Henry VI: April 1425

1425 April

Introduction 1425

Westminster

30 April -25 May 1425

31 May - 14 July 1425

C 65/86; RP , IV.261-294; SR , II.227-8

C 65/86 is a roll of fifteen membranes, each approximately 310mm. in width, sewn together in chancery style. The lineage of John, earl marshal has been drawn in circles on membrane 15 which has been stitched to the dorse at the head of membrane 2; this comprises two pieces of parchment which have been contemporaneously glued together, the first piece is approximately 850mm. in length, and the second 630mm. The dispute between the earl marshal and the earl of Warwick over precedence occupies membranes 2, 3, 4, and 5. The lineage has therefore been attached where the record of the case begins. The opening items down to and including the election of the speaker are on the first membrane, with the remaining business on membranes 6 to 12 written in near continuous fashion. Common petitions run from membranes 13 to 15.

The condition of the roll is good, though membranes 1, 3, and 9 are stained with gallic acid. The lower half of membrane 10 has been left blank. The text, written in a small, official chancery script, occupies the rectos of the membranes only. The dorses are blank. Marginal headings are contemporary, but the Arabic numerals throughout the roll are later. Some of the thorn symbols used in two Middle English passages on membrane 5 are indistinguishable from the letter 'y' used in words such as 'you', 'your', but two of these have been erased and a thorn substituted. The roll does not appear to be incomplete.

Writs of summons for the third parliament of Henry VI's reign were issued on Saturday 24 February 1425. (fn. int1425-1) It began as planned on Monday 30 April 1425, and continued to Saturday 14 July, a total length of ten weeks and five days, although there was a prorogation for one week between Friday 25 May and Thursday 31 May over the feast of Whitsun (Sunday 27 May). Parliament opened, therefore, slightly over fourteen months after its predecessor had ended (28 February 1424), but the fact that summons were issued almost at the twelve-month anniversary of the closure of the 1423 parliament emphasizes again the council's desire for parliament to meet regularly as an expression of national unity as well as a means of dealing with the difficulties of power-sharing necessitated by the king's tender age.

Interestingly, the writs of summons were more expansive on the reasons for assembly than they had been in 1422 and 1423, and than they were to be on every subsequent occasion. On the two previous occasions, it was said that parliament was being called on the advice of the council because of the difficult and urgent business concerning the state and defence of the realm and the church. (fn. int1425-2) The writs of 1425 added at the very beginning 'we, in our tender years, have resolved to find out whether peace and justice are preserved amongst our lieges, without which no realm may prosper'. (fn. int1425-3) This may be coincidence, but it is tempting to see this phrase as added under the influence of Henry Beaufort, bishop of Winchester, who was chancellor at the time the writs were issued, a time when the duke of Gloucester was absent in the Low Countries in pursuit of the interests of his wife, Jacqueline of Hainault. As we shall see, Beaufort was an increasingly powerful force, but the dispute between himself and Gloucester was becoming increasingly public, as events before and during the parliament were to show.

Since the close of the previous parliament, there had been important developments at the centre of English politics. On 16 July 1424, Henry Beaufort, bishop of Winchester, had been appointed chancellor in place of Thomas Langley, bishop of Durham. Beaufort's prominence was further enhanced by the absence of the duke of Gloucester on campaign in the Low Countries from 18 October 1424 to 12 April 1425 in an attempt to secure the rights of his wife to Holland and Zealand. After some early successes, the threat of Burgundian action forced Gloucester to retreat, and to return to England on 12 April 1425. Throughout the campaign, Bedford had made every effort to prevent potential damage to the Anglo-Burgundian alliance. Beaufort was also not keen on supporting Gloucester's military ambitions, remaining determined to assist Bedford's strategies in France.

Since Bedford's victory at the battle of Verneuil on 17 August 1424, there was a real chance of expanding English interests into Maine and Anjou. Sir John Fastolf had led the first assault from early September 1424, with the earl of Salisbury continuing the advance over the winter and into the spring and summer of 1425. The earl had already met with much success in securing Anglo-Burgundian interests in Champagne and Brie and to the south of Paris. On all fronts there was a hope of expansion, and it is not surprising that Bedford was keen to have reinforcements. In early March 1425, an army of 1500 was contracted, with the intention that it should be dispatched in the second half of May. On 16 May a commission was issued ordering Sir John Grey of Ruthin, Sir John Popham, Sir Roger Fiennes, Sir Lancelot de Lisle, and Sir John Holland, or any two of them, to take command of the expedition and to conduct it to Bedford in France. (fn. int1425-4) The financing of part of the wages of this expedition had been made possible by loans from Beaufort as well as from other members of the council, the city of London and Italian companies. (fn. int1425-5)

A parliament was needed in the hope of raising taxation to repay these loans and to cover the outstanding cost of the expedition. As we shall see, Beaufort's opening sermon on 30 April stressed the obligation on the subject to provide aid and sustenance. This had became all the more necessary in the light of Beaufort's earlier failure to persuade the convocation of Canterbury to make a grant. Beaufort had already been putting pressure on the first convocation of the reign which met from 16 October 1424. (fn. int1425-6) But it had proved reluctant to make a grant, despite repeated exhortations and despite its continuance to 17 February. On that last day, the proctors of the lower clergy had claimed their members were too poor to pay a tax. This was surely what prompted the issue a week later, on 24 February, of writs of summons for a parliament to begin on 30 April and also for another southern convocation to commence on 28 April. Although the wool subsidy and tunnage and poundage had been granted in the 1423 parliament until November 1426, only grants of direct taxation by the laity, clergy, or preferably both, would provide the sums needed.

