assuming the name of John Mortimer, as their “Capitayne”. Cade’s originsare confused. Some say he married a squire’s daughter from 29/11/20143 | P a g e


Tandridge, Surrey, and was a physician named John Aylemere. Another story told how he was a sorcerer of the black arts living in the household of Sir Thomas Dacre, who murdered a pregnant servant girl in 1449. He fled abroad. Records recall the Escheator of Surrey and Sussex collecting for thepersonal items of a yeoman, John Cade, who “abjured the realm.” Cade of Hurstpierpoint was said to be connected to Sir Thomas Dacre, who was a cousin of the notorious Lord Saye. Some scholars have conjectured that a John Cade arrived back from the continent, after exile in December 1449, at the same time as Jack, a diminutive, appeared in the Wealden forest of Sussex and Kent. He may also have been descended from a local squire, a Robin Hood-type figure. There is also a correlation with the Percy feud; Sir Thomas Percy, alienated from the government an esquire Robert Poynings, who threw in his lot with Cade, who lived in his area of the country. Historians have discussed the extent to which Cade had noble backing for a coup, in order to replace councillors, to better advise the King, a popularrefrain for high treason. Griffith’s book In the Reign of Henry VI offers a good synthesis of the existing sources for the events. Original documentary sources vary in reliability. Often groups of sources concurred whereas on balance anothercluster may have been more accurate. In effect, Griffith coalesces the date chronology into a tighter more immediate timeframe; previously the whole rebellion was spread over six months or more. The effect of data compression is to bring dates together based on broad interpretational assumptions about timings and place. For example, Henry VI spent the time before the great meeting with Cade at Blackheath in Greenwich, and not as previously assumed in The Tower of London. The royal entourage took the circuitous route back into London to collect arms and men from the arsenal set up at the Tower, but also because of the bridge and location of convenient crossings for a host. When the King did arrive it was probably a week later than normally presumed, on 13th June. The delay is also one of the first indications of the King’s indecisive and panicky nature that led to his emotional breakdown and descent into 29/11/20144 | P a g e


madness two years later. The pressure of financial mismanagement at court and in the Exchequer coupled to a martial role for a bookish King made him withdraw his troopsrather than face a much large multitude than the nobles had first assessed. When the scouts under Lords Scales and Lisle returned estimates ranged from 30,000 to 10,000 armed and angry peasants. The events that followed have been heavily studied and catalogued on a daily basis right up until and after the death of Cade.

THE REBELLION STARTS

The extent to which the pseudonym John Mortimer was adopted to gain support from the Duke of York relies on a source that states the Council believed a coup was attempting to put him on the throne. But York proved himself a brave a loyal subject in the subjugation of Ireland. He was the most competent and successful soldier of his generation serving Henry VI. In addition he was owed considerable sums by the Exchequer, which were never paid. The government’s insolvency caused him to mortgage most of his jewels and plate to pay creditors. On York’s return to London in September 1450 from Ireland, the King exonerated him of any blame for Cade’s rebellion. York was rebuked by other Lords for presuming to be the King’s only counsellor, they disliked his direct approach. But York was only attempting to try those guilty of treason.

On 8 June2 1450 Cade advanced on Canterbury with 4000 men, where they unsuccessfully laid siege to the city. The Dean and Chapter resolutely refused them entry to the ancient precincts, wherein lay the body of the late Black Prince.

COMPLAINT OF THE COMMONS OF KENT

2 Griffith, The Reign of Henry VI, (1998), - Griffith places the date of the advance on Canterbury as 7th June 1450.29/11/20145 | P a g e


