Edward III: November 1330

1330 November

Introduction November 1330

Westminster

26 November - 9 December

For the writs of summons see RDP , iv, 397-9; CCR 1330-33 , 177.

(Records of the parliament: there are two separate records for this parliament, C 65/2 (Parliament Roll) and E 175/2/16 (roll of petitions))

1. C 65/2: Parliament Roll. This is a composite roll, containing the records of the six parliaments which met in 4, 5, and 6 Edward III, between November 1330 and January 1333. The proceedings of the November 1330 parliament are recorded on membranes 7, 6, 5, previously edited in RP , II, 52-60. C 65/2 is a roll of seven membranes, sewn together in chancery style. The membranes vary in width and measure approximately as follows: membrane 1 265mm, membrane 2 295mm, membrane 3 295mm, membrane 4 300mm, membrane 5 310mm, membrane 6 310mm, membrane 7 300mm. The condition of membrane 7 is poor and it is badly stained, possibly with gallic acid, and there are now six holes in the parchment, two of which measure approximately 30 mm by 30 mm., and the others are as follows: 60 mm. by 20 mm., 70 mm. by 60 mm., 15 mm. by 50 mm., 40 mm. by 50 mm; it has therefore not been possible to estimate the length of the illegible gaps in the text with certainty. The legible text of the roll is written in an official chancery script and occupies the rectos and dorses of the membranes. Marginal headings are contemporary. Arabic numerals throughout the roll are later. The roll has two contemporary general headings at the foot of the dorse of membrane 1, and the following contemporary note, 'Arundell' tangentem restitucionem ad nomen comitis et honoris'. The parliament of November 1330, RP , II, 52-60, is recorded on the rectos of membranes 7, 6 and 5 and the dorses of membranes 7 and 6. At the heads of membranes 5 and 6 are later notes, 'Parl' 4 Ed. 3'. (fn. N1330int-1) The parliament of Michaelmas 1331, RP , ii, 60-3, is recorded on the recto of membrane 4 and on the centre of its dorse, with the top and lower halves having been left blank apart from a contemporary note at the foot and the later note, 'Parlem' 5 Ed. 3', at the head. The parliament of March 1332, RP , ii, 64-6, is recorded on the recto of membrane 3, with contemporary endorsements at both the head and foot. The parliament of September 1332, RP , ii, 66-7, is recorded on the recto of membrane 2, and there is a later note at the head of its dorse, 'Parlement 6 Ed. 3'. The parliament of December 1332, RP , ii, 67-8, is recorded on the recto of membrane 1.The parliament of January 1333, RP , ii, 68-9, is recorded on membrane 1.

2. E 175/2/16: three membranes, possibly of a roll of petitions heard before the Council. Membranes 2-4 (edited in R & S as 1-3) have previously been edited in R & S , 186-215. A fourth membrane (now numbered as membrane 1) was added from unsorted miscellanea in 1958, after Richardson and Sayles had edited membranes 2, 3, and 4, and has not previously been edited. This document recording council proceedings consists of four membranes stitched together at the head into a file of exchequer business. The condition of the document is generally good, though the foot of membrane 1 is torn, and membrane 4 has been rubbed and has two small holes near its foot. The membranes measure approximately as follows: membrane 1, 220mm in width and 575mm in length; membrane 2, 210mm in width and 620mm in length; membrane 3, 220mm in width and 550mm in length; membrane 4, 220mm in width and 650mm in length. All the marginalia are contemporary. The text, written in an official chancery script, occupies both the rectos and the dorses. The arabic numerals supplied by Richardson and Sayles have been renumbered to begin at the head of the hitherto unedited membrane 1, but their original numbers have been retained in brackets from item number 30 (1).

The Nottingham Parliament of November 1330 was preceded by two other non-parliamentary gatherings. A large assembly, described in the writs as a 'colloquium' and 'tractatum' and not a parliament, had been held at Osney abbey near Oxford on 9 July 1330. A marginal note describes the meeting as 'de tractatu apud Oseneye habendo'. The terminating date is not known. The writs of summons, which were issued at Woodstock on 5 June ( RDP , iv, 394-5), gave the purpose of the meeting as 'great and urgent newly emerging business intimately touching the king and the state of the realm'. The writs of summons were sent to the archbishop of Canterbury, seventeen bishops (including the four Welsh bishops), nineteen abbots, and one prior; to eight earls (Norfolk, Cornwall, Lancaster, Surrey, Oxford, Hereford, March, and Atholl (from Scotland)), forty-nine barons (the list of barons again contains Guy de Beauchamp, earl of Warwick, in error, even though his son Thomas de Beauchamp was correctly named in the summons to the March 1330 parliament); and to five royal judges. No elected knights and burgesses or representatives of the lower clergy were summoned on this occasion.