Bishop Beaufort and his supporters had undoubtedly dominated the council in Gloucester's absence, and Beaufort himself had been able to gain repayments of some of his loans. (fn. int1425-7) It may be, too, that Bishop Beaufort had developed a closer relationship with the young king during Gloucester's absence, and that he was now particularly keen to associate himself with the king's majesty in the public setting of parliament. It would, of course, fall to Beaufort as chancellor to make the opening sermon. In this context, it is interesting to note that the young king himself was to be present for the first time at the opening of the parliament, and seems to have attended other sessions. (fn. int1425-8) Moreover, when writs for the parliament had been ordered on 24 February, Gloucester was still in the Low Countries. His attendance at the parliament may not have been certain, although he was none the less sent a summons. Bedford, however, did not receive a summons: his absence was already guaranteed. But Gloucester was back in England by the time of the parliament, and was also keen to raise money and men to further his wife's cause. As we shall see, this was to impinge on the business of the parliament, although, as on so many occasions in the reign, there is no formal recorded debate on foreign policy.

Relations between Gloucester and Beaufort were already deteriorating before parliament met. In this debate, the opinion of the Londoners was to prove crucial. Beaufort was certainly already unpopular in the city of London before the session began. The Londoners were increasingly hostile towards the Flemish, not least now that the ruler of Flanders, the duke of Burgundy, was in obvious dispute with Gloucester. Duke Humphrey thus gained further popularity and support in London by virtue of his campaigns in the Low Countries, not least because English merchants were keen on the opportunities which effective English control over Hainault, Holland and Zealand might bring. In February 1425 Beaufort had become alarmed at anti-Flemish disturbances in London, and had responded by installing on 26 February a new commander of the Tower of London, Richard Woodville, the chamberlain of the duke of Bedford, with a large garrison. (fn. int1425-9) This was only two days after the writs of summons had been issued. Subsequently, several Londoners were arrested; were charged with treason by an informer thought to be in Beaufort's pay. The appointment of Woodville had also antagonised Gloucester, not least when the duke was refused entry to the Tower on his return from abroad in April. But Gloucester remained popular in London. Not surprisingly, Londoners were less well disposed towards Beaufort, and believed that 'the chancellor bore a heavy heart against the city'. (fn. int1425-10) Parliament therefore opened with Gloucester and Beaufort already known to be ill-disposed towards each other, and with Londoners clear in their preference for the duke. Beaufort later claimed that he had been warned both before and after the parliament that Gloucester intended to cause him physical harm in London. As the session continued, there was indeed much unrest in London and its environs focused against Beaufort. The bishop was attacked near his residence in 'billes and langage of slaundre and manasse', which culminated in a threat to throw him in the river. (fn. int1425-11)

Not surprisingly, the parliament was to echo London's anti-alien feeling, which was targeted particularly against the Flemish. For chroniclers based in London, the parliament was noteworthy because of the poundage imposed on alien merchants as well as the increased controls placed on the latter by means of the hosting system. (fn. int1425-12) The stormy nature of the meeting was also emphasized: Gregory's chronicle noted that there 'was moche altercacyon by-twyne the lordys and the comyns for tunnage and poundage'. It links the final agreement to the tax with the legislation on hosting, but also makes clear London's antagonism towards the bishop of Winchester in the light of his treatment of Londoners. It concludes by saying that 'that Parlyment hadde an evylle faring ende, to shamefully for to be namyd of any weladvysed man'. (fn. int1425-13) But the parliament was also notable for the precedence case between the earl of Warwick and the earl marshal, which resulted in the latter being elevated to the dukedom of Norfolk on the last day of the parliament. This matter also engaged the attention of some of the chroniclers. (fn. int1425-14)

Writs of summons were issued on 24 February 1425. (fn. int1425-15) Twenty-six heads of religious houses were summoned, the same list as in the previous two parliaments. Twenty-one summons were issued to the episcopate. Seventeen went to named bishops or archbishops, (fn. int1425-16) save that for Chichester the writ was addressed to the vicar general in the bishop's absence. Four sees, York, Bath and Wells, Lincoln and Bangor, were vacant at this time so that writs were sent to the keepers of the spiritualities. (The bishop of Lincoln, Richard Fleming, had been translated to York by the Pope, Martin V, on 10 February 1424, but the council had refused to accept this and deprived Fleming of his temporalities at Lincoln also. Both sees were thus regarded as vacant.) John Wakeryng, bishop of Norwich, died on 9 April 1425. John Stafford, who was also treasurer of England, was consecrated bishop of Bath and Wells on 27 May. Davies suggests that the bishops of Salisbury, Hereford, Chichester, Exeter, and St Asaph were absent from both sessions of the parliament, with the bishop of Rochester attending the first session only. Ten legal officials were also summoned. We know the names of 242 MPs out of a probable total of 264 seats, although the first figure includes men returned for more than one constituency. Specific instructions were sent to Bristol to return only two men. (fn. int1425-17)

