A Question of Evidence

by David Johnson

On 29th July 2021 Professor Sarah Rees Jones of the University of York presented a Zoom lecture hosted by the York Museums Trust entitled Emotion, Drama and Intrigue: one year in York’s troubled relationship with Richard III 1476-77. Professor Rees Jones argued that 1476-77 ‘was a crucial year in which Richard succeeded in asserting his authority over the city of York’. Central to this was ‘the staging of a political coup through which he ensured the promotion of his own supporters to the three highest political offices in the city: mayor (Thomas Wrangwish), common clerk (Nicholas Lancaster), and recorder (Miles Metcalf)’. The coup was ‘backed up by an impressive show of force’ and ‘achieved both through the removal of civic officials whose loyalties lay elsewhere (Thomas Yotten and William Holbeck), and the denial of the city’s more traditional noble patrons’ (Henry Percy, Earl of Northumberland). Professor Rees Jones’s assertions constitute a damning indictment of Richard’s involvement in York’s affairs. But are these arguments correct and do they accurately reflect the historical record?

Professor Rees Jones began the lecture by claiming that Thomas Wrangwish ‘was already Richard’s man’ by the time he was elected mayor of York in February 1476, and that ‘Richard was prepared to intervene with force to ensure his control of the city’. ‘In March 1476’, Rees Jones continued, ‘Richard entered the city through Bootham Bar with a force that was described in the House Books as composed of 5,000 men, saying that he was sent by the King to support the rule of law and peace.’ A retinue of such size ‘indicates a significant show of force by Richard,’ but we ‘are not informed of the pretext other than he was supporting the newly elected mayor.’ Later, Rees Jones observes, it was reported that ‘the grateful councillors presented him with six pikes and six swans as a mark of their gratitude.’

The council records, however, report that Richard was accompanied by Henry Percy, Earl of Northumberland, and that the Duke and Earl instructed the mayor to issue a proclamation on behalf of the King ‘reminding the citizens of their duties to the law.’ (1) The necessity of such action is readily discernible in the repercussions of recent national events. (2) A widespread outbreak of lawlessness followed the inglorious termination of Edward IV’s expedition to France in the summer of 1475. The Crowland chronicler reported the King’s great anxiety over discharged soldiers who, ‘once home, reverted to theft and pillage in consequence of which no road was safe for merchants or pilgrims throughout England.’ (3) In addition, as we shall now see, the gifts of swans and pikes were not acts of gratitude for ensuring the mayor’s control of the city, but expressions of thanks for Richard’s ‘great labours’ made to the King ‘for the conservation of the liberties of this city.’ (4)

Yotten’s dismissal

Professor Rees Jones claims that ‘in July 1476 Richard again intervened personally to ensure the dismissal of Thomas Yotten, the common clerk’. Yotten had been removed from office on ‘a charge of embezzlement and other misdemeanours that he had verbally confessed to the council.’ ‘Was this confession’, Rees Jones suggested, ‘made under duress’, particularly as he attempted to ‘appeal against his dismissal to the long-time patron of the city, the Percy Earl of Northumberland, and even to the King’? Richard, however, ‘personally intervened to ensure that his appeal was unsuccessful’. This, according to Rees Jones, was ‘a clear sign of how far Richard was prepared to go in establishing his authority, not only over the city, but against other nobles in the north.’

The city of York records do indeed reveal that Yotten appealed to the Earl of Northumberland and Edward IV following his dismissal on grounds of embezzlement and false accounting. The King however, ordered a thorough and impartial examination of the case and Yotten was found guilty as charged. The council then solicited Richard’s assistance in petitioning the King to allow city officials to appoint a successor common clerk in accordance with York’s ancient liberties and privileges. This Edward readily agreed and it was for this reason, the upholding of the city’s liberties, that the council presented gifts to Richard. Thus it is quite clear that Richard did not intervene personally to ensure Yotten’s dismissal, but instead responded to the overtures of the council to assist in preserving the city’s long held and jealously guarded civic rights. (8)

Professor Rees Jones next turned to the events of September 1476 when ‘William Holbeck, one of the most distinguished members of the council, who had twice been mayor of the city, was dismissed from the council for absenting himself.’ ‘Is this evidence,’ Rees Jones asked, ‘that opponents of Richard were gradually being culled from the council’? ‘Certainly’, Rees Jones continued, ‘Holbeck is reported as saying that he fled with his whole household beyond the jurisdiction of the city, taking refuge with the Dominican friars because he said he did not know if he could safely come and go.’