The complaint was a document of general grievances, but therein lay specific points. Throughout the period of 1440’s lawless banditry had been on the increase and this attributed t the corrupt mismanagement of Duke of Suffolk’s regime. Many believed he had been conspiratorially implicated in the death of Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, whohad died in suspicious circumstances. Rumours abounded thathigh taxes and “false charges” were a punishment for the murder of Suffolk in the Narrow seas. In Kent, the “simple and poor people” as they called themselves, were to see their county turned into a wild Royal hunting forest. The Sheriff of 1449, had been proven corrupt and forcibly removed form post. Local justice was not properly administered and consequentially law and order had perceptibly broken down. The so called “evil counsellors” were seen as opportunists employed, nit by the traditional royal dukes, around the crown, but the nouveau riche, only eager to extort for money, property and estates, through dubious legal actions against taxpayers. The King forced to “live on the Commons” was being bankrupted by counsellorslining their own pockets for profit. The last accusation was largely unfounded, but the feeling that he was not advised by “true lords…and all the earls and barons of this land: and then shall he be the richest king Christian” was motivated by enmity to the new middle classes. Those who had newly acquired lands were apt to pervert the king’s justice. They evidently believed themselves above the law.

The extent to which Cade’s followers were revolutionaries has been disputed. One was a knight of the realm, several gentlemen and merchants. The wealthy had therefore joined locally, on a countywide basis.

The news of the rebellion reached Parliament in session at Leicester. The Duke of Buckingham was despatched with the Earls of Oxford, Devon, and Arundel, and his lieutenant Viscount Beaumont to arrest the traitors. The King had found

29/11/20146 | P a g e


out about the rebellion at least by 6th June.3 But the rebels were already encamped at Blackheath on the spot wherethe Peasant’s Revolt had taken place. The City was guarded night and day with no military personnel in or out. He sent word to Newport Pagnell where Buckingham played host toViscount Beaumont, and Lords Scales, Rivers, Dudley and Lovel – all experienced soldiers, who had fought in France with duke of Bedford. The following day, on 11th the rebels were encamped at Blackheath, dug in with staked ditches. Buckingham and Lord Rivers arrived at London with the advanced party on 12th June. Later that day the Archbishops, dukes of Exeter and Norfolk, and several earls and barons moved into Kent with the King and a large party. King Henry was at St John’s Priory, Clerkenwell4 on the night of 13th June.

Orders were sent on 15th June to reconnoitre the rebels ordering them to disband. Then Earl of Northumberland, LordScales and Lord Lisle’s detachment saw the size of the rebelforce they abandoned any idea of clearing the fields. Like Richard II, Henry VI hoped to entice the rebels away with contemporaneous royal pardon. King Henry was planning a confrontation – but on the emissaries return the sheer numbers discouraged, and they advised the king against. Henry withdrew to London, sending out others in his place. Archbishop Stafford, Kent’s largest landowner, Cardinal Kemp, born a kentishman, and a former bishop of Rochester, bishop of Winchester, William Wayneflete, also a Kent landowner, and Beaumont, Constable of England were the envoys.

The discussions took place on 16th June. Cade tried to reassure that he was a loyal subject, but urged that the King rid himself of evil counsellor, the Duke of Suffolk. The rebels urged the ‘traitors’ be replaced with Buckingham,3 Ibid.4 Ibid., - some theorists had estimated wrongly that the King was still at the Tower of London. He moved form the priory to Greenwich, to be close to the River Thames, and naval protection.29/11/20147 | P a g e


York, Exeter and Norfolk. Cade’s petition also mentioned the evils of purveyance – the practice of provisioning ‘in the king’s name’ for extortionate amounts. It also criticised the abuse of summonses, the restrictive practicesof Statute of labourers, and the abusive county officers in Kent.

‘We say that our Sovereign Lord may well understand that he hath had false counsel, for his lords are lost,his merchandise is lost, his commons destroyed, the seais lost, France is lost, himself so poor that he may not [pay] for his meat or drink; he oweth more than ever did [any] King of England, and yet daily his traitors that be about him wait where ever [any]thing should come to him by his law5, and they ask it from him.’6

THE KING’S REACTION

By the time the lead party of Northumberland, Scales and Lord Grey of Ruthin arrived in the early morning on 18 June,the rebels had fled into the Wealden Forest. Stafford brothers, Sir Humphrey and William were ambushed with forty men at Sevenoaks, and all were killed. Lord Dudley, Lord Rivers, Sir Thomas Stanley and Thomas Daniel, led a raiding party into Kent, looting and pillaging at Chipstead, from Otford, into Sevenoaks, and down to Tonbridge. Henry VI then ordered, perhaps against his will, Henry Holland, to arrest James, Lord Fiennes, and put him in the Tower. The King regretted his decision and vainly tried to reverse it by allowing Fiennes to escape, but Constable Holland barred entry to the Tower. The King left London on 25 June, despite entreaties from Lord Mayor to stay, and went to Kenilworth from Berkhamsted Castle.