Twenty-five lay peers were summoned. These were as in 1423 save for the fact that two peers had died in the interim (the earl of March and Henry, lord Fitzhugh), and six men were summoned who had not been sent writs in 1423. One of these was Sir Lewis Robessart who was summoned for the first time as lord Bourchier. He had married as her second husband Elizabeth, sole heir of Bartholemew, lord Bourchier, d. 1409. Her first husband, Sir Hugh Stafford, d. October 1420, had similarly received summons as lord Bourchier in 1411 and 1412. The other five were Sir John Grey of Codnor, Humphrey, earl of Stafford, William, lord Lovell, James, lord Berkeley, and John, lord Talbot. The last-named had entered into a bond on 1 December 1423, with several peers appearing before Chancery on his behalf on that date, that he would be personally present at the parliament if he was in England, and that he would not in the meantime commit or cause to be committed any offence against Hugh Wenlock or anyone else (item 15). The previous parliament had had before it complaints of the lawlessness of Talbot's men in Herefordshire (Parliament of 1423, item 46). It is possible that a twenty-sixth peer was summoned. A writ was drawn up for John, lord Scrope, but the close roll entry shows that this was deleted. He did in fact sue in the parliament for restoration of the entailed lands of his dead brother (item 32), and is noted as present during at least part of the parliament: he was, of course, already a royal councillor.

As ever it is difficult to know precisely who attended in person, and whether they were present for the whole parliament. A large attendance of peers was perhaps to be expected with the king himself present in person, and also with a precedence case between the earl of Warwick and the earl marshal due to come before the lords in parliament. (fn. int1425-18) We are fortunate to have a list of those present on 14 May when an oath was taken to act impartially in the precedence case (item 10). Eight bishops (if one counts Stafford as already in post), three abbots, and sixteen lay peers took the oath, as well as six members of the council who were not peers. The lay peers listed included John, lord Scrope, and John [recte, Thomas], lord Roos (b. 1406), who was noted as being under age. Also in the list was Richard Neville, warden of the west march, later earl of Salisbury. His father, Ralph, earl of Westmorland, is not in the list, although he had received a summons to the parliament. As the earl died on 21 October 1425, it is possible that he was already too ill to attend. The two earls in dispute - Warwick and the Earl Marshal - were presumably in attendance during the hearing of their case, and there are references elsewhere in the roll to the presence of Talbot and three further abbots. It has thus been estimated that around 30 out of the 69 lords summoned may have been present in person. (fn. int1425-19)

Parliament opened on Monday 30 April 1425, with the king, now aged three years and four months, seated on the throne (item 1). This was the first time the king had attended an opening session. The BL Julius B I chronicle notes how the king had come from Windsor to London in a chair with his mother on Saturday 27 April (this date was actually a Friday - the Great Chronicle of London gives the correct date of Saturday 28 April). At the west door of St Pauls he was taken out of his chair by the duke of Gloucester and the duke of Exeter, but went on his own feet from the west door up to the stairs, and so up into the choir, where he made oblations. After this he rode through Cheapside and London to Kennington. It does not make specific mention of the king being present at the opening, but claims that 'the king held his see [ie seat] divers daies in the parliament'. (fn. int1425-20)

The king's presence at the opening is noted in the roll, however, and it gave the opportunity for a special invocation of his person. This is revealed in the text of the sermon given by the chancellor, Bishop Beaufort. (fn. int1425-21) After a general declaration of the preservation of liberties of the church and other estates - that having been granted at the previous parliament (Parliament of 1423, item 43) - the bishop took as his theme 'Glory, honour and peace to all who do good'. He distinguished three types of 'good' towards the ruler : the obedience of the subject; the giving of sound counsel; and the provision of sustenance. This last invocation was an implicit request for taxation from the commons. But his exemplification of the need for good counsel was perhaps directed at Gloucester. He stressed that those who gave counsel should be like an elephant - free of enmity, steadfast, and with a good memory. In the gloss on this, he specifically mentioned the need to avoid not only bitterness and rancour, but also partiality occasioned by bribery and corruption. He concluded by noting that God was still on the side of the English: He had adorned the young king with virtues and had kept his two realms of France and England 'under the sweetest and safest peace and tranquillity' since his father's death.

Receivers and triers of petitions were appointed, with Thursday 3 May being set as the date for delivery of such petitions. On Wednesday 2 May the commons presented their choice as speaker, Sir Thomas Wauton (or Waweton) of Great Staughton, a knight of the shire for Bedfordshire. His parliamentary career dated as far back as 1397, and he had been an MP on six occasions since the opening of Henry V's reign. He had also served as sheriff of Bedfordshire and Buckinghamshire. Roskell suggests that he was chosen because he was well-connected. He had been a retainer of the recently deceased Edmund, earl of March, which was all the more relevant given that the parliament had before it matters concerning the dower of the widowed Countess Anne (item 29). He also had some kind of connection with Archbishop Chichele, which as Roskell puts it, 'might make it less difficult to understand how, in the course of the parliament of 1425, Gloucester fared so well, or at least how the duke's political opponent, Henry Beaufort, the chancellor, fared so ill', given Chichele's opposition to the latter's ecclesiastical pretensions. (fn. int1425-22) But as ever, it remains difficult to know just how influential a speaker was under such circumstances.

