Why was London so full of rebels in 1450?

Why was London so full of rebels in 1455?

The blame for the popular uprising of the summer of 1450, known as Cade’s rebellion, can be laid clearly at the feet of the King, Henry VI. While it is true that the rebels blamed the ‘corrupt’ nobility that formed Henry’s counsel for the problems England faced, they did so out of respect for the crown, rather than the man who wore it. Unable to target the real problem at the heart of English government, Jack Cade and his followers ruthlessly murdered those who they felt shared the blame; men like Saye and Crowmer were savagely executed because of a combination of local and national complaints regarding law, order and the nobility, but these rested entirely on Henry’s inadequacy as a ruler. London was so full of rebels in 1450 because Henry mis-managed his nobility and counsellors, resulting in a loss of land in France, the crown’s wealth and the upholding of law and order across the nation.

The King’s blind acceptance of Suffolk’s rule led directly to both national disquiet and the immediate events of 1450. The major cause of Cade’s rebellion can be clearly linked to the role of Suffolk and other apparently corrupt advisors to the King such as the Lords Saye, Dudley, Beaumont, Sudeley along with Bishop Ascough. These men, supporters of the now murdered Suffolk, were accused of similar crimes to the man whom they had pledged allegiance; betraying England in France; preventing elements of the nobility from advising the King; hijacking the law courts for their own benefit; and robbing the King whilst enriching themselves. Ultimately, these problems can be linked to Henry’s inability to fulfil contemporary expectations of kingship.

National complaints lay at the heart of the rebels’ distress in 1450, their own local concerns reflected across England. These complaints concerned the seeming breakdown of the crown’s ability to control foreign policy, law and money. All of these were linked to directly to the men who Henry had allowed to advise him, men such as Suffolk. The principle criticism of these corrupt advisors was the manner in which they had meekly surrendered English lands in France. By late 1449 the majority of English land in Normandy had been lost following an ill-advised resumption of the conflict between England and France. This resumption was undertaken by Suffolk, whom had been appointed as the Lieutenant of France in 1428 and who Henry had continued to entrust this command to. This was a crucial misjudgement by Suffolk, resulting in defeat at Formigny in April 1450 and Caen being surrounded in June 1450. The reason for this military failure, according to the rebels, was Suffolk’s personal greed; the rebels’ written protest claimed that Suffolk had pursued military failure in exchange for bribes.

Suffolk, and others, were blamed not only for the loss of French land, but also for defrauding the crown. Ultimately, Henry’s inability to manage the giving of land and titles effectively was a direct contributor to this issue, but the personal motivations of the lords involved must also be considered. Men such as Saye and Sudelely, gained far more land from the crown than befitted their new positions, with Saye building up territory in Kent; while Suffolk received extensive lands in East Anglia and the Thames Valley. This had two effects. Firstly, these lords were seen as taking advantage of the King’s generosity and secondly, these gifts served to further weaken the crown’s financial position due to the diminishing amount of income available from crown lands. During this period many debts went unpaid and in 1448 the crown jewels were sold to raise additional funds. By 1450, the crown owed in the region of £370,000 and the income enjoyed by the crown had fallen by two thirds to £45,000.

Further dissatisfaction with those closest to the King, this time concerning abuse of the law courts contributed to popular rebellion in 1450. As King, Henry’s choice of noble counsellors and their landholdings was directly linked to the maintenance of law and order within the realm. Through his poor choices in favouring Suffolk and others, this was seemingly beginning to break down by 1450. One such example can be seen in the case of John Paston’s household in 1448. In his absence, a gang of armed men drove out Paston’s wife and servants, stealing his property. Despite his wealth and standing, Paston was unable to achieve redress through the courts, as Suffolk protected those who had attacked. Other instances of these sorts of abuses were heard of throughout the country, especially in the main county of unrest, Kent.