Another large assembly, described in the writs as a 'colloquium' and 'tractatum' and not a parliament, had met at Nottingham on 15 October. A marginal note on the Close Roll describes the meeting as 'de tractatu apud Notingham habendo'. The meeting probably ended on 20 October, since Roger Mortimer, the earl of March, was arrested on 19 October and the king was at Leicester from 21 October. The writs of summons, which were issued at Nottingham on 6 September ( RDP , iv, 395-7), gave the purpose of the meeting as 'certain arduous affairs touching the king and the state of the realm and the king's other lands which have newly emerged'. The writs of summons were sent to the archbishop of Canterbury, sixteen bishops (including the four Welsh bishops), nineteen abbots and one prior; to nine earls (Norfolk, Cornwall, Lancaster, Surrey, Oxford, Hereford, March, Atholl (from Scotland), and Warwick (again wrongly named as Guy de Beauchamp), forty-eight barons; and to four royal judges. No elected knights and burgesses or representatives of the lower clergy were summoned on this occasion.

Growing tensions in England's relations with France marked the months following the Winchester parliament in March 1330. The council held at Osney abbey on 9 July probably concerned the situation in France. Negotiations with France over the demand that Edward III should perform liege homage were continuing. The latest deadline for its performance was 28 July. The bishop of Norwich was sent to Paris for further negotiations, which broke down in late August, leaving Edward III in default and his duchy of Aquitaine liable to confiscation. On 6 September the bishop rejoined the royal court at Nottingham and on that date a great council of prelates and magnates was summoned to meet at Nottingham on 15 October. Its purpose was to consider the defence of Gascony, but in the event other more serious matters intervened. (fn. N1330int-2)

Tensions had also been growing between Edward III and Mortimer. In late September 1329 the king had sent his trusted agent, Sir William Montagu, to visit the pope at Avignon to inform him of events in England. In reply the pope asked Edward for some sign by which he would be able in future to distinguish the king's wishes from those expressed in his name by Roger Mortimer. This was probably the occasion for Edward III's now famous letter to the pope, which was sent early in 1330 and in which the words Pater Sancte were written in Edward III's own hand. It is not known whether the letter was sent before or after the execution for treason of Edward III's uncle, the earl of Kent, at Winchester on 19 March 1330. If Edward III had not already turned against Mortimer, he did so now. The earl of Kent's execution, after intense pressure from Mortimer who feared that the young king might spare his uncle, was only the latest in a long series of humiliations. The manner of the earl of Kent's death, after several hours of waiting while an executioner was found, was a profound shock to all those present. As one chronicler remarked, the execution had been carried out 'without common consent'. Edward III was now nearly eighteen and aware that he would have to act soon or lose any chance of an independent existence. With the aid of his most loyal follower, William Montagu, Edward began to plot the overthrow of Mortimer. Mortimer for his part became increasingly suspicious of the king. In early September Mortimer and Isabella moved, with Edward III, to Nottingham castle for greater safety. By the time the council summoned for 15 October began Mortimer knew of the plots against him, but was not aware of the details. The earl of Lancaster was treated discourteously when he arrived at Nottingham for the council and may have had reason to fear that he would suffer the same fate as the earl of Kent. In a highly embarrassing scene Roger Mortimer interrogated the king's closest friends before the council, telling them, in Edward III's presence, that the king was untrustworthy and trying to discover what they knew of the plotting against him. They held their nerve. This sealed Mortimer's fate and on 19 October Montagu and a group of armed men seized him during the night. Mortimer was then sent to London under guard. On 20 October Edward III issued a proclamation in which he announced the arrest of Roger Mortimer, repudiated the acts which Mortimer and Isabella had carried out in his name, and declared that he would govern in person according to 'justice and reason'. Edward III apparently wished to have Mortimer hanged immediately but was persuaded by the earl of Lancaster that he should be judged in parliament. On 23 October the parliament at which Mortimer's fate would be decided was summoned. The writs stated that because business touching the king and the state of the realm had arisen since he undertook the government of the realm, to the king's loss and to the disgrace and impoverishment of his people, and desiring with all his heart to restore the tranquillity and peace of the Holy Church and of the people of the realm, the king had decided, with the counsel and assent of the prelates and magnates who were with him, to hold a parliament at Westminster on 26 November. (fn. N1330int-3)