The roll gives a few dates to assist in the reconstruction of business, especially in the precedence case between the earl of Warwick and the earl marshal, a dispute which had been running since 1405. (Item 13 claimed that the earl marshal had sued in several previous parliaments to have his title, right and possession, but there is no direct evidence of this in the rolls of intervening parliaments. However, the pedigree submitted by the earl marshal to the parliament of 1425, which was sewn into the roll, was certainly compiled before the death of Henry V as it refers to that king as 'qui nunc est'.) The case opened on Monday 14 May with an oath of peers and others to deal with the matter impartially (item 10). (The case proper is at items 11 to 13.) The earls were invited to submit in writing on the following day their claims to the 'right and title of his seat'. Neither of the contestants was allowed to be present at the ensuing sessions. Some of the original documents they submitted were transcribed into the roll. Of particular interest here is the pedigree sewn into the dorse of the roll on membrane 2, submitted by the earl marshal's counsel in order to show his descent from royal ancestors, namely Thomas of Brotherton, son of Edward I by his second wife, Margaret of France, which was a central tenet of his claim to precedence over Warwick. The presentation of this roll, along with a written account of the claim of the earl marshal, seems to have opened the case on Tuesday 15 May. (fn. int1425-23)

Warwick's counsel, Sir Walter Beauchamp, was to have responded on behalf of the absent earl, but he asked for, and was allowed by Gloucester and the lords there present, a postponement to the next day, Wednesday 16 May, on the grounds that 'parliament was not fuller of representatives of the estates'. This can only mean that there was a poor attendance of the lords spiritual and temporal for this case was heard before them alone, and can be assumed not to have involved the commons. On the Wednesday, which was the eve of the Ascension, Beauchamp presented Warwick's case. How long this took is not clear. We also know from the privy council records that on 16 May too, some members of the council and other lords of the parliament met in the chamber of the parliament to discuss a petition from John Brumham, keeper of Henry V's books. (fn. int1425-24)

On Wednesday 23 May Roger Hunt, MP for Huntingdonshire, for whom the parliament of 1425 was his twelfth as a knight of the shire, began to reply on behalf of the earl marshal, but it was not until two days later, Friday 25 May, that Hunt submitted to parliament written replies to Warwick's case. As the roll tells us later, parliament was prorogued on that day to Thursday 31 May (item 14). (fn. int1425-25) This was because of Whitsun although this reason is not made explicit in the roll. Beauchamp replied to Hunt's submissions of 25 May on Saturday 2 June, and Hunt made rejoinder, possibly also on 2 June. On a Friday (which must be either 1 or 8 June), when Warwick seems to have been present in person, the earls were given a deadline of the following Wednesday (6 or 13 June) by which they were to submit any additional evidence, on the basis of which it was intended to decide the case. Hunt submitted various documents. Beauchamp and Hunt then made their concluding statements in turn. But an impasse had been reached. This was resolved by the intervention of the commons, as item 13 demonstrates. They expressed concern that the case might generate further conflict and difficulties if it was not resolved. They noted also the 'common report' that the earl marshal had been 'born to the style, title, name and honour' of the duke of Norfolk. If this was true then it seemed to them that a 'fitting and speedy end' to the matter might be made. They thus petitioned the king and lords that the latter should 'deem it fitting' that the earl marshal should take the title of duke of Norfolk. The earl marshal was able to demonstrate his claim through the charter whereby his father, Thomas Mowbray, had been created duke of Norfolk in the parliament on 29 September 1397. The text of the charter is then given in full. It is followed by a petition of the earl marshal to the king recalling how he had petitioned concerning his precedence over Warwick in 'this your high court of parliament' in previous parliaments during the present king's reign. (As noted earlier, there is no mention of this in the rolls for the two previous parliaments.) He noted that the lords had not been prepared to make a judgment in the present parliament, mentioning that this had led the commons to make their petition. He then formally put forward his claim to be duke of Norfolk, which would give him the precedence he desired, and asked that his petition might be accepted in parliament and put on record.

The exact chronology of discussions after this is unclear but the roll notes that it involved the royal justices and serjeants at law (two of whom had been summoned to the parliament) and other relevant men of the king's council. They acknowledged that the actions of the parliament of 1397 had been revoked by Henry IV in the first parliament of his reign. But they concluded that the creation of peers belonged solely to the king and not to parliament. Furthermore, the act of Henry IV's first parliament which had revoked the acts of the 1397 assembly had not specifically mentioned a revocation of the creation of Mowbray as duke, adding that others given titles in the 1397 parliament were still bearing them. It was therefore in the king's name 'with the advice and assent of the lords spiritual and temporal and the commons of the realm of England assembled in this present parliament, and also of the king's justices and serjeants at law and other learned men of the king's council', that John Mowbray, earl marshal, should be deemed to be duke of Norfolk. This decision was publicly proclaimed to the full parliament by the chancellor on Saturday 14 July, the last day of the parliament, and John Mowbray paid liege homage to the king who then requested him to sit among the peers 'in the appropriate place'. On the same day, the commons' assent to trade taxes was announced (item 17), as was also their agreement to a loan to be made to the duke of Gloucester, no doubt for his intended military activity in the Low Countries (item 34).