5 As forfeitures of the lands and goods of condemned felons.6 Storey, 65; Stow, Annales, 388-9; Select Documents of English Constitutional History, Chrimes & Brown29/11/20148 | P a g e


On 29 June the rebels captured William Aiscough, bishop of Salisbury saying mass at Edington church. He was dragged toa nearby hill and hacked to death. Meanwhile, Cade appeared on Blackheath and Sir John Falstoff was sent out toget the petition, but it was his manservant, John Payn who saved Cade from being branded a French traitor by making thepetition known. He was saved by Robert Poynings, Cade’s sword-bearer (in 1497 Poyning’s Law governed Ireland on the rebel emergent threat to Henry VII).

In July Cade’s men entered Southwark looting houses and burning. Cade tried in vain to stop them. John Payn tried to save his master’s house, but lost all his possessions. Even though Cade executed a man called Parys for indiscipline, it did little to end the burnings.

THE REBELS LOOT LONDON

On 3 July the rebels, cut the drawbridge ropes, and as the bridge fell poured onto the City streets. Cade dressed in the blue velvet of the slain Sir Humphrey Stafford, rode in pomp into the city. The rebels looted Alderman Philip Malpas, palatial home. On 4 July, the citizens were left todefend themselves. The King and court had fled to Kenilworth. As the Oyer et Terminer sessions opened at Guildhall, Cade replaced the judges with his own men; Thomas, Lord Scales, and Lord Mayor Thomas Charlton and somealdermen were allowed to stay to judge the so-called traitors. Lord Saye and Sele was accused for losing Henry VI’s French possessions. John Trevilian and Thomas Daniel were also put on trial for implementing Suffolk’s notoriously extortionate policies. They were also accused of plotting the death of Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester. The ever-popular uncle of the King was arrested on 20 Feb 1447, accused of treason, and died at Bury St Edmunds, on 23 Feb. Humphrey was liked in the City of London for his patronage of the arts, but the unpopularity of his wife, Eleanor

29/11/20149 | P a g e


(Cobham) perhaps was best seen in her brother, Lord Cobham’sadherence to the Yorkist affinity.

RECRIMINATION AND PUNISHMENT

Cade saw Lord Saye taken and beheaded at Standard-in-the-Cheap, his degraded corpse dragged through the streets. William Crowmer, Cade’s son-in-law was also executed.

After looting for two days and nights, London citizens attempted to evict the rebels from the capital. Cade gathered his men together to assault the city. He opened Marshalsea Prison and let out the inmates, as the Peasant’s revolt had done. Aided by the garrison from the Tower, Cade’s men cleared the streets of rioters on the night of 5th July, and won control of London Bridge.

Cade massed on the south bank – while Lord Scales and Capt Matthew Gough gathered the king’s troops. The Londoners sidehad the Tower’s arsenal, but Cade burnt the drawbridge as the fighting raged all evening and night.

On 6 and 7 July 1450 some of Cade’s followers were registered for the offered royal pardon. Cade himself signed as John Mortimer - to resemble the royal rebels on the Welsh Marches.

Some of Cade’s men continued to ravage northern Kent. Cade failed to take Queensborough Castle. Robert Spenser was executed at Rochester for trying to raise a rebellion there in Cade’s name.

