Edward II: April 1309

1309 April

Introduction April 1309

Westminster

27 April - 13 May

For the writs of summons see PW, II, ii, 24-36.

(There is no surviving roll for this parliament.)

During the period between the Westminster Parliament of October 1308 and the Westminster Parliament of April 1309 Edward II pursued his ambition to obtain the recall and reinstatement of his favourite, Piers Gaveston. On 8 January 1309 he summoned an assembly to meet at Westminster on 23 February. This assembly does not appear to have been commented on previously, but it is likely that it played an important part in the dramatic events which were to unfold in the spring and summer of 1309. Although the meeting was described in the writs of summons as a 'consilium' and 'tractatum' and the numbers summoned were smaller, it was in its composition not unlike the three parliaments held during 1308. The archbishops of Canterbury and York were summoned, together with Richard Havering, the archbishop-elect of Dublin; but only eight bishops were summoned (not including the four Welsh bishops who were usually summoned to parliaments) and no abbots. Seventeen royal judges and clerks were ordered to attend, about half the number who attended the parliaments in 1308. Significantly, however, nine earls (Gloucester, Lincoln, Lancaster, Surrey, Hereford, Pembroke, Richmond, Warwick, Arundel) and forty-two barons were summoned, numbers very similar to those called to parliaments in 1308. These presumably were the men whom Edward II really wished to consult. The summons described the purpose of the assembly only as the discussion of 'certain arduous affairs touching the king and the state of the kingdom', (fn. A1309int-1) but there can be little doubt that the king used the occasion to discover whether the earls were now prepared to consider allowing Gaveston to return to England. For their part, the earls may have realised the urgency of formulating a detailed plan of reform, such as they were to present at the Westminster Parliament on 27 April, and which could be used as a bargaining counter in the future.

Given the membership of the embassy which left for Avignon soon after the conclusion of the meeting at Westminster, some at least of the earls were prepared to countenance the return of Gaveston. For his part, Edward II may have judged that if he could persuade the pope to annul the sentence of excommunication imposed upon Gaveston by the archbishop of Canterbury when the former was exiled in May 1308, he could then present the remainder of the earls and their supporters with a fait accompli which they would have little choice but to accept. Accordingly an embassy consisting of the earl of Pembroke (now fully reconciled with the king), the ever-loyal earl of Richmond, Walter Reynolds the bishop of Worcester and royal treasurer and an ally of Edward since his youth, and the bishop of Norwich set out for Avignon in early March, at about the same time that the writs were issued for a parliament to meet on 27 April. On their way to Avignon the embassy also visited Philip IV of France to try to win his approval for the return of Gaveston. These negotiations were however still incomplete as late as the end of April. The mission to Avignon was more successful and in late April or in May the pope issued a bull annulling the sentence of excommunication. The bull did not however arrive in England until June and had no immediate effect on the political situation in England. (fn. A1309int-2)

In the meantime the earls were making extensive preparations of their own for the forthcoming parliament. At some point between 20 March and 7 April a tournament took place at Dunstable, which was attended by six earls (Gloucester, Hereford, Lancaster, Warwick, Surrey and Arundel, but not including Lincoln) together with large retinues. It has been suggested, though it cannot be proved, that the earl of Lancaster was responsible for convening the tournament and that he was therefore beginning to assume leadership of the movement for reform. Whether or not this was the case, it is likely that the occasion was used either to compose or to perfect an existing draft of the articles that were presented at the Westminster Parliament on 27 April. There is also evidence that, of those who attended the Dunstable tournament, all six of the earls, at least twenty-five barons, and four or five knights later attended parliament. (fn. A1309int-3)

Writs of summons were issued at Westminster on 4 March for a parliament to meet at Westminster on 27 April 1309. The writs stated that king wished to have a 'colloquium' and 'tractatum' with those present. The writs do not use the word 'parliament' to describe the intended assembly, but a marginal note on the Close Roll describes the meeting as a parliament.

Writs of summons were sent to the archbishops of Canterbury and York, sixteen bishops (including the four Welsh bishops), forty-nine abbots, and three priors; nine earls (Gloucester, Lincoln, Lancaster, Surrey, Hereford, Warwick, Arundel, Oxford, and the earl of Angus from Scotland), eighty-one barons; twenty-two royal judges and clerks; and for the election of representatives of the knights of the shire and burgesses, and of the lower clergy.

The parliament was summoned for 'certain arduous affairs touching the king and the state of the kingdom', but which certainly included the king's urgent need of a grant of taxation as well as the possible recall of Gaveston.