The writs of summons for the Westminster parliament of 26 November were issued at Leicester on 23 October. The writs stated that the king wished 'with full deliberation' to have a 'consilium et tractatum' with those attending. The marginal note on the Close Roll describes the intended meeting as a parliament.

Writs of summons were issued on 23 October to the archbishops of Canterbury and York, nineteen bishops (including the four Welsh bishops), twenty-seven abbots and three priors; to nine earls (Norfolk, Cornwall, Lancaster, Surrey, Richmond, Oxford, Hereford, Warwick (correctly named as Thomas de Beauchamp), and Atholl (from Scotland) (Roger Mortimer, earl of March, was arrested on 19 October), and forty-seven barons; eight royal judges and clerks; and for the election of representatives of the knights of the shire and burgesses. Representatives of the lower clergy were not summoned on this occasion.

A lengthy indictment outlining the charges against Roger Mortimer was presented to the earls and barons when parliament assembled in Westminster Hall on 26 November. He was accused of ignoring the council of bishops, earls, and barons established to advise the king at his coronation and of usurping royal power; of moving the deposed Edward II from Kenilworth to Berkeley castle and there having him murdered; of preventing the earl of Lancaster from attending the parliament at Salisbury (October 1328) by assembling an armed force; of making the king create him earl of March; of procuring the execution of the earl of Kent by persuading him that the former king was still alive; by causing discord between Edward II and Isabella and persuading her that if she came to Edward he would have killed her with a knife or by some other means; by taking royal treasure and jewels for his own use; and plotting the destruction of the king's retainers and most intimate advisers. The earls and barons were then charged, as Mortimer's peers, with rendering just and lawful judgment upon him. 'Which earls, barons and peers, having examined the articles by themselves, returned before the king in the same parliament and they all said through one of the peers that all the things contained in the said articles were notorious and well-known to them and to the people, and particularly the article touching the death of the lord Edward, the father of our present lord the king. Whereupon the said earls, barons and peers, as judges of the parliament, by the assent of the king in the same parliament, awarded and adjudged that the said Roger be drawn and hanged as a traitor and an enemy of the king and of the realm. And thereupon it was commanded to the earl marshal to carry out the execution of the said judgment.' 'Which execution was done and carried out on Thursday following the first day of parliament, which was 29 November.' Judgment was also passed upon several of Mortimer's retainers, Simon Bereford (sentenced as being his accomplice in all his acts of treason), John Maltravers, John Deveril, and Bogo de Bayouse (sentenced for their role in entrapment of the earl of Kent), and Thomas Gurney and William Ogle (sentenced for the murder of Edward II). The magnates however added the request that they should not again be required to render judgment upon those who were not their peers. This was in reference to Simon Bereford and Mortimer's other retainers, all of whom were knights. Bereford and Deveril were both executed after Mortimer, but Maltravers, Bayouse, Gurney, and Ogle all escaped abroad. The archbishop of York and others who had been accused of treason as followers of the earl of Kent were cleared; while the earl of Lancaster and his followers who been in arms at Bedford in 1328 were rehabilitated. Letters of pardon to Lancaster and his followers were issued on 4 December. On 7 December Edmund, the son of the late earl of Kent, petitioned to be restored to his father's earldom, and Margaret his widow, petitioned for her dower. The king granted both requests, with the assent of parliament. On 12 December Richard Fitz Alan, the son of Edmund Fitz Alan earl of Arundel, who had been executed in December 1326 as a supporter of Hugh Despenser the Younger and whose lands had been declared forfeited in parliament in February 1327, also petitioned for his restoration. This too was granted after the petition had been read before the prelates, earls, and barons in parliament. Sir William Montagu was rewarded with £1000 worth of lands in Denbigh and elsewhere in Wales for his part in the arrest of Roger Mortimer. Thomas Berkeley, who had been one of Edward II's custodians at his castle of Berkeley, came before the parliament and was judicially examined concerning his knowledge of the death of Edward II. He claimed that he had not been at Berkeley at the time of Edward II's death and had not known that the former king had died of other than natural causes. He then asked for his guilt or innocence to be determined by a jury of knights of the county of Gloucester. Their verdict that Thomas Berkeley was not guilty of approving, helping or procuring the death of Edward II and that he was gravely ill at Bradley when the king was murdered, was delivered at the following parliament at Westminster on 20 January 1331. As further signs that Edward III and his government wished to draw a line under the political upheavals of the past four years, Hugh Despenser, the son of Hugh Despenser the Younger, was pardoned on 15 December, while his father's bones were gathered from the places to which his quartered body had been sent and given decent burial. At the same time further diplomatic moves were made at the papal curia to try to obtain the canonisation of Despenser's old enemy, Thomas of Lancaster. (fn. N1330int-4)