On 12 July, Alexander Iden, Sheriff of Kent harried and chased Cade to Heathfield, Sussex where he was severely wounded.7 The following day Cade died on the journey to custody in London. His body was cut into quarters and the 7 Some accounts state the place was called “Hothfield”, nearby and had latterly been altered.29/11/201410 | P a g e


parts sent to Blackheath, Norwich, Salisbury and London. The rebels in Norwich later repossessed the parts there. On21 July the Exchequer enumbrated the inventory of stolen goods from Cade’s cache, which included silver and precious jewels.

The Council continued to allay fears amongst the rebels.

Henry VI sent Commissions of Oyer et Terminer, appointed on 1st August8 into Kent and Sussex to investigate the rebels grievances. Archbishop of Canterbury, Duke of Buckingham and a number of lawyerly judges presided over Quarter Sessions at Rochester, Maidstone, Canterbury and Dartford from 18th August until about 12th December. Many of those indicted were of blood royal or related to the administration. Lord Rivers, Lord Dudley, Sir Robert Wingfield, and Thomas Daniel were accused of horse-stealing and money theft in June 1450.9 Their followers had been allowed to take advantage of the rebels under investigation and ravaged parts of Kent and the Wealden.

Alexander Iden was held to have robbed Henry Wilkins, a henchman of Cade, and held him prisoner against his will. Previous Officers of the Crown were likewise chastised as guilty: Stephen Slegge, undersheriff to Lord Saye in 1442, extorting 10 marks to arrange an acquittal. Slegge, Sheriffhimself in 1449, was accused of laying false charges during his term of office, and his undersheriff of being an extortioner and oppressor of the people. Likewise Crowmer’sdeputies were accused of the same crimes. Lord Saye had used Slegge to evict certain tenantry, namely Humphrey Evias, and had threatened Reynold Peckham with the gallows if he did not sell his land, wherein he was defrauded. Slegge had forced Lord Saye’s tenants pay more rent than customary law allowed.

8 CPR, 1446-52, 388.9 Storey, 6729/11/201411 | P a g e


Robert East, keeper of Maidstone gaol had detained a prisoner without declaring the fact to Justices, and detained a woman without charge in order to deal with her husband. These misdeeds lent substance to “The Complaint ofthe Commons of Kent”.

Est and Slegge continued their murderous course through the countryside; little justice was given the rebels. The 1440’s was a period of economic depression, and poor harvests. Rents were rising with the population increases, and food prices falling. This made the peasants confident, but the landholders rich: they were unable to afford market prices, and profits were taken in higher rents. Some tenants successfully renegotiated rents downwards, and othertowns, such as Rye evicted those who would not support the name of Jack Cade.

In the last week of August 1450 and throughout September riots broke out in Sussex and the Weald, Wiltshire, Essex and Kent. In the latter county events occurred in Margate, Canterbury, and Chatham.10 But the rebellion dispersed almost as soon as it had began.11 In 1456 men were still rioting in Hawkhurst.12

After each commission, a strongly protected force went into the county, sometimes with the King present. On one occasion, a group of men stripped naked to the waist, knelt to beg for mercy before the King with ropes around their necks; in preparation for their imminent hanging. It was the King’s prerogative to grant instant mercy, irrespective of the decision of the court or commission.

10 Ed Virgoe, “ Some Ancient Indictments…Kent, 1450-2”, Documents Illustrativeof medieval Kentish history, Kent Arch Soc, 1964, 215-43.11 CPR, 1446-52, 460-1, 469, 472, 503; KB.9/133 (Wilts)12 KB.9/4929/11/201412 | P a g e


Cade was condemned by Parliament as a “false traitor for evermore”.13 A bill of attainder was passed in November 1450. After six months of little change, a new commission went into Kent in December 1450 with orders to round up the perpetrators of the rebellion of July. 30 men were hanged in February 1451, when Henry VI came back to London he passed 41 hanged, a “harvest of heads”. Meanwhile 3000 penniless men were begging for mercy at Blackheath.