Only the preliminaries of the parliament and the case between the earls are enrolled before the note of the prorogation at item 14. The agreement on repayment of the loans of Bishop Beaufort is dated to 6 June but was backdated to 1 May (item 21). It is possible, therefore, that much of the remaining business was dealt with after the prorogation, although the commons were presumably dealing with business before the Whitsun break whilst the precedence case was largely occupying the lords. Exactly how the business was distributed between the two sessions thus remains unclear. A note in the privy council records indicates a further item of business came before the first session on 23 May: 'in full parliament' Sir John Radcliffe requested to be discharged from the office of seneschal of Aquitaine (Parliament of 1425, Appendix, item 2). (Vale says that he 'petitioned to be exonerated because his services were required by the Regent in Normandy', but the text does not say this. Radcliffe appeared in the duchy rarely after 1425 but remained in office as seneschal until 1436, so it is unlikely that the petition was granted. No reply is given in the text.) Those present when Radcliffe made his request were noted as Gloucester, Exeter, Warwick, Stafford, Northumberland, with the bishops of Winchester, Durham and Carlisle, and lords Cromwell, Scrope, Clinton, Dacre, Tiptoft and others. (fn. int1425-26) This is essentially the minority council boosted by additional lords. The same text notes that on the same day assignments were granted for the payment of Richard Neville as keeper of the West March but does not specifically refer to full parliament in connection with this. (fn. int1425-27)

What is obvious is the amount of business in the parliament which concerned the temporal lords. Not only do we have the precedence case which must have taken up much time, not least as all of the documents seem to have been read out verbatim, as well as the case explained and debated. The case proper (items 11 to 13) occupies four complete membranes (2 to 5 inclusive) of the parliament roll of 15 membranes. The enrolment of the bond of security of lord Talbot (item 15) has already been noted. A dispute between the bishop of Ely and John Baldeware of Sutton over a tenement in Wisbech was also brought before the parliament, and a perambulation ordered to try to sort the matter out (item 22). Essentially the issue was which county, Lincolnshire or Cambridgeshire, the tenement lay in. Sir John Cornwall also presented a petition requesting that satisfaction should be made for the money he had paid to the count of Vendome for the release of his stepson, the earl of Huntingdon, from captivity in France and for other sums he was owed by the crown from the wardship of lands which had previously belonged to Sir John Arundel (item 24). (fn. int1425-28) Huntingdon had petitioned in the previous parliament concerning arrangements for his release from captivity (Parliament of 1423, item 34), and did so again with three petitions in 1425 (items 25-7), hoping that de Gaucourt and d'Estouteville might be released as part of a deal for his own freedom. Although these petitions were all granted, negotiations for the mutual releases dragged on, and it does not seem as though Huntingdon was back in England until the spring of 1426. (fn. int1425-29) Harriss notes that Gloucester 'quickly sought to attach Huntingdon to himself'. (fn. int1425-30)

Anne, countess of March, whose husband had died in Ireland on 18 January 1425, petitioned for livery of her dower. This was granted, on the condition that she did not remarry without royal licence (item 29). The ensuing grant was dated 23 June 1425 suggesting that the case was heard in the second session of the parliament. (fn. int1425-31) By March 1427, she had married the by then released John, earl of Huntingdon. Thomas, duke of Exeter, successfully petitioned to clarify his wardship of the lands of John, lord Roos (d. 1421) during the latter's minority (item 30). William Fitzhugh, son and heir of Henry, lord Fitzhugh who died on 11 January 1425, petitioned that the escheator of Yorkshire had appointed a biased panel as a result of his father's writ diem clausit extremum, and was granted a new inquest (item 33). (fn. int1425-32) This was significant given that Henry had been granted lands after the forfeiture of Henry, lord Scrope of Masham (executed 1415). These lands were now being claimed by Henry Scrope's younger brother, John, lord Scrope. The matter had already come before the previous parliament (Parliament of 1423, item 29). Scrope was himself petitioning in the parliament of 1425 for restoration of the entailed lands of his disgraced brother. Given the fact that John, lord Scrope was by now a member of the royal council, it is perhaps not surprising that his petition was allowed (item 32). (fn. int1425-33) As noted earlier, John, lord Scrope's summons to the parliament had been deleted from the close roll, but he seems to have been present at the parliament. He received a summons to the next and subsequent parliaments to his death in 1455, so that, in practice, the effect of his petition to the 1425 parliament was the restoration of his title as well as estates.

Theobald Gorges also presented a petition concerning livery of his lands (item 28). He had done so already to the parliament of November 1422, claiming that the escheator had made a mistake concerning his age (Parliament of 1422, Appendix, items 6 and 7). His petition then was amongst those detailed to be dealt with by the council after the parliament of 1422 had ended, but it had been answered in his favour and a new inquest ordered. He had been proved of full age, but as his petition in the parliament of 1425 shows, he now faced further difficulties in the light of the death of his mother. He was granted right of entry despite the fact that an earlier inquest had claimed he was under age. It is possible that Gorges' petition had been championed by his uncle, Sir Thomas Beauchamp, one of the MPs for Somerset at the parliament. Another private petition was successfully presented by Eleanor Welle concerning payment of an annuity which had originally been granted under Richard II (item 31). (fn. int1425-34)

Two decisions of the parliament related to matters which had been before it in previous years. There was clarification of the terms of exchange of hostages with Scotland (item 18), which was part of the arrangements by which James I had been released (Parliament of 1423, item 27). (fn. int1425-35) The settlement of debts and commitments arising from the will of Henry IV, which had been subsumed in Henry V's own testamentary arrangements, still needed attention, with a confirmation of an agreement dated 13 September 1424 for settlement to be made with executors (item 23, relating also to Parliament of 1422, item 18, and Parliament of 1427 item 20). A common petition, which was referred, also raised the issue of non payment of debts by the executors of the wills of Henry IV and V to those who held tallies for goods or loans provided (item 47).

