Henry VI: September 1429

1429 September

Introduction 1429

Westminster

22 September - 20 December 1429

16 January - 23 February 1430

C 65/89, RP , IV.335-62, SR , II. 238-262

C 65/89 is a roll of fifteen membranes, each approximately 315mm in width, sewn together in chancery style, and numbered in a later hand. The condition of the roll is good, though membranes 7 and 1 are stained with gallic acid, and there is a hole near the foot of membrane 2. The lower halves of membranes 14 and 10 are blank. The common petitions start a new membrane (membrane 8), with the preceeding membrane (9) being devoted to another group of petitions put forward by the clergy and the commons. Business of the first session is on one set of membranes, 14 to 12, but membrane 12 also runs on with business of the second session, which is continued on membranes 11 and 10. The text, written in an official chancery script, occupies the rectos of the membranes only. The dorses are blank, apart from later notes, 'parl' viij H. vi' or 'parl' 8 H. 6', where some of the membranes are joined. Marginal headings are contemporary. Arabic numerals throughout the roll are later, but the Roman numerals are contemporary. The roll does not appear to be incomplete.

The parliament of 1429 opened on Thursday 22 September. It was prorogued for Christmas on Tuesday 20 December, reopening on Monday 16 January and ending on Thursday 23 February. Thus whilst its total length at twenty-one weeks was two weeks shorter than its predecessor, its actual sessions, at eighteen weeks, were the longest of the reign to date. It was in session at the time of the young king's English coronation at Westminster Abbey on Sunday 6 November 1429. This event is noted in the roll in item 13: the taking by the king in person of a coronation oath in which he promised to protect and defend the church and realm prompted a debate in the lords over whether Bedford and Gloucester's name of protector and defender should be annulled. In this debate, there was reference back to the setting up of the title and function in the parliament of 1422. The decision was taken that that the name of protector should be ended with effect from the date of the coronation, but that the name of chief minister of the council (i.e. chief councillor) should be retained. The entry on the roll tells how Gloucester surrendered his title of protector and defender in parliament on Tuesday 15 November, although he requested that this should not be to the prejudice of Bedford who must be at liberty to make his own decision.

Bedford was not, of course, present at the parliament, being in France at this point. Events there had reached crisis point, and were essentially what lay behind the need to crown the king at this point. It was also clear that the young king would have to cross to his French realm as soon as possible in order to be crowned there too. In the eyes of the author of British Library Galba EVIII version of the Brut, these various events were closely linked: 'on the Fryday, the xxiii day of Fevyrere in the yere above said, Kynge Henry the vi after his coronacion at Westeminster and ende of his parlement holden the same tyme at Westeminster, that the Kynge, by counseill and ordynaunce of all the lordis and communes of Engelond, shuld wende ovyr the see into Fraunce to resseyve his heritage and bere the crowne as rightfull lord and kynge of the londe'. (fn. int1429-1) Another version of the Brut also has the decision that the king should go to France as made in parliament, with Gregory's Chronicle telling us that it was in the parliament that two fifteenths were granted 'to brynge thys yonge kynge in to Fraunce'. (fn. int1429-2) Amundesham also makes the link, noting that parliament resumed after Christmas 'for the expedition of the king to France'. (fn. int1429-3)

Chroniclers certainly give more space to this parliament than to most of the others of the minority. (fn. int1429-4) Not only was there the interest of the coronation and intended royal visit to France, there was also the first grant of a lay subsidy in the reign to date, and indeed the first since that granted in the parliament of December 1421. (fn. int1429-5) And there was not simply one grant but two. The first was made on 12 December when the commons announced a fifteenth and tenth to be collected on 14 January 1430 (item 11). This was an exceptionally short space of time for collection, not least as commissioners were not formally appointed until the last day of the parliament, 20 December. (fn. int1429-6) On that same day the commons agreed a second tenth and fifteenth payable at Christmas 1430 (item 14). On the last day of the parliament, 23 February, the commons announced their consent to bringing forward the payment to 18 November (item 26). (fn. int1429-7) The tax grants were important enough to be mentioned by several chroniclers. (fn. int1429-8)

The initial grant announced on 12 December 1429 was made by the commons in the presence of the king: it is significant that he should have been present on this occasion (given that it was not the last day of the session, an occasion on which the king would normally have been expected to attend) and tempting to believe that he did attend more sessions of this parliament than any previous assembly - a situation which was entirely appropriate given his coronation. He was certainly present again when the commons announced their agreement to the second lay subsidy on 20 December, and was also probably there on 23 February; although his specific presence is not noted, the speaker is said to making his declaration concerning the tax 'to the king'.