The leading players in the forthcoming civil war also headedthe commissions. Somerset in autumn 1450, York in December 1450, and Salisbury in 1456, when the last commission was sent out.14 York, who had been created a duke in 1448, was since the death of John, Duke of Somerset in 1444, the leading magnate. Somerset’s brother, Edmund had inherited the title and military responsibilities in Normandy. By contrast, York, who had not been paid for two years, was a success in Ireland. He landed in Normandy expecting to march to London to pick up the money owed. Unfortunately the Lord Keeper of the Privy Seal, Adam Moleyns, had a violent disagreement with York, the outsider as to the financial claims made on the Exchequer. John, duke of Somerset, had on the other hand, been advanced the vast sum of £25,000, when he was forced to retreat home in disgrace, he took his own life. Meanwhile, Lord Treasurer, Lord Cromwell, an arch-incompetent as administrator, had resignedon 6th July 1450, unable to continue in control of the King’s finances. Suffolk had thought he was rid of York forten years Lieutenancy in Ireland, and had not anticipated a return at the head of his troops to march into London.

York for his own part was an arrogant soldier, and undiplomatic politician, who placed all the blame for Frenchresurgence on Somerset’s shoulders. He calculated that the loss of Normandy would appeal to Englishmen’s discontent with Suffolk’s regime. York was a puffed up populist, and usually self-seeking in his desire for more power, for 13 Rot Parl. V, 22414 E.404/67, no.38; CPR. 1446-52, 435; KB.9/4929/11/201413 | P a g e


example over the Commissions of administration of Justice. It was in York’s opinion the Somerset’s influence over the King that had secured his command in France. It was rumoured that York was also over-ambitious as well as being an overmighty subject. His supposed courtship of Margaret Beaufort was intended to reproduce an heir to Henry VI. TheKing was pliable, and indecisive, and so could not be reliedupon to guarantee the Beaufort’s existing exclusion from theroyal blood line. The Inquest of 4 July 1450 was at the height of the Cade crisis, and critical in demonising York as blameworthy. Somerset was accused, at the same tribunal that condemned Lord Saye to death, of conspiring with ThomasKent, clerk of King’s Council, and Edward Grimston, a household official, of hatching a plot around the time of the early death of a popular Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, to secure the invasion and succession of the King of France to the English crown. Somerset tried to justify himself in Parliament as being seeking the hand of Anne Beauchamp, heiress to duke of Warwick for his son. But this dispensation was not within his power, and Anne married someone else. But Anne was far richer than Margaret, and itwould seem Suffolk was only interested in the money.

York’s supporters were disconcerted by the attempts of Suffolk to push their champion aside through a dynastic dalliance. York stood up in Parliament threatening impeachment of Suffolk, the royal favourite. But York went further than the arrest of Suffolk, he wanted to replace, Somerset as he was the most senior legitimate royal Duke, but by a female line. By the end of 1446, York was owed vast sums by the Exchequer, which remained largely unpaid for four years.

MERCENARIES IN LONDON.

On 1st August 1450, the Duke of Somerset entered London withhis Normandy veterans. By 15th August the soldiers near to mutiny, Somerset was appointed to the King’s Council. Hypothetically this may have been York’s cue to leave 29/11/201414 | P a g e


Ireland and anxiously return home. Speculatively, the otherreason was that he had heard that Cade’s rebellion had been crushed, so he hurried to take part in the clean up operation. He finally landed at Anglesey on 30th August. Somerset had not delayed in issuing orders for his arrest, which were strangely ignored. York, the master tactician avoided all attempts to take him and arrived in London with 4000 men. He demanded to see the King, to whom he pleaded loyalty and obedience. King Henry, probably eager to see peace return to the realm was willing to accept York’s version of events. York now zealously turned to arrest the king’s enemies’ guilt of treason; although he was upbraided for assuming that he alone could counsel the King.

YORK AND THE COMMONS

When Parliament met on 5th November 1450 York sought to get his and royal debts paid by the Commons. MPs seized upon this to blame the King for not living within his means. TheCommons thought the only remedy would be a resumption of grants to the crown. In exchange for a vote of general taxation, the King was forced to accept that the commons could appropriate certain regular royal revenues. Four Treasurers (or commissioners) were appointed to be responsible for distributing money to army arrears. The King was urged to “live of his own”.