Sixteen common petitions were put forward (of which one, as we have seen, related to debts outstanding from the executors of Henry IV and V). The first in terms of enrolment, item 35, clarified the procedure to be used in exonerating English merchants from the wool subsidy where their goods had been lost at sea, the parliaments of 1422 and 1423 having already granted this condition (Parliament of 1422, item 19; Parliament of 1423, item 14), and the present parliament also mentioning it in the grant of 14 July (item 17). A further petition concerning export of wool, where merchants complained that because wool often weighed more after its sea journey, they were being charged heavier duties than they should have been in, was referred.

Five of the common petitions resulted in statutes. One of these concerned the holding of assemblies by masons which were deemed contrary to the statute of labourers (item 43). Another also related in its first section to the statute of labourers and was linked to legislation at the previous parliament (Parliament of 1423, item 56); its second section concerned the difficulties caused by butter and cheese, as easily perishable commodities, being merchandise which needed to pass through the Calais staple (item 48). Two further petitions which resulted in statutes arose from the mercantile lobby: the export of live sheep to Flanders which was seen as a potential threat to the sale of English wool at Calais (item 45), and the punishment of those customs officials who acted corruptly (item 50). The fifth petition which led to a statute was that concerning the navigation of the River Lea (item 44), a matter which also came before the parliament two years later (Parliament of 1427, item 40).

A petition concerning unsubstantiated indictments was agreed in the sense that it was ordered that laws and statutes made in the past should apply (item 39).This was also the response to a petition concerning the length of time those accused of Lollardy and other charges were kept in imprisonment before trial (item 46). It tempting to believe this related in some way to the cases of John Mortimer and Thomas Payn, both of whom had staged escapes, as it noted the 'great peril, fear and labour' which was placed upon gaolers. (fn. int1425-36) In response to a petition concerning inspections by justices of the peace to prevent the erection of dams and other blocks to navigation, it was also ordered that previous statutes should be maintained (item 49).

A petition concerning alienations made by those holding of the crown was referred (item 51: it is tempting to believe that this general petition arose out of problems between Fitzhugh and Scrope). Another put forward on behalf of the inhabitants of Northumberland in complaint against the levy of headpennies by the sheriffs of the county was sent to the council for discussion (item 40). A petition against the billeting of soldiers, noting that this was particularly rife in villages at Kent (no doubt because of armies crossing to France, and also to the Low Countries in support of Gloucester's wife) also had a local origin before being taken up by the commons (item 42). In this case, those with complaints were told to put them to the royal council. Another petition arose out of war conditions: it was claimed that despite the existence of truces between England and Brittany, English merchants had been captured on the seas by subjects of the duke, and had been unsuccessful in gaining redress (item 41). This petition was also referred to the royal council.

Two petitions concerned ecclesiastical matters. There was a petition against non-resident priests, which was ordered to be sent on to the archbishops (item 38). There was also a charge that chapels distant from parish churches were having their services withdrawn by the clergy to the great distress of the inhabitants (item 37); here the reply was that there was sufficient means of redress provided elsewhere.

Money loomed large at the parliament. No lay subsidy was agreed. On the last day of the parliament, the commons announced their grant of trade taxes for the defence of the realm. (fn. int1425-37) The existing wool subsidy at 33 s 4 d per sack for English merchants was continued from its current date of expiry, 13 November 1426, for three further years, the longest period so far granted in the reign. The rate for alien merchants was kept at 4 3s 4 d but they were to be subject to a hosting system. All alien merchants were to find an English host within fifteen days of arriving in the country, and they were to sell all their goods within the 40 days then following. If any merchandise remained unsold, it was to be forfeited to the king. English merchants had secured a small victory in their desire to place controls on foreign merchants, and it is not surprising that chronicles remembered the parliament for the hosting matter as well as the tax. (fn. int1425-38) But English merchants had to pay a price for their victory: for the first time in the reign, native merchants were subject to tunnage and poundage at the same rates as their alien counterparts, 3 s per tun of wine and 12 d in the pound on other merchandise. But whilst the grant of tunnage and poundage for alien merchants was made for the three years beginning on 13 November 1426 so that it ran on from the grant made in the previous parliament, that imposed on native merchants was for fifteen and a half months only, from 1 August 1425 to 11 November 1426. (fn. int1425-39) Moreover, the entry concerning the tax ends with an explicit statement that if the condition on hosting were not kept, then the grant of tonnage and poundage on the English merchants would cease to be valid. The tax grant had not been easily achieved: as Gregory's chronicle put is: 'in that parliament was moche altercacyon by-twyne the lordys and the comyns for tunnage and poundage'. It may indeed be annoyance at the imposition of tunnage and poundage on native merchants that led this chronicler to consider that the parliament 'hadd an evylle faring ende, to shamefully for to be namyd of any weladvysed man'. (fn. int1425-40)

His comment may, of course, relate to tensions between Beaufort and Gloucester. The latter continued his ambitions to pursue his wife's interests in the Low Countries. It was realised, however, that this could put the Anglo-Burgundian alliance into jeopardy: thus the parliament had before it a recommendation that the council should negotiate with the duke of Burgundy, on the king's behalf and in his name, saying that it was done 'with the advice of the three estates', about Jacqueline's captivity (item 19). (She had fallen into Burgundian hands by mid June 1425, (fn. int1425-41) so this item must date to the second session).

