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 1308', in Parliament Rolls of Medieval England, (Woodbridge, 2005) pp. . British History Online https://www.british-history.ac.uk/no-series/parliament-rolls-medieval/march-1308 [accessed 15 April 2024]
In this section
1308 March
Introduction March 1308
Westminster
3 March (but see below) - shortly before 10 March.
For the writs of summons see PW, II, ii, 18-19.
(There is no surviving roll for this parliament.)
After the Northampton parliament in October 1307 political tension grew rapidly as the king's favourite, Piers Gaveston, made himself increasingly objectionable to the leading members of the English nobility, especially through his behaviour towards the other earls with whom he took part in a tournament at Wallingford on 2 December. The formation of a baronial opposition to Gaveston and very soon to the king himself can probably be dated from this event. In the meantime preparations were going ahead for the marriage of Edward II and Isabella of France, to whom Edward had been betrothed since 1303. By mid January 1308 Edward II was at Dover, from where he issued writs on 18 January commanding attendance at his coronation at Westminster on 18 February. On 19 January further writs were issued for a parliament to meet at Westminster on 3 March. Edward II crossed to France on 21 January, leaving Gaveston as regent in England, and married Isabella in a splendid ceremony in Boulogne on 25 January. Edward returned to England on 7 February. (fn. M1308int-1)
Events did not however turn out as the king intended. On 31 January, the day on which Edward II performed homage to Philip IV for the duchy of Aquitaine, the bishop of Durham, the earls of Lincoln, Surrey, Pembroke and Hereford, and several others who were with Edward II at Boulogne, drew up a document in which they undertook to uphold and maintain the king's honour and see to the redress of all forms of oppression which had been committed against his people. It is likely that this agreement was an attempt to assist the king in a friendly and constructive way in overcoming the administrative and financial problems which had accumulated towards the end of the reign of his father. The success of the agreement would however depend on Edward II's willingness to accept the need for reforms, to allow these to be worked out in detail, and above all to bind himself to their practical application. It soon became apparent that Edward II's willing co-operation would not be forthcoming. (fn. M1308int-2) The coronation, which was to have taken place on 18 February, was instead delayed, apparently at the last moment, until 25 February. This was partly to allow the archbishop of Canterbury more time to come back to England in order to perform the ceremony, although as it turned out the archbishop's return was to be delayed through illness until 24 March and the coronation was performed by the bishop of Winchester. (fn. M1308int-3) A more important reason for the delay was that, according to the Annals of St. Paul's, the leading English magnates and the French magnates (including Charles count of Valois and Louis count of Evreux, the uncles of the new queen, her brother the future Charles IV of France, and Henry count of Luxemburg, the future emperor Henry VII) who had come to England for the coronation, refused to allow the ceremony to proceed unless Gaveston was first banished from the kingdom. Edward II was not prepared to concede this but he agreed 'in good faith to undertake whatever they sought in the next parliament.' (fn. M1308int-4) It is possible, although far from certain, that the delay was also caused by baronial insistence on the addition of a fourth clause to the coronation oath, in which Edward II promised to maintain and preserve the laws and rightful customs which the community of the realm might choose. Whether or not this clause was actually new, it is likely that those who heard Edward II utter the promise at his coronation were moved as much by memories of Edward I's evasion of his own promises of reform as by fears that his son would attempt to do the same. (fn. M1308int-5) The prominent part played by Gaveston in the coronation ceremony and his extravagant behaviour at the banquet afterwards greatly increased baronial hatred of him and ensured that demands for reform would be made at the parliament due to be held only a few days later. (fn. M1308int-6)
The writs of summons were issued at Dover on 19 January 1308 for a parliament to meet at Westminster on 3 March. The writs stated that the king proposed to have a 'colloquium' and 'tractatum', and to hold a parliament. A marginal note on the Close Roll also described the meeting as a parliament.