The impeachment of Suffolk as the Complaint of the commons of Kent was aimed at curbing legal abuses. York was not a populist or revolutionary for he used all his weight to support the nobility’s cause, but he recognised the opportunity to utilise his military record to purge the court of evil counsellors who supported Suffolk. In Autumn 1450, York’s petition to the King was the mirror image of Cade’s supplication, “much after the commons’ desire”. In his Norfolk holdings, calls went out to arrest Sir Thomas Tuddenham, the servant of Suffolk. Meanwhile York attemptedto recruit the Duke of Norfolk’s knights' tenure in support of his cause. Norfolk would train York’s knights and play a29/11/201415 | P a g e


big part in the army of the Yorkist House. Only the Earl ofDevon was his other notable friend at this period. But Devon’s quarrel was localised to his own county holdings against Bonville and Wiltshire. Later, Devon defected to the Lancastrians, opposed to the influence of the Nevilles. The Mowbray family of Norfolk was an ancient lineage with royal connections, who was aggrieved at being alienated fromthe Council by Suffolk. Local rivalry of Mowbray’s “White Lion” versus Suffolk extended to landholdings and property vying for primacy in the county. On being made a Commissioner for Oyer et Terminer in February 1451, Norfolk made no secret of the fact that he wanted to “have the principal rule and governance through all his shire of whichwe bear or name.”15

After Suffolk’s murder Norfolk pursued his widow for his land and property rights. Norfolk blamed Suffolk for his treatment at the hands of John Heydon, a gaoler at Kenilworth castle in 1440. He was again incarcerated at The Tower in 1448, when arguing with Sir Robert Wingfield, another Suffolk henchman.

Wingfield was placed at court because he was a tenant at Letheringham, Suffolk of the duke of Norfolk. Wingfield wasemployed by Norfolk as steward in 1444. So when Norfolk in a fit of pique found out that Wingfield was crooked, immediately wanted to evict. Ransacking Letheringham Hall, he demanded the return of Hoo Manor, which he had let Wingfield. The court heard in several cases that Norfolk should be bound over to repay a proportion of the £5000 Wingfield had claimed. But Wingfield’s ill-gotten gains hadbeen acquired by murder, robbery and looting of property. He encouraged poaching on estates and rescued two of his accomplices from prison. Furthermore he intimidated jurors and offered blackmail and extortion for the murder of one ofNorfolk’s retainers. Although bound over to appear in courton 9 Feb 1448, he was offered a royal pardon only days later

15 Paston Letters, I, no.17329/11/201416 | P a g e


and absolved of his offences. Wingfield was one of the original bodyguards who had brought Queen Margaret over fromFrance, and thus was recommended to her by Suffolk for a pardon.16 On 15 July 1452, William, duke of Suffolk and Bishop of Norwich sat in Council with John Fortescue, Chief Justice of England on the board of inquiry hearing Wingfield’s petition for restored lands.17 In the meantime,the earl had been elevated to a Marquessate. The tensions in noble rivalries had escalated the dispute. Wingfield’s complaint against Norfolk’s harassment of a tenant led his committal to the Tower on 28 August 1448. He was released six days later on 3 September 1448.18

Norfolk held Framlingham Castle from where he used an Esquire Charles Nowell to do his thuggery. During the period of Cade’s rebellion a reign of terror was wreaked on East Anglia. According to Paston, not even royal officials dared to arrest the offenders. The garrison of Framlingham,including Sir William Ashton and Charles Nowell. They were said to have plotted with Sir William Oldhall MP, York’s chamberlain to usurp the King. Oldhall was Speaker of the Commons, and made no secret of his support for York and disdain for the King. Yorkist propaganda claimed that Suffolk and bishops of Salisbury and Chichester had planned to replace King Henry with Charles VII of France. He accusedthem of being the real enemies of England. “Imperilling thekingdom” and with the backing of the Commons they planned a general rising. At Bury St Edmunds was declared their leader of the revolt. On 26 May 1450 letters were sent calling on the Men of Kent to rise against Henry VI as he collected his army from Ireland. However the veracity of this accusation was called into doubt by the evidence of blatantly biased testimony of Edward Grimston, and Sir MilesStapleton, traditional supporters of Plantagenet/Lancastrianmonarchies.19 Norfolk’s open rebellion and avowal of York’s 16 PPC, V, 20317 CPR, 1446-52, 23618 Six Town Chronicles, 12319 KB.9/271, no.12729/11/201417 | P a g e