This recommendation may have been an attempt to prevent Gloucester acting on his own initiative (which was, in any case, contrary to the articles of the council laid down in the previous parliament). But Gloucester had certainly fortified his position in the parliament, and his supporter, the earl marshal, had won his precedence case. In fact, as Harriss suggests, even the precedence case had a link with the Gloucester/Beaufort quarrel in that 'it neatly personified the rival claims of Bedford's campaigns in France, to which Warwick had led the 1424 expedition, and Gloucester's venture in Hainault, from which Mowbray had just returned'. (fn. int1425-42) Whilst the parliament was in session, Gloucester was given wardship of the lands of Edmund, earl of March during the minority of his heir, Richard, duke of York. (fn. int1425-43) And at its end he was given a loan of 20,000 marks per annum for the next four years by consent of the commons (item 34), presumably to facilitate his future actions in the Low Countries, although in practice no such actions ensued. The efforts of mediation agreed in the parliament (item 19) removed any danger of a personal duel between Gloucester and the duke of Burgundy. By late September 1425, Gloucester seems to have given up any real thoughts of assisting his wife further in person, although he dispatched Walter, lord Fitzwalter with troops in January 1426, probably financed by the first instalment of the loan which, on 5 November 1425, the council agreed to pay from the clerical tenth agreed by convocation on the last day of the parliament. (fn. int1425-44) His eyes were already straying to Eleanor Cobham, an erstwhile lady in waiting of Jacqueline who had accompanied him back to England in April 1425. There can be no doubt that Gloucester was popular in the country at large, however, and in London in particular, as incidents at the outset of the parliament had indicated. Harriss suggests that Gloucester had encouraged the mercantile lobby to attach the hosting conditions to the tax grant. (fn. int1425-45)

What then of Henry Beaufort? His money was still a crucial element in government finance, not least in the light of the failure to gain a lay subsidy. It was Beaufort's loans amongst others which had helped to dispatch an army to France in June, most notably the second instalment which he delivered on 21 May. Early in the second session, on 6 June, Beaufort secured guarantees of the repayment of his outstanding loans, which amounted to over £11,000, from the customs and subsidies as well as from wardships, and with the possibility of repayment from future lay subsidies (item 21). Assignment was made to him in pursuance of the act of parliament on 17 July, three days after the parliament ended (Parliament of 1425, Appendix item 3). Parliament also authorised loans to be sought to the total of £20,000 (item 20).

Both Beaufort and Gloucester emerged from the parliament of 1425 with benefits, but the hostility which had preceded the assembly had been quelled rather than removed. Other members of the council were keen to maintain a steady ship and to prevent personal squabbles disrupting the minority government. Although the roll contains nothing on the powers and responsibilities of the council, unlike its two predecessors, it is possible that there was further discussion and clarification of the matter. A text survives in two manuscripts which notes that the lords spiritual and temporal 'being in this present parliament' had assented that each of them should make an oath to the king: this oath was essentially that they would maintain the peace and not act against each other or against any of the council (Parliament of 1425, Appendix, item 1). The last sentence of the first section, stating that the present ordinance should last until the king comes of age, makes it seem as though this might be a drafting of an oath which was intended to be used henceforward. The text also includes an oath which was to made by the members of the council. This has some similarities with the articles of the council put forward in the first two parliaments of the reign (Parliament of 1422, items 27 to 32; parliament of 1423, items 16-17). One of the versions of this text is dated to the third year of Henry VI, so may belong to the parliament of 1425 - Griffiths is of the opinion that it does (fn. int1425-46) - but it could well belong to another parliament.

Over the summer of 1425, relations between the duke and Bishop Beaufort deteriorated further until the threat of armed action became a reality at the end of October 1425. Thus the veneer of harmony which had been maintained during the meeting of parliament in the early summer soon disappeared. The parliament had probably helped to fuel the debate rather than controlling or subduing it, and before too long another parliament was needed where the protagonists could be formally and publicly reconciled, this time under the control of the duke of Bedford.

Text and translation

Appendix 1425

Westminster

30 April - 25 May 1425

31 May - 14 July 1425

1

The oath of councillors.

For the sake of the firm and sure keeping of peace and tranquillity in this realm, wherein lies the prosperity and welfare of our sovereign lord and of all his subjects in every estate, condition or degree of the same, the which peace and tranquillity, whilst the king is of tender age, stands principally in the good unity and accord among the lords who during the king's tender years govern and rule under him and by his authority, it is advised and assented by the lords spiritual and temporal being in this present parliament that each of them shall swear and guarantee to the king by the faith of his body and by the troth and allegiance that he owes to the king that he shall do all in his true power and duty to the maintenance and keeping of the said peace and tranquillity, and that for any cause, occasion, quarrel or matter of debate or heaviness he shall in no way attempt to proceed by way of deed ( wey of feet ) against the person of any of the said lords spiritual or temporal or any of the king's councillors, or purpose, imagine, will or commit by his own hands or by any person of his household, or assent to the committing of any act of bodily harm against any of the lords or councillors abovesaid. He who does to the contrary incurs the penalty of forfeiture of all worship and all that he can forfeit against the king, and if any of them know or tell here of any such bodily harm purposed or imagined against any other of the lords or councillors by any manner of person, he shall withstand it and prevent it according to his power. And that if any of the said lords and councillors of whatever estate, condition or degree that do otherwise than is abovesaid, all the other lords and persons shall completely prevent him and withstand him and do all in their power to make him take account of the king's law of this land and what this agreement demands and requires. And that any of the aforesaid lords who feels himself ill disposed or aggrieved by or towards any of them who without any purpose wills or assents bodily harm to be committed, he should attend only to peaceful and quite ways of redress in the matter in which he feels ill disposed or aggrieved, whether it is by calling to him the party with whom he feels aggrieved or by opening his heaviness or grief towards the king's council or by other lawful suit or process. This present ordinance to endure until the time that the king, god willing, comes into his years of discretion to govern and keep the peace himself.

