His consti'
tutional
position.
Weakness of
the govern-
ment.
Comparison
of Somerset
and York.
160 Constitutional History. [chap.
trator left, and the more so perhaps when they saw in him the
rightful heir to the throne.
Yet Richard of York had no such claim as Henry IV to the
character of a constitutional deliverer. He had none of the
great traditions which, however illusory, had hung round the
early Lancasters, earl Thomas and earl Henry. His father had
suffered death as a traitor, and it was only by an act of im-
politic equity that his blood had escaped the taint of legal corrup-
tion. His uncle, under the titles of Rutland, Aumâle, and York,
had been connected with every conspiracy that was framed
against Henry IV, and had been more than once imprisoned.
His grandfather Edmund, the most worthless of the brood of
Edward III, had been little else than a self-indulgent courtier.
Any prince moreover who should come to the throne as the mere
heir of Richard II would be likely to claim it free from all the con-
stitutional restrictions on prerogative, which had been accepted
and acted on by the three Henries. Nor, finally, was the king-
dom at all in the condition to need a deliverer like Henry IV.
It was exhausted, impoverished, and in disorder, but it was not
unconstitutionally ruled. It was weakness, not tyranny, that lay
at the root of the national distress. The administration of justice
was sound, but the power of enforcing justice was to some extent
wanting; the constant occurrence of local riots, the predatory
bands which kept whole districts in alarm, the difficulty of collect-
ing taxes, the general excitement of popular feeling arising on the
national disgrace abroad, all called for a strong administration.
Henry himself connived at no injustice ; Somerset’s incapacity
was shown only by his misadventures abroad ; and there is no
reason to suppose that he wished to play the despot at home.
But York’s position was too full of danger to the crown to make
it possible to lodge the administration in his hands; whilst in
his own estimation it was such as entitled him to nothing lower
than the first place in court and council. It is not for the
historian to attempt too minutely to adjust the balance between
the two parties on moral or political grounds ; neither York
nor Somerset was a monster of vice nor a paragon of virtue;
neither was endowed with much political skill or showed para-
XVIIi.] Interference of the (hike of York. 161
mount ability in administration : the constitutional position
indeed of Somerset was more defensible than that of York ; but
Somerset was thoroughly unpopular, and York, owing to that
unpopularity, gained the character of a popular champion, the
representative of legitimate succession and administrative re-
form.
The death of Suffolk had left Henry without a minister, and Somerset
Cade’s rebellion had proved not only that he could not act for France and
himself, but that there were troubles ahead which might task a Ireland,
strong man. Yorkwas tired of Ireland, where his friends thought
him an exile, Somerset had let France slip out of his hands.
It was a race who should come home first and take the kingdom
in hand. York seems to have reached England before his rival,
but Somerset had a strong ally in the queen, and he was not
far behind. The capture of Cherbourg on the 12th of August
set him free from all duty in Normandy; on the nth of Sep-
tember he was made High Constable of England ɪ. Before this visit of York
the duke of York had visited the king. His return was not un-
expected, and measures had been taken, justified no doubt by the
belief that he was implicated in Cade’s rebellion, to intercept him
and to prevent him from collecting his friends2. Notwith- His com-
standing these precautions he forced his way to London, and
made his formal complaint to the king. He complained of the
attacks made on himself and his servants, and of a proposal to
indict him for treason. The king in reply told him how much
appearances had been against him, how he was implicated in
the murder of IIoleyns and commonly reputed to be hostile to
Henry himself; concluding however with the admission that he
regarded him as his faithful subject, words which amounted to
an apology for the mistrust that had been shown hims. In a He obtains
further remonstrance, presented somewhat later, he embodied a promise to
some of the complaints of the rebels. He told the king that iio,λ council ;
there was common complaint that justice was not duly ministered üâmêntü
to offenders, especially those indicted for treason ; he promised oa'led'
ɪ Rymer, xi. 276. 2 Chr. Giles, p. 42.
3 The bill of complaints presented to Henry is given in Stow, pp. 353,
354. These documents are placed by Stow under the year 1452, but they
belong, as Mr. Gairdner says (Past. Lett. i. p. lɪ), to 1450.
VOL. III. M