Suffolk’s position as the King’s closest advisor meant that key nobles were excluded from the royal household. This was resented by those who made up the rebellions of 1450, for they saw Suffollk’s influence as both malignant, but also unfettered by the better judgement that no-doubt would be provided by men such as Richard, Duke of York. Once more, Henry’s inability to seek counsel from all of his nobility, instead favouring a few, was seen to be problematic. Earlier in Henry’s reign, his uncle, the Duke of Gloucester had died in mysterious circumstances following accusations of treason. The rebels of 1450, along with many in England, felt as though Gloucester’s experience would have presented the loss of English lands in France. Suffolk was seen as the primary conspirator behind Gloucester’s death, adding to the popular clamour for his removal. The rebels also claimed that another leading noble, York, had been made Lieutenant of Ireland in order to side-line his political role, another order carried out under Suffolk’s corrupt influence. The composition of the King’s counsel, then was clearly a problem in August 1450, and yet by that point, Suffolk lay dead having been murdered in May.

Clearly then, London was not full of rebels purely due to the national complaints that had arisen in response to Henry’s mismanagement of his nobility, and indeed the nation. However, while it is important to consider the pronounced impact of short-term local complaints in the South-East that led directly to Cade’s rebellion, to consider these in isolation, away from the national concerns that they were symptomatic of, would not help to adequately explain the situation that arose in August 1450.

One key local complaint that can be related back to the ‘over-mighty’ status of Henry’s poorly chosen advisors was the fear of destruction present in Kent during this period. Following Suffolk’s death, rumours spread that Saye and Crowmer, whose excessive power was something to be feared, were threatening to raise Kent (Suffolk’s head having been found on a Dover beach). The fear of destruction clearly motivated Jack Cade and his followers to rise up in protection of their homes and families. This fear was supplemented by clear anger at the condition of law and order in the county. Just as there had existed a national picture of legal corruption and lawlessness, this was also the case in Kent. Henry’s poorly chosen advisors had collected fines in Kent for made up crimes, knowing that Lord Saye would defend them against any complaints. Indeed, widespread corruption in the form of a reduction in lordly taxes and fixed parliamentary elections was present in Kent during this period, contributing to the popular feeling that the King’s advisors were taking advantage of his generosity and abusing their positions of power.

Such clear anger at corrupt officials, both at the local and national level, does not fully explain the size of the uprising in 1450, but the actions of these advisors, in particular the loss of land in France, helps to account for this. In escalating war with France during the period 1449-50, Suffolk and his supporters increased the number of soldiers moving through the ports and towns of the South East. This resulted in disturbances and petty crime that affected many residents of Kent and Sussex. While such problems were perhaps only an annoyance, the loss of French lands exacerbated the situation from an economic perspective. With the majority of the South East employed in the cloth trade, for which trade with Norman and Flemish markets was essential, the loss of Normandy and control of the Channel hampered local livelihoods significantly. The resulting slump in trade created problems for food supply, a situation made worse by the growing number of refugees fleeing from Norman lands. When one also considers the increasingly insecure Kent and Sussex coast, with French attacks on Rye, Winchelsea and Queensborough Castle all taking place during this period, it is clear that the South East was full of rebels due to the immediate pressures placed upon the region, pressures that reflected the greater problems of the nation itself. Namely, bad governance by King Henry VI.

London was full of rebels in 1450 because it was the logical protest point for the residents of Kent and Sussex. However, while their rebellion stemmed in the short term from the fall-out of the loss of Normandy in 1449 and the fear of revenge following Suffolk’s murder, the problems faced by the South East were symptomatic of a much wider problem. The rebel’s own proclamations offer the clearest clues as to who was to blame. While the King’s corrupt and evil counsellors were signalled out in writing and then on the street with steel, men such as Sudeley and Crowmer were ultimately responsible because Henry had let them be. Their crimes were those of men that attempted to take advantage of a weak and vacillating King and had succeeded. For all the criticism of corrupt counsel, the breakdown of law and increasing threats to national security were the responsibility of the King. Indeed, Henry’s role as King encompassed the management of his nobility, and yet he was unable to successfully balance those around him to promote stability and prosperity, instead favouring a few over the many, and choosing badly in the process. With the loss of Normandy the most ‘corrupt’ of the counsellors (according to the rebels) lost his head, but England had lost capable kingship some time before, with the death of Henry V. London was so full of rebels in 1450 because Henry VI was an ineffective and incapable king who allowed his favourites at court to defraud him, manipulate the law and fight disastrously in France; national problems that weighed most heavily on Kent and Sussex by August 1450, resulting in Cade’s short-lived rebellion.