This was the first parliament since the Northampton Parliament of October 1307 to which the knights, burgesses and lower clergy were summoned, in addition to the prelates, abbots, earls and barons. The abbots and barons were also summoned in greater numbers than on any occasion since October 1307. Edward II's request for the return of Gaveston was rejected. His other request for a grant of taxation in aid of the war in Scotland was agreed on 27 April by the lay and ecclesiastical magnates and by the knights and burgesses, who granted him a twenty-fifth of the value of moveable goods. The grant was however conditional on the king's acceptance of a document containing eleven articles of reform. Edward II did not reject the articles but refused to give an immediate answer. (fn. A1309int-4)

The document submitted to Edward II was of the greatest significance, since, as Dr. Maddicott has remarked, 'The eleven articles presented in parliament represent a half-way stage between the Articuli super Cartas of 1300 and the much fuller plan of reform embodied in the Ordinances of 1311. The petition began with a complaint that the country was not governed as it ought to be, namely, according to the points of the Great Charter. Then followed protests at the abuse of purveyance (articles 1 and 7), the unjust extension of the jurisdiction of the steward and marshal of the household (articles 4 and 5), and the wrongful use of royal protections and writs of privy seal to delay the course of common law (article 8). These five articles were virtual repetitions of complaints made nine years earlier, which had then been answered in the second, third, and sixth clauses of the Articuli super Cartas . Two more of the 1309 articles were derived at one remove from the Articuli of 1300. Article 10 (1309), which protested that constables of royal castles illegally held common pleas before the gates of their castles, stemmed from article 7 (1300), which ascribed this offence to the constable of Dover castle alone; and article 11 (1309), which stated that the King's escheators unjustly seized the lands of tenants-in-chief and then refused them the right of appeal to the King's court, may have been based on articles 18 and 19 (1300), which protested at similar, though not identical, abuses practised by the escheators. Thus five of the 1309 articles were directly based on the Articuli super Cartas of 1300, and another two indirectly. The remaining four articles - calling for the abolition of the new customs of 1303 (article 2); an end to the depreciation of the coinage (article 3); the provision of receivers of petitions in parliament to deal with petitions which had hitherto gone unheard (article 6), and a tighter hold on the issue of pardons to criminals (article 9) - had, as far as is known, no close precedent.' (fn. A1309int-5)

The enrolment of the articles on the Close Roll states that the document was presented to the king by the community of his realm ( par la communalte de son roialme ). The term 'community' should not however be understood as 'Commons' in the sense of the knights and the burgesses. While some of the grievances complained of in the articles were of interest to the knights and burgesses (notably article 6 concerning the hearing of petitions, which states that it came specifically from the knights and burgesses), there is no doubt that the articles were substantially the work of the earls and barons (probably with the practical help of legally and administratively experienced advisers who were familiar with such earlier documents as the Articuli super Cartas of 1300). To a very large extent the earls and barons still were the 'community of the realm', speaking for themselves but also beginning to take into account the interests and grievances of a wider political community. (fn. A1309int-6) The articles of 1309 bear a close resemblance both in their form and in the kind of grievances expressed to the petitions of the community ('la commune') which were received and answered by Edward III in the parliaments of 1327, 1333 and 1334. (fn. A1309int-7) The big difference between 1309 and these later occasions was in the political atmosphere: on the one hand a king determined to resist to the utmost any demands made upon him; on the other a king, who was conscious of his need for support, and who was receptive and prepared to accept reforms.

The petitions of April 1309 also throw some interesting light on the nature of parliamentary records in the early years of the reign of Edward II. The complete absence of any parliament rolls prior to the enrolled petitions which are preserved for the parliament of August 1312 (SC 9/17 and SC 9/26) may be an accident of survival. But there seems to be more to the problem than that. The petitions presented at the Westminster Parliament of April 1309, together with the answers made to them by the King at the Stamford Parliament of July-August 1309, were officially recorded on the Close Roll rather than on a Parliament Roll. By contrast, the petitions presented in the Parliaments of 1327 and of 1335 and the replies to them form the entire substance of the Parliament Roll produced for each occasion. Article 6, which complains about Edward II's failure to arrange for the receipt and answering of petitions in his parliaments is also significant. This probably reflects in part the political dramas, which accompanied most of the early parliaments of the reign of Edward II, making it difficult or impossible for routine business such as the hearing of petitions to be handled. But it probably also reflects the fact that representatives of the knights and burgesses, who would have submitted many of the petitions at a parliament, had not been summoned to any of the three parliaments held in 1308. The October 1307 Parliament, to which they had been summoned, had been too short to handle any more than the most urgent matters, such as the grant of taxation. The absence of any means for the receipt and answering of petitions in parliament would in consequence have contributed to the absence of any formal enrolment of parliamentary business. (fn. A1309int-8)