The king's presence in the parliament and his coronation within it no doubt help to explain the extremely large number of petitions enrolled. An expression of royal largesse following the coronation was no doubt expected, and indeed it is possible that petitions were encouraged so that it might have ample opportunity to manifest itself. A total of forty-one petitions is seen, over twice as many as in the previous parliament of 1427. The next highest figures are in the parliaments of 1433 and 1439, both of which have twenty-eight common petitions enrolled. The parliament of 1433 saw a high number because of the return to England of the duke of Bedford, that of 1439 because it was the first of the king's majority. The petitions of 1429 gave rise to twenty statutes, the largest number for any of the parliaments of the period from 1422 to 1453. Amundesham noted that the parliament gave rise to 'many statutes of great importance and value to the realm and its government'. (fn. int1429-9) Whether he had any particular statutes in mind is difficult to know. The most famous in terms of England's history as a whole, and its parliamentary history in particular, is the franchise of the forty shilling freeholder (item 39).

Much had happened since the previous parliament closed on 25 March 1428. Over the summer of 1428 a feud had developed between the duke of Norfolk and the earl of Huntingdon, both of whom were councillors. Gloucester had attempted to intervene but without success. According to Amundesham, a quarrel between Huntingdon and the earl of Stafford was active at the time of the parliament of 1429, to such a degree that it had to be proclaimed that no members of their households nor of the households of other lords should carry weapons within the royal palace at the time of the parliament, an action reminiscent of events at the parliament of 1426. (fn. int1429-10)

There was, however, a semblance of reconciliation between Gloucester and Cardinal Beaufort when the latter returned from France in September 1428. This may be largely because the latter was now elevated to the cardinalate and had his interests focused on the possibility of a crusade against the Hussites, having been appointed by the pope as legate for the kingdoms of Bohemia Hungary and Germany. (fn. int1429-11) But Gloucester stirred up the situation by his subsequent questioning of the cardinal's right to continue in his tenure of the bishopric of Winchester now that he was outside the control of the archbishop of Canterbury. The matter was contentious enough for the council to decide on 17 April 1429 that it would be best if the cardinal absented himself from the Garter ceremony at which he would normally have been present as a prelate of the Garter. By mid June 1429 Beaufort sought the permission of the council to raise troops for the crusade against the Hussites. (fn. int1429-12) But events in France had now taken a major turn for the worst, forcing not only an abandonment of the plans for crusade but also a drawing together of Gloucester, Beaufort and the other lords in the face of impending disaster in the double monarchy.

The parliament of 1427 had ended with much optimism about English prospects in France. On 24 March 1428, the day before it closed, the earl of Salisbury had indented to take an army of 2,400. This army, which crossed in mid July, cost well over £16,000, the highest sum so far expended during the reign on an expeditionary force. Salisbury pressed south towards the Loire in the hope of dealing a decisive blow against the Dauphin. As the latter's strongholds fell and siege was laid to Orleans, Salisbury's expeditionary army was soon boosted by men from retinues and garrisons in English-held France. After such a promising start it was all the more disappointing that the earl was killed by a stray cannon ball on 3 November, soon after he had begun the investment of Orleans. The English continued to maintain the siege, but were already under strain even before Joan of Arc appeared on the scene in early May 1429. By 18 June, not only was the siege lost, but so too was the battle of Patay, where John, lord Talbot and other leading English leaders were taken prisoner. Worse still, the Dauphin had been able to move on to Reims where he was crowned as Charles VII on 17 July.

This was a major blow to English credibility in France, and there was an obvious need to counter it by having Henry VI crowned in France too. But a French coronation had been considered earlier. On 15 April 1429, the English council received letters from the duke of Bedford as Regent of France 'declaring the desire of the council of France and of other subjects there to have the king crowned so that the nobles of the said realm might be able to pay him homage and fealty'. (fn. int1429-13) Bedford's request was no doubt occasioned by worries about the duke of Burgundy who had recently withdrawn his troops from the siege of Orléans. In response, the English council decided that a great council should be summoned. Reinforcements under Sir John Radcliffe were immediately ordered to be sent from England. On 1 July, Beaufort agreed to take the army he had raised for crusade to assist the duke of Bedford in France. (fn. int1429-14) But it was clear that more English troops would be needed to stem Charles VII's advance. To be able to cover costs and to meet the debts of previous campaigns, generous taxation was desperately needed from the commons. Writs of summons for a parliament were issued on 12 July with the intention that it should commence on Thursday 13 October. (fn. int1429-15)

