Edward II: March 1313

Parliament Rolls of Medieval England. Originally published by Boydell, Woodbridge, 2005.

This premium content was digitised by double rekeying. All rights reserved.

'Edward II: March 1313', in Parliament Rolls of Medieval England, (Woodbridge, 2005) pp. . British History Online https://www.british-history.ac.uk/no-series/parliament-rolls-medieval/march-1313 [accessed 24 March 2024]

In this section

1313 March

Introduction March 1313

Westminster

18 March - 7 April (adjourned); reassembled 6 May; terminated 19 May

For the writs of summons see PW, II, ii, 80-91.

(There is no surviving roll for this parliament.)

Mutual suspicion between the king and the barons remained strong, despite the treaty which had been agreed on 20 December 1312, causing delays in performing the terms of the treaty and contributing to the failure of the parliaments summoned for 18 March and 8 July 1313. At first attempts were made to implement the treaty. On 16 December, four days before the final agreement, a general safe conduct until 3 June 1313 was issued for Lancaster and his supporters to move freely about the country. On 18 December Henry Percy's lands were restored until the coming parliament. On 26 December a commission was issued to investigate Gruffudd de la Pole's complaints about the seizure of his lands, but went beyond the terms of the treaty by including complaints against Gruffudd by the king's chamberlain, John Charlton. Fulk Lestrange's complaints were brought within the terms of the commission on 31 December. On 7 January John Sandal and Ingelard Warley were appointed to receive Gaveston's property at St. Albans on 13 January, and on 8 January parliament was summoned, as had been agreed, for 8 March. Almost at once, however, difficulties began to appear. The imprisonment of one of Henry Percy's knights, Edmund Darel, led the barons to conclude that their safe conducts were worthless, and to their refusal to restore Gaveston's property at St. Albans on 13 January. Lancaster and Warwick were also given a pretext for refusing to confirm the treaty and for making fresh demands. In particular, Lancaster once again described Gaveston as an enemy of the king and the realm. This had been a leading issue in the negotiations leading up to the December treaty, and its revival made the treaty for all practical purposes a dead letter. Further intense mediation by the papal envoys and the earls of Gloucester and Richmond during the months of January and February led to the restoration of Gaveston's jewels and other goods on 27 February, but the wider issue of the confirmation of the treaty by Lancaster and Warwick was left unresolved when parliament began on 18 March. (fn. M1313int1)

The writs of summons were issued at Windsor on 8 January for a parliament to meet at Westminster on 18 March. The writs say that the king has ordained the holding of a parliament, 'God willing', to have a 'colloquium and tractatum' with those present. A marginal note on the Close Roll also describes the meeting as a parliament.

Writs of summons were sent to the two archbishops, eighteen bishops (including the four Welsh bishops), forty-six abbots, and four priors; to ten earls (Norfolk (the king's half-brother), Lancaster, Gloucester, Pembroke, Arundel, Surrey, Richmond, Oxford, Warwick, Hereford) and eighty-nine barons (however a note in PW, II (ii), 81 says 'this enrolment appears incomplete'); thirty-eight royal judges and clerks (five more were added at Windsor on 14 February); and for the election of representatives of the knights of the shire and burgesses, and of the lower clergy.

The writs of summons issued on 8 January gave the purpose of the parliament as 'various affairs touching the king and the state of the kingdom'.

