Edward I: Trinity 1306

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

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

'Edward I: Trinity 1306', in Parliament Rolls of Medieval England, (Woodbridge, 2005) pp. . British History Online https://www.british-history.ac.uk/no-series/parliament-rolls-medieval/trinity-1306 [accessed 21 April 2024]

In this section

1306 Trinity

Introduction Trinity 1306

Westminster

Trinity parliament (May-June)

On 5 April 1306 the sheriffs of each county were instructed to have two knights chosen from their counties and two burgesses or citizens from each town or city within their county to appear before king and council at Westminster on the morrow of Trinity (the week beginning 30 May) to discuss an aid for the king in the light of the fact that he was intending to knight his eldest son and heir apparent at Whitsun (22 May). (fn. foot-1306t-1) Returns survive for thirty-six counties. (fn. foot-1306t-2) At the same time personal summonses were also issued to fifteen bishops, nineteen abbots and abbesses, seven earls and sixty-three magnates. (fn. foot-1306t-3) Seventeen of these writs of summons survive: ten returned by the barons to whom they were addressed; one by the abbot to whom it was addressed; five endorsed with the names of the attorneys of the barons to whom they were addressed; one with the name of the attorneys of the earl to whom it was addressed. (fn. foot-1306t-4) None of these documents specifically describe the meeting as a 'parliament' but this seems an appropriate term to apply to it.

Parliament may perhaps have opened earlier than 30 May for the statute de Conjunctim Feoffatis was published on 27 May and an ordinance of the forest on the same day. (fn. foot-1306t-5) The King's Bench plea roll for Trinity term 1305 also records in a later addition a decision reached before the king on the Friday before Trinity 1306 (27 May) in the presence of the treasurer and chancellor and various other royal justices and officials as to whether the king should bring suit for the abduction of a wife when the husband had been non-suited in his own private prosecution against the alleged perpetrators. (fn. foot-1306t-6) It is not entirely clear who attended this meeting. Writs de expensis were issued in favour of the knights of twenty counties and the burgesses of five towns on 30 May, (fn. foot-1306t-7) but the exchequer enrolment of the grant of a thirtieth and twentieth speaks as though every shire and every city and town sent representatives. (fn. foot-1306t-8) The enrolment also indicates that three bishops, five earls and twelve magnates were present in person and a further fourteen bishops, eleven abbots and three earls were represented by proctors or attorneys. (fn. foot-1306t-9)

How long this meeting lasted is also unclear. The writs de expensis , as has been seen, were issued on 30 May, the date for which the representatives had been summoned. (fn. foot-1306t-10) The grant of a thirtieth by the knights of the shire and of a twentieth by the representatives of the towns does indeed seems to have taken place on 30 May. (fn. foot-1306t-11) This was almost certainly not the only business done at the meeting. Some discussion must have taken place of the papal letters brought by master John de Solariis relating to the papal mediation in the Anglo-French conflict before the dispatch of the king's reply to the pope through master Arnald Lupi de Tilio on 5 June. (fn. foot-1306t-12) Some discussion must also have preceded the issuing of orders for the renewed proclamation of the statute of Winchester and authorising arrests on suspicion on 16 June, (fn. foot-1306t-13) and is likely to have preceded the dispatching of royal agents to Gascony on the same day. (fn. foot-1306t-14) Of uncertain date is the appearance of Robert of Livermere and others before king and council at Westminster to traverse the findings of an inquisition post mortem held on 28 April 1306, but that appearance must certainly have preceded the subsequent adjournment of the case for a jury enquiry before king and council at the quindene of Trinity (the week beginning 12 June). (fn. foot-1306t-15) When the archdeacon of Cleveland was required (under a mandate of 29 April 1306) to appear before king and council at the quindene of Trinity to provide information about his actions in relation to the dispute between bishop Bek of Durham and the prior of Durham this was perhaps also intended to be during the parliamentary session. The cluster of royal charters probably to be associated with this session on the Charter Rolls belong to various dates between 22 May and 7 June. (fn. foot-1306t-16)

There is no surviving official record of the business done at this parliament.

Footnotes

  • foot-1306t-1. PW , i, 164 (and CCR 1296-1302 , 438).
  • foot-1306t-2. C 219/1/8 (printed in PW , i, 167-77). But the schedule giving the names of the knights and burgesses elected in Surrey and Sussex has been lost. Only the names of the Sussex knights of the shire can be supplied from the writs de expensis .
  • foot-1306t-3. PW , i, 164-5.
  • foot-1306t-4. PW , i, 165-6. There is also a full copy of the writ addressed to the abbot of Peterborough and of the return the abbot made to it in The White Book of Peterborough , ed. Sandra Raban, 205-6.
  • foot-1306t-5. SR , i, 145-7; SR , i, 147-9.
  • foot-1306t-6. PW , i, 163. The question referred to the council was whether or not in law the king was entitled to bring suit in these circumstances. No decision was made on this point but the decision taken that the case should be dropped on the grounds that the original action had been malicious and ill-founded.
  • foot-1306t-7. PW , i, 177-8 (and CCR 1302-7 , 449). The one surviving original is a writ sicut alias for the burgesses of Nottingham which was issued on 28 June 1307: C 219/330, no. 2.
  • foot-1306t-8. E 159/79, m. 40.
  • foot-1306t-9. Those present in person were the bishops of Durham (Anthony Bek), Coventry (Walter Langton) and London (Robert Baldock); the earls of Lincoln, Surrey, Gloucester, Hereford and Warwick; Robert fitzWalter, Hugh Despenser, John de Hastings, Hugh de Veer, William Martin, Henry le Tyeys, John Lovel, Roger Mortimer, John Mohun, Alan la Zouche, William de Leybourne, Robert of Burwash, the warden of the Cinque Ports (and some of the barons of those ports). Those represented by proctor or attorney were the archbishops of Canterbury and York; the bishops of Exeter, Hereford, Winchester, Chichester, Rochester, Ely, Norwich, Lincoln, Salisbury, Worcester, Bath and Wells and Carlisle; the abbots of Westminster, Bury, St Augustine's Canterbury, St Albans, Glastonbury, Peterborough, Ramsey, Thorney, Selby, Malmesbury, St Peter Gloucester; the earls of Norfolk, Lancaster, Arundel.
  • foot-1306t-10. See above, note 7.
  • foot-1306t-11. The grant is recorded as though it took place on that date: E 159/79, m. 40. The king's letters patent promising that the grant would not be taken as a precedent are also dated 30 May: CPR 1301-7 , 436. Collectors were not appointed till 22 July, but the subsidy was not to be levied till after Michaelmas: CPR 1301-7 , 456-8.
  • foot-1306t-12. CCR 1302-7 , 446-8.
  • foot-1306t-13. CCR 1302-7 , 396-7.
  • foot-1306t-14. CCR 1302-7 , 451.
  • foot-1306t-15. CCR 1302-7 , 393-5; CIPM , iv, no. 392.
  • foot-1306t-16. CChR 1300-26 , 67-8.
PreviousTable of contentsNext