candidacy must have embarrassed the duke, who had always maintained he would clean up the law and administration of justice. Norfolk failed as a result of his affinity with York, to get his candidates elected to the parliament of 1450, the last session of which was held at Leicester.20 Thepractice of bastard feudalism was reminiscent of the Robber Barons of the Anarchy or 13th Century and would have worriedparliamentarians of the period, who were amongst others richmetropolitan merchants and lawyers.

York turned up for parliament in London on 23 November with more than 3000 men with the duke of Norfolk and earl of Devon supporting. Warwick arrived with a huge private host.On 30 Nov the mob attacked Westminster demanding the heads of the counsellors. Somerset’s lodgings were attacked at Blackfriars on 1st December. The earl of Devon rescued his friend York as the mob chased him, by taking his barge down the Thames. York lodged in the Tower to shelter from the mob.

The next day he announced martial law and threatened any rioter would be hanged. Then the King and all the lords marched through the city and called for a declaration of lawand order. York took on the role of champion of order in the king’s name in summer 1451. But he remained scrupulous and obedient to the legitimate king, and managed to save Somerset from the mob.

The Commons warmed to York’s self-appointed stewardship. His chamberlain Oldhall was elected Speaker, and there was an inquiry launched into the murder of former Speaker William Tresham. The chancellor told the commons that they had to raise funds to protect the seas, and defend Gascony. The commons had not bothered to raise the tax granted in thelast parliament; they conceded the point this time and votedanother act of resumption. Finally they appropriated

20 Macfarlane, “Parliament and Bastard Feudalism” 29/11/201418 | P a g e


customs revenues for military expenses before Christmas 1450.

BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR JACK CADE’S REBELLION.

KB 9/109, no.25E.404/66, no 15KB 9/73Six Town Chronicles, ed. R.Fenley (Oxford, 1911), 129Calendar of Close Rolls 1447-1454, 194-5KB 9/263, no. 20, part 4Original Letters Illustrative of English History, ed. H Ellis, Series II (1827), vol.1, 114J Stow, Annales, or a General Chronicle of England (1631), 387The Brut II, 472KB 9/230A, NO. 24CPR 1441-1446, 200, 422H.M. Lyle, The Rebellion of Jack Cade Historical Association Pamphlet G.16, 1950HMC, Eighth Report 1881 , Appendix 1, Section 2, para. 2672 – Repository at Magdalen College, Oxford PL. I, no.99Stow, Annales, 388-389SD, 290-1KB 9/133-134KB 9/109Calendar of Pipe Rolls, CPR 1446-1452, 420-421, 388, 435 460-1, 469, 472, 503 - Repository: Devon History Centre; and formerly Somerset Studies Library“Some Ancient indictments in King’s Bench referring to Kent 1450-1452”, ed. R. Virgoe, Documents Illustrative of Medieval Kentish Society (Kent Archaeological Society, Record Publication XVIII, 1964), 215-243

KB 9/133KB 9/49E 404/67, no.3829/11/201419 | P a g e


Rotuli Parliamentorum V, 224

GLOSSARY

E 28 Exchequer of Receipt, Council and Privy SealE 101 Exchequer K R – Various AccountsE 404 Exchequer of Receipt, Warrants for IssuesKB 9 King’s Bench, Ancient IndictmentsKB 27 King’s Bench, Coram rege RollsCCR Calendar of Close Rolls (PRO, 1892-1963)CPR Calendar of Patent Rolls (PRO, 1891- ) PL Paston Letters, ed. J Gairdner (1910) Rot Parl Rotuli Parliamentorum (1783) SD Select Documents of English Constitutional

History, 1307-1485, ed. S B Chrimes and A L Brown (1961)

TRHS Transactions of Royal Historical Society

WHAT LAY BEHIND MERCENARY BEHAVIOUR IN WEALDEN RISINGS OF 1450?