As for the oath to be made by each of the lords and persons of the king's council it seems under correction that it might be as follows:

You shall as much as your wisdom and discretion suffices truly, justly and evenly counsel and advise the king in all matters to be discussed, treated and decided in the king's council, or by you as king's councillor generally in all things that may be to the king worshipful, profitable and suitable, and to the benefit of his realms, lordships, and subjects without partiality or exception, leaving or eschewing nothing because of the affection, love, bribery, doubt or dread of any person or persons. And you shall keep secret the king's counsel and all that shall be discussed by way of counsel in the same without communicating, publishing or disclosing it by word, writing or in any wise to any person outside the council or to any of the council if it concerns him or if he is party to it, and that neither you nor any go between, shall receive or accept any gift, bribe, or benefit, or promise of benefit for promotion, favouring or for declaring, preventing, of hindering any matter or thing to be dealt with or done in the said council. Also you shall with all your might and power, help, strengthen and assist the king's council during his tender years in all that will be brought before the same council for the universal good of the king and of his land and for the peace, rest and tranquillity of the same, and withstand any person or persons of whatever condition, estate or degree that they are who would by way of action or by intention attempt to the opposite, and generally you shall observe, keep and do all that a good and true councillor ought to do unto his sovereign lord.

Source : POPC , III.174-5. Original in Middle English. This is dated to the third year of the reign of Henry VI in one copy (British Library Cotton Titus EV, printed in RP , V.406-7). It may thus date to the parliament of 1425 although there is no record in the roll of a discussion on the matter. It is possible that it belongs to the parliament of 1426 where the dispute between Gloucester and Beaufort was dealt with. On the other hand, if this was the case, we might have expected a mention of the duke of Bedford.

2

On 23 May in the third year at Westminster in full parliament held there, Sir John Radcliffe, seneschal of Aquitaine, in person sought and required from the lords then present that he from that day onwards should, by the king and by themselves, be considered as excused and exonerated from the said office of seneschal and from the custody of all the castles and fortifications of the king in that location which had been in his safekeeping, to the extent that if it happened that God allowed any mischance to occur to the said castles and fortifications that it should not be laid to his blame nor should he be held to account for the same. And he requested that this should be enacted as of record. There being present the dukes of Gloucester and Exeter, the earls of Warwick, Stafford and Northumberland, the bishops of Winchester, Durham and Carlisle, and lords Cromwell, Scrope, Clinton, Dacre and Tiptoft, and others.

On the same day it was granted that assignments should be made for the payment of arrears of Richard Neville, keeper of the West March towards Scotland, just as the earl of Northumberland had sought to be made and enacted concerning the payment of arrears due to him for his wages. There being present the aforementioned lords.

Source : POPC , III.170. Original in Latin. For Radcliffe see HOC , IV.155-9.

3

Assignment in pursuance of the act of parliament for securing the bishop of Winchester and other persons making loans to the king of the first money to arise out of the customs on natives or aliens and from the subsidies on wool, hides and woolfells etc, after the satisfaction of annuities or other charges previously made on the same. Dated 17 July 1425.

Source : CPR 1422-9 , 298.

4

Writ of aid addressed to the mayor, sheriff and aldermen of London on behalf of Thomas Walsingham and William Estfeld who have been appointed collectors in the port of London of the subsidy of tonnage and poundage leviable on English merchants from St Peter ad Vincula last till Martinmas 1426 by a grant made for the safe keeping of the sea by the commons of England with the assent of the lords spiritual and temporal in the last parliament held at Westminster. The like for other ports of England. Dated 24 April 1426.

Source : CPR 1422-9 , 360.

5

Grant by advice of the lords spiritual and temporal and of the commonalty of England in the last parliament to the following persons who have lent money to the king that they shall be repaid according to an act of parliament for securing the king's creditors out of subsidy in port of London (names given). Dated 20 August 1426.

Source : CPR 1422-9 , 318. This may relate to the parliament of 1426.

6

Licence by advice of the council and in accordance with the terms of a grant made in parliament on 30 April 1425 of a subsidy on hides etc. for certain merchants of Hull and York who have shown they have lost like amounts in a barge sailing towards Calais which was attacked by the enemy. Dated 6 December 1426.

Source : CPR 1422-9 , 385.

7

A similar grant to merchants of Newcastle who have lost shipment in wreck sailing towards Zealand. Dated 12 July 1428.

Source : CPR 1422-9 , 495.

8

The petition of John Merbury to the parliament of 1427 (Parliament of 1427, item 19) claims that 'the commons in the last parliament held at Westminster before this present parliament petitioned concerning the matter specified in this petition; which petition was then endorsed by the king that the said petition should be committed to the king's council, the same council having power and authority to hear all the matters specified in it, and determine them according to their discretion, good faith and conscience. By which endorsement the said John has not had redress or been satisfied'. As the parliament of 1426 was held at Leicester, it must be that Merbury's initial petition was presented to the parliament of 1425.

Source : PRO C 65/88, m.7; RP , IV.322-3; Parliament of 1427, item 19. Original petitions of John Merbury at SC 8/302/15060 and C 81 666/887 may relate to this. For Merbury see HOC , III.716-9.