Constitutional History.
192
[chap.
which, as the title of the duke was indefeasible, would save the
king's dignity, would satisfy the duke, and enable the lords
ιr .nry ɪs to themselves to escape from the guilt of perjury : the king was
iɪfe, and the to ζ keep the crowns and his estate and dignity royal during
Succeedhim. his life, and the said duke and his heirs to succeed him in the
same.’ This proposal was approved by the lords, who deter-
mined to leave to the king the choice of acceptance or refusal.
Henry received the chancellor graciously, and heard his tale,
and then, as the record continues, t inspired with the grace of
the Holy Ghost1, and in eschewing of effusion of Christian
blood, by good and sad deliberation and advice had with all his
lords spiritual and temporal, condescended to accord to be
made between him and the said duke, and to be authorised by
Oathstaken. the authority of the parliament.’ The agreement was drawn
up ; the duke and his sons were not to molest the king ; he
was declared heir to the crowns ; any attempt on his life was
made high treason ; the principality of Wales and the earldom
of Chester were made over to him ; an income of 10,000 marks
was assigned to him and his sons, and they swore to the lords,
Henry and the lords to them, oaths of mutual defence2. The unfortunate
king, unable to make even a protest for the rights of his son, was
prevailed on to ratify the agreement; the act of 1406 was re-
pealed, and on the 31 st of October the transaction was completed.
rflt was said that the duke had chosen the ι st of November for
his coronation in case the lords had accepted him as king.
Question as Although the decision of the question of succession was thus
position of made to be the king’s personal act, and the lords present availed
the ρarlia- .
ment of themselves oɪ the compromise to save themselves from the guilt
146°' of perjury, there can he little doubt that the parliament con-
tained hardly any of the king’s partisans, and but few of the
lay lords who had taken the oath of allegiance a year before.
1 i The Kynge for fere of dethe graunted hym the crowne, for a man that
hathe but Iytylle wytte wylle soone be aferyd of dethe, and yet I truste
and beleeve there was no man that wolde doo him bodely harɪne Gregory,
Chr. p. 208.
2 Hot. Parl. v. 377-381 ; Engl. Chr. pp. ιoo-ιo6. According to the last
authority the duke was made protector, prince of Wales, and earl of Chester.
XVIIi.] Battle of Wakefielfl. 193
Of those lay lords the duke of Buckingham, the earl of Shrews-
bury, lords Beaumont1 Scales, and Egremont were dead, and
many others stayed away. The dukes of Somerset and Exeter,
the earls of Devonshire and Northumberland, and the lords'
Clifford, Dacre, and Neville were in the north. Lords Grey
and Audley had changed sides. The list of the triers of petitions
contains only the names of Warwick and Salisbury among the
earls, and Grey of Ruthyn, Dacre, Fitz-Warin, Scrope, Bonne-
ville, Berners, and Rougemont-Grey among the barons ɪ. The
commons had little to do with the business, save by assenting
to the decision of the lords. If betrayal or tergiversation is to The clerical
be imputed to any under the very difficult circumstances in
which they found themselves, the blame must lie most heavily
on the spiritual lords ; on Bourchier and Neville, now the
avowed partisans of the duke. Yet it was probably owing to
their reluctance to incur the blame of perjury that Henry was
secured in possession of the throne for life. The whole baronage
was summoned to this parliament, but it can scarcely be re-
garded as so free or full an assembly of the estates as even the
parliament of Coventry had been. Its work lasted but a few
weeks, and already the march of events was too rapid to wait
on the deliberations of any such assembly.
355. The battle OfWakefield enabled the Lancastrian party BatUeof
x m Wakefield
to avenge the blood of Suffolk, Somerset, and Buckingham. Dec. 29,1460.
York and Salisbury had gone northwards to thwart the designs
of the queen, who had collected a considerable force by letters
issued in the king’s name2. On the 21 st of December they
had lost a part of their force in a struggle with the duke of
Somerset at Worksop3; on the 29th they were overwhelmed
at Wakefield by the united forces of Somerset, Northumberland,
and Neville. The duke was killed in the battle, his son the Death of
earl of Rutland was slain by lord Clifford ; the earl of Salis- Salisbury,
bury was taken prisoner and beheaded at Pomfret by the York-
shiremen, whom he had offended when administering the duchy
1 Rot. Parl. v. 373.
2 AVhethamstede, ɪ. 3S1 ; Eng. Chr. p. 106,
3 W. Wore. p. 775.
VOL. III.