The city records report that on 14th September 1476 an official delegation visited Holbeck requesting his presence at a forthcoming meeting, participation in the election of the city’s sheriffs, and an explanation for his persistent absence from council meetings. Failure to comply would result in his dismissal and the appointment of a replacement. Although the city records are slightly damaged at this point, it seems pretty clear that Holbeck refused to attend unless assured of his safety by the King. What is absolutely certain, however, is that Richard does not appear in this dispute. The animosity and mistrust which obviously existed between the council and Holbeck appears to be a factional affair of long standing, and while it seems that Holbeck wished the protection of the King, there is patently no evidence of Richard’s involvement. The action taken against Holbeck was unanimously ‘assented, ordained and agreed’ by those present at the council meeting of 14th September, who, by their own authority, formally dismissed Holbeck on 21st September. (6)

Richard’s political coup, continued Rees-Jones, was completed in September 1477 with ‘the appointment of Miles Metcalf as the recorder of the city. Metcalf was another prominent and much rewarded member of Richard of Gloucester’s affinity, notably acting as his deputy in the administration of the extensive northern estates of the Duchy of Lancaster.’ The records of the city council actually reveal that Metcalf was recommended by Edward IV, and while it may well be the case that Richard brought Metcalf to the King’s attention, the council were in no measure obliged to accept Edward’s nominee. Following Richard’s death at Bosworth in 1485 the city fathers refused Henry VII’s attempts to replace Metcalf. and when Metcalf died in 1486 the council defiantly appointed its own candidate rather than accept Henry’s nominee. Thus it is quite evident that in 1477 the mayor and aldermen possessed the authority to reject Edward’s recommendation, and the fact that the council stood by Metcalf after Bosworth demonstrates that they were more than happy to appoint him in the first place.’ (7)

No evidence

Given the evidence of the city records it is difficult to sustain the argument that Richard staged a political coup in York in 1476-77. Professor Rees Jones has rather unconvincingly presented a series of discrete events in the city’s civic history as an orchestrated attempt to impose political control. While it is certainly the case that Wrangwish, Lancaster, and Metcalf became strong supporters of Richard during the 1470s, there is no indication that their appointment to office constituted an abuse of power and there is certainly a lack of evidence that Richard conspired to remove Yotten and William Holbeck. What in fact emerges is the determination of the city council to preserve its ancient liberties and privileges, and to solicit, when necessary, the support of Richard of Gloucester. If there is a powerful figure looming large in York’s civic affairs then it is surely that of the King. It was Edward who ordered Richard and Northumberland to Bootham Bar, upheld the dismissal of Yotten, and recommended Metcalf as city recorder. While Richard, as both Duke and King, played an important part in York’s affairs, he can hardly be accused of staging a political coup in 1476-77.

Footnotes

(1) L C Attreed, York House Books 1461-1490 (1991), vol I, pp 8-9.

(2) R Davies, Extracts from the Municipal Records of the City of York (1843), p 50.

(3) N Pronay & J Cox (eds), The Crowland Chronicle Continuations 1459-1486 (1986), p 137.

(4) Attreed, York House Books, vol I, pp 77-8.

(5) Attreed, York House Books, vol I, pp 44, 46-8, 50, 75.

(6) Attreed, York House Books, vol I, pp 60-1.

(7) Attreed, York House Books, vol I, pp 114-15; D Palliser, ‘Richard III and York’, in Richard III and the North, R Horrox (ed), (1986), p 59.

Dr David Johnson is a member of the Research Committee of the Richard III Society.

This article first appeared in The Ricardian Bulletin, December 2021.