Brown, A L ‘The King’s Councillors in 15th Century’, TRHS, 5th series 19 (1969)

Brown, A L., The early history of the clerkship of the Council, (Glasgow, 1969)

Bush, M.L., ‘The Risings of the Commons in England, 1381-1549’, in J Denton, ed., Orders and Hierarchies in late Medieval and Renaissance Europe (Manchester, 1999), ch.7

Curry, A., ‘The First English Standing Army? Military Organization in Lancastrian Normandy, 1420-1450’,

Griffiths, R.A., ‘Duke Richard of York’s intentions in 1450 and the origins of the Wars of the Roses’, Journal of Medieval History, 1 (1975), 187-205

Griffiths, R.A, ‘The Winchester Session of the 1449 Parliament: A Further Comment’, Huntington Library Quarterly, 42 (1978-9), 181-91.

29/11/201420 | P a g e


Griffiths, R.A., ‘The Sense of Dynasty in the Reign of HenryVI’, ROSS, 1979, 13-31

Hare, J.N., ‘The Wiltshire Risings of 1450: political and economic discontent in mid-fifteenth century England’, Southern History, 4 (1982), 13-31 [repository: Westcountry studies Library].

McFarlane, K B, ‘England: The Lancastrian Kings 1399-1461’, Cambridge Medieval History, 8 (1936, reprinted 1959), 363-417

Virgoe, R., ‘The Composition of the King’s Council 1437-1461’, BIHR, 43 (1970), 134-160

Virgoe, R., ‘The Parliamentary Subsidy of 1450’, British Institute of Historical Research (BIHR)

Virgoe, R., ‘The murder of James Andrew: Suffolk Faction in the 1430’s’, Proceedings of the Suffolk Institute of Archaeology and History, 34 (1980), 263-8

Virgoe, R., ‘William Tailboys and Lord Cromwell: crime and politics in Lancastrian England’, BJRL, 55 (1972-3), 459-82

SECONDARY SOURCES

Allmand, C T, Lancastrian Normandy 1415-1450, (Oxford 1983)

Bagley, J.J., Margaret of Anjou, Queen of England, (1948)

Bohna, Mark., ‘Armed force and civic legitimacy in Jack Cade’s revolt, 1450’, HER, 118 (2003), 563-82

Burne, Alfred H., The Hundred Years War: a military history, London: Folio society, 2005, 445-454.

Christie, Mabel E., Reign of Henry VI, (1922)

Ferguson, J., English Diplomacy 1422-1461 (Oxford, 1972)29/11/201421 | P a g e


Gillingham, J.B., The Wars of the Roses: Peace and Conflict in Fifteenth Century England (1981)

Griffiths, R.A, The Reign of Henry VI (2nd ed., Stroud, 1998) Griffiths, R.A, Patronage, The Crown and the provinces in later medieval

England, Gloucester, 1981 Griffiths, R.A, Patronage, The Crown and the provinces in later medieval

England Gloucester, 1981

Griffiths, R.A., ‘The Trial of Eleanor Cobham: an episode inthe full of Duke Humphrey of Gloucester’, BJRL, 51 (1968-9), 381-99.

Griffiths, R.A., ‘Wales and the Marches’, CHRIMES, 1972, 145-72

Dictionary of National Biography (revised ed. 2000)

Nairn, T., The Enchanted Glass: Britain and its Monarchy (2nd ed, London, 1994)

Radford, L.B., Henry Beaufort, (1908)

Vickers, K.H., Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, (1907)

29/11/201422 | P a g e

Jack Cade and his rebellion of Kentish Men in the reign of Henry VI, 1450.

Documents

Transcript of Jack Cade and his rebellion of Kentish Men in the reign of Henry VI, 1450.