However dramatic the events during the parliament, relations between England and France were also pressing and may have been discussed during the parliament. Towards the end of 1330 French ambassadors arrived in London to urge an early answer on the question of homage. In early November John Shoreditch, a chancery clerk who was an expert on the duchy of Aquitaine, was ordered to prepare a dossier on the current state of negotiations with France to be presented at the coming parliament. It probably was presented, although there is no record of this. In January 1331 a high-level English embassy, consisting of the bishops of Worcester and Norwich, two clerks John Shoreditch and Thomas Sampson, two barons Henry Percy and Hugh Audley, and Edward III's close confidant William Montagu, was sent to Paris to continue the negotiations. (fn. N1330int-5)

No grant of taxation was requested or granted during the parliament. No commune petition exists for this parliament but the statute approved during the parliament may reflect such concerns. The statute began with the confirmation of the Great Charter, the Charter of the Forest and the Statutes; it also contained measures concerning the justices of assize and gaol delivery and the keepers of the peace, purveyance (the statute of 28 Edward I, c.2, was confirmed), the pardon of fines, the confirmation of the Statute of Carlisle (35 Edward I), concerning executors, passage at the ports, the property of sheriffs in their county, enquiries concerning maintenance by justices of assize, the price of wines, the confirmation of c. 2 of the Statute of Northampton of 2 Edward III concerning felons; and the letting of hundreds by sheriffs at the old ferm. It was also decided that a parliament should be held once a year or more often if necessary. The statute was also to be sent to Ireland for promulgation there. (fn. N1330int-6)

A considerable number of individual petitions were submitted during the parliament. Some of them, like those of the son and the widow of the earl of Kent, appear on the Parliament Roll (C 65/2). Another roll, E 175/2/16, contains transcripts and replies to ninety-two petitions, which were probably heard by the Council. Eleven of these petitions have been identified with surviving originals in the Ancient Petitions, SC 8, series. Many of the matters complained of in these petitions relate to oppressive actions by Roger Mortimer since 1327 or by Hugh Despenser the Younger before 1327. There are several petitions relating to royal debts from the reign of Edward II, including one for the cost of cloth supplied for the wedding of Edward II and Isabella at Boulogne and the coronation at Westminster in 1308. Others refer even to royal debts outstanding since the time of Edward I. A large number of petitions concern claims for the repayment or allowance for money borrowed by Edward III from wool English and foreign wool merchants since the beginning of the reign. It appears that the parliament of November-December 1330 was the first occasion since January-February 1327 when private petitions were received and handled in large numbers. Judging by the number of petitions which refer to the relatively distant past, it is also likely that it was the first occasion since well before 1327 when there was any chance of an answer to accumulated grievances. The petition of the prior and convent of Eye in Suffolk submitted to the king and council in about 1330 ( RP , ii, p.414, no. 200: SC 8/17/836. Cf. RP , ii, p.31, no. 1), in which they say that for a long time they have sued the King 'both in Parliament and out of Parliament' ('auxi bien en Parlementz come hors de Parlementz') for the recovery of the advowsons of the churches of Thorndon and Melles which they gave to the king's father, may be just one example of long delays in receiving a reply. Although the officially recorded petitions appear only in C 65/2 and E 175/2/16, there may have been many more. See PROME , Appendix of Unedited Petitions, 1307 - 1337 , Petitions in Parliament, 4 Edward III (1330-1331) , Transcripts of eighty-four petitions taken from the manuscripts of Sir Matthew Hale , and elsewhere in the Appendix.