The Parliament of 18 March 1313 got off to the worst possible start. The king remained at Windsor, allegedly because of an illness, which was generally thought to be feigned. The barons failed to appear in person, claiming that they had not been summoned in the proper form. For the moment there was a stalemate and on 7 April the parliament was adjourned until 6 May. Negotiations however continued outside parliament. The state of affairs was summed up in a document sent to the king by his opponents shortly after the parliament opened on 18 March. The document listed points in the December treaty which had been implemented or on which both sides were agreed, but also listed those on which agreement had still to be reached. The earls recalled that they had now restored Gaveston's jewels and other property, as the treaty required; they reaffirmed their readiness to come to Westminster to ask for the king's pardon and their willingness to grant an aid in parliament for the Scottish war; and they repeated their promise not to bring armed followers to parliament after their pardon. The magnates also expressed themselves satisfied that after they had been pardoned the king would act towards them as a faithful lord. Tacitly they also returned to the form of the treaty by omitting any reference to Gaveston as a felon or as an enemy of the king, in contrast to Lancaster's position in February. These concessions in themselves would do much to produce a settlement. However the barons demanded a fuller form of acquittance for Gaveston's goods than they had received in February, and objected to the form of pardon to them as Gaveston's enemies which they had been offered in the December treaty, since it would then appear to have been extorted from the king, contrary to his Coronation Oath and their homage to him. The barons included a new form of pardon, to be held in the custody of the archbishop of Canterbury, the bishops of London and Chichester, and the earls of Gloucester, Richmond, and Arundel, until the magnates had made their submission. The magnates also declared that there was no need to give special pardons to Gaveston's former adherents, since only the king would have power to bring any suit against them. The king's objections to this document probably centred on the demand that Gaveston's followers should not be specially pardoned, since there might then be a baronial demand for their exile under the terms of the Ordinances. Apart from this point there seems to have been relatively little to prevent an early settlement. By the time that parliament reassembled on 6 May there were signs that another attempt to achieve a settlement would soon be made. On 3 May, at the request of cardinal Arnold, Louis count of Clermont a newly arrived French envoy, and the earls of Gloucester and Richmond, the earl of Lancaster and his followers were given a safe conduct until 24 June to meet the papal envoys and the king's councillors at Bedford (there is no evidence that such a meeting ever took place). This effectively meant the end of any further proceedings in the current parliament, which ended on 19 May. It is not clear what, if anything, had been done during the parliament. Neither the king nor his opponents had been in attendance at any stage. If petitions were received and answered, there is no evidence to show this. The absence of a Parliament Roll probably indicates that, so far as the king was concerned, there had been nothing to record. The real business had been conducted outside parliament in the negotiations between the king and his opponents. On 23 May a new parliament was summoned to meet on 8 July. (fn. M1313int2)

However other important business had also been conducted outside parliament. This consisted of a sustained attempt by Edward II to improve relations with France, partly in order to resolve existing problems over the English-ruled duchy of Aquitaine but also with the intention of obtaining French support in Edward's continuing disputes with his baronial opponents. In February 1313 the earl of Pembroke and bishop of Exeter had gone to Paris, where they succeeded to such an extent that on 14 March they made an agreement for Edward II to meet Philip IV at Amiens on 20 May. The plan was changed when Philip IV's cousin Louis de Clermont arrived in England at the end of April with an invitation for Edward II to attend the knighting of Philip's sons in Paris on 3 June. Edward II duly left for France on 23 May, the same date on which a new parliament was summoned for 8 July. The earls advised against Edward's going to France, ostensibly because of rumours that the Scots had invaded England and might even march on London, but probably because they feared the consequences for themselves of a closer friendship between England and France. The final details of Edward II's visit to France and the summons of parliament were decided on at a council at Westminster on 20 May, the day after the ending of the abortive Westminster parliament. (fn. M1313int3)

Another decision taken at the council was the issuing of the Ordinance of the Staple, which ordered that all English wool merchants should sell their wool at a single 'staple town' on the Continent, rather than in a variety of places as in the past. Tout believed that this decision was somehow connected with the Ordinances of 1311 and with the attempts of the Ordainers to impose a greater degree of control on the royal system of administration. However a more likely explanation is that it was a gesture towards Philip IV of France, who was anxious not to see the staple in Bruges, in the rebellious county of Flanders. By May 1314 the staple was located at St. Omer, in the county of Artois, a loyal part of the kingdom of France. (fn. M1313int4)

Footnotes

  • M1313int1. For details of events in late 1312 and early 1313 see Phillips, Aymer de Valence , 53-8; Maddicott, Thomas of Lancaster, , 143-8, 151-2; Hamilton, Piers Gaveston , 105-7.
  • M1313int2. See Phillips, Aymer de Valence , 58-60, 62; Maddicott, Thomas of Lancaster, , 146-9, 152; Hamilton, Piers Gaveston , 106-7.
  • M1313int3. See Phillips, Aymer de Valence , 60-3; Maddicott, Thomas of Lancaster, , 149-50; Hamilton, Piers Gaveston , 107.
  • M1313int4. Tout, Place of the Reign of Edward II , 221-6.