Writs of summons were sent to the archbishop of York (the archbishop of Canterbury had not yet returned to England), fifteen bishops (including the four Welsh bishops), twelve abbots, and three priors; eleven earls (Surrey, Lincoln, Gloucester, Piers Gaveston earl of Cornwall (summoned for the first time), Lancaster, Hereford, Arundel, Warwick, Pembroke, Oxford, and the earl of Angus from Scotland), and forty-six barons; and thirty-eight royal judges and clerks. Representatives of the knights of the shire may also have been summoned, since a writ dated 22 November 1313 states that knights had attended this parliament, but it is likely that the later report confused the coronation, to which knights were definitely summoned, with the meeting of parliament. (fn. M1308int-7) There is in any case no record of representatives of either the burgesses or of the lower clergy being summoned to parliament on this occasion.
The parliament was summoned for 'various arduous affairs touching the state of the king and of his kingdom'. Although it was summoned for the first Sunday in Lent, i.e. 3 March, the Annals of St. Pauls record that it met on the first day of Lent, i.e. 28 February. (fn. M1308int-8) This date may be a misreading of the intended date given in the writs of summons but it is more likely that the heated atmosphere created by the delayed coronation and by the events surrounding it forced the king to allow parliament to start several days earlier than planned. The fact that the parliament met in the monks' refectory of Westminster abbey rather than within the king's palace of Westminster suggests that the magnates went ahead with a meeting at a place and time of their own choosing, and that the king had no option but to agree. There is no surviving official record of the occasion, not surprisingly since the king had little control over the order of business. There are however two chronicle accounts of what happened, one in the Annals of St. Paul's and another more detailed one by the northern chronicler, Walter of Guisborough. (fn. M1308int-9) The St. Paul's writer reported that the king instructed the magnates to discuss the state of realm, and stated that if they decided anything which would be to the honour of God and the Church, and to the profit of the king and kingdom, he would put his seal to their decisions. The earls replied that the king should give them a written commission to perform what he had asked and also demanded that each of them should take an oath to uphold what would be decided. The king refused these demands; one of the earls (un-named, but, in the light of the Guisborough account, probably the earl of Lancaster) said that he would not take such an oath unless he had first seen the articles which he was to swear to uphold; the others replied that without the king's commission they could decide nothing concerning the affairs of the kingdom, and in consequence they could not put into words things which were not yet conceived in the mind. Therefore the earls postponed further discussion and, with the king's assent, they left, after being assigned 28 April as the date of their return, in the hope that they could then reach swift agreement. Walter of Guisborough told a similar story but provided the names of several of those involved. He first reported that the king asked the magnates to discuss and to decide on three articles, i.e. on the state of the Church, on the state of the Crown which he had newly assumed and how it ought to be governed according to God and to justice, and how the peace of the land might be preserved for his people. The earl of Lincoln, who had been the chief councillor of the dead king, replied to the king's messengers (these are not named but perhaps were the earl of Lancaster and Hugh Despenser the Elder) and said that before they could discuss the three articles which had been explained to them by word of mouth, the king should give them a written commission and agree to confirm their decisions in writing. The earl of Lancaster and Hugh Despenser the Elder, who refused to put such pressure on the king, went to see the king and returned with the news that he did not wish to pursue these matters any further for the time being. Parliament was then prorogued until 28 April. The earl of Lincoln's leading role in pressing for the reform of the royal government, which had already been evident in the Boulogne agreement of 31 January, was confirmed, while Edward II's reluctance to commit himself to such reforms was already in evidence. Ironically, the earl of Lancaster, who soon became the most bitter opponent of the king and of Gaveston, and Hugh Despenser, who with his son Hugh the younger, was later in the reign to become a royal favourite with far greater power than Gaveston, were for the moment on the same side. (fn. M1308int-10) The parliament ended probably shortly before 10 March, the date of issue of the writs summoning the reconvened parliament on 28 April.