It is tempting to believe that the decision to crown the young king whilst the parliament was in session had already been taken since it was a likely means of prompting the level of generosity required. As noted earlier, the first tax grant followed only six days after the coronation. But it is more likely that the decision to crown the king in England, in order that he might then cross for coronation in France, came about as a result of developments in France after the issue of the writs of summons. On 16 July, with the Dauphin poised to enter Reims for his crowning, Bedford instructed Garter King of Arms to go to the council in England with news of recent events. He was to say that the Dauphin had taken the field in person, that several places had fallen to him without a fight, and that he was due to arrive at Reims on that very day, where it was anticipated that the inhabitants would open the gates for him and he would be crowned. After such a coronation, Bedford predicted, the Dauphin would make for Paris in the hope of gaining entry there too. Bedford reassured the council that the duke of Burgundy was remaining loyal to the English cause and participating in military efforts to redress the situation, as was Bedford himself. Indeed he intended to go within two days to Normandy and Picardy to raise the garrisons as well as to meet the cardinal and his troops. Bedford's instructions to Garter ended with the following: 'and to plead with the king that it might please him to advance his coming there in all possible haste if it pleases God that he might come earlier, as twice he has been petitioned by ambassadors and messengers'. (fn. int1429-16) A second messenger, Jean Corbuisser, was sent on 21 July with further letters from the council in France urging the sending of troops for the siege of Mont-Saint-Michel and the hurrying up of other lords appointed by the king to come to France. (fn. int1429-17)

Bedford's letter, followed by news of Charles's actual coronation, was no doubt the stimulus to the decision taken by the council on 3 August to bring forward the meeting of the parliament to 22 September. (fn. int1429-18) The seriousness of the situation in France led to another order being issued by the council on the same day directing those who had been given land grants in Normandy and France to hurry thence to defend them in order that the costs incumbent upon the king in sending large armies should be mitigated. (fn. int1429-19) In the event Charles shrank back from the attack on Paris which Joan had advocated, and by late September had disbanded his army. The English were saved for a while, but it was clear that a major military and political effort was needed to sustain the double monarchy.

In both sets of writs, twenty-seven heads of religious houses were summoned as in the previous year. For the bishops there is also no difference between the two sets of summons. Twenty bishops were summoned, although the bishops of Hereford and Winchester were expected to be absent and writs were thus sent to their vicars general. The see of Chichester was vacant, following the death of John Rickinghale around 6 July 1429. (fn. int1429-20) His successor was given his temporalities on 24 January 1430. Davies suggests that at least fourteen bishops were present in the first session, a notably high proportion. Cardinal Beaufort had returned to England by this point, although the bishop of Hereford remained absent at the papal curia, and three others are known to have been absent in this session. After Christmas, eleven bishops were likely to have been present. The bishop of Carlisle had received a summons but had died on 4 September.

As for the lay peers, the two sets of writs are again identical with one exception. Thirty-five received the first summons, 36 the second, for William Neville, lord Fauconberg, the brother of Richard Neville, earl of Salisbury, was added in to the second list. This was the largest number so far in the reign, testimony to the level of crisis and perhaps also the intended coronation. Of the thirty-six, twenty-seven had received a summons to the previous parliament. Thomas, earl of Salisbury had died at the siege of Orleans on 3 November 1428. He had no male heir; the new earl, Richard Neville, who received both writs of summons for the 1429 meeting, came to the title through marriage to the daughter of Earl Thomas. There is a puzzle associated with his elevation since a document in the privy council records speaks of the matter having being referred by the council to the lords in full parliament who approved his elevation. But the date of this memorandum is 3 May 1429 and parliament did not meet until September. (fn. int1429-21) Perhaps the memorandum should be taken as indicating that the matter would be referred to the lords in the next parliament for confirmation. There is no mention of the elevation on the roll.

Several other peers were in receipt of their first summons having entered their inheritances. John, earl of Arundel (born 14 February 1408, although his summons was not as earl but as Sir John Arundel of Arundel, knight), John, earl of Oxford (born 23 April 1408), and Ralph Neville, earl of Westmorland (born September 1406 or 1407), who had been knighted during the parliament on 1426. Thomas, lord Roos (born 26 September 1406), had also been present and had been knighted during the parliament of 1426, and had his right to his lands confirmed at the parliament of 1427 (Parliament of 1427, item 15) but like Westmorland he received his first summons in 1429. Although he had had livery of his lands in 1423, Walter, lord Fitzwalter was summoned for the first time having previously been serving in France. It was probably for the same reason that William, lord Fitzhugh, received a summons for the first time, although he had entered his inheritance at his father's death in 1425. John, lord Grey of Codnor, who had not been summoned in 1427 because he was in Ireland, did receive a summons on this occasion.

Although, as ever, we have difficulties in knowing precisely who was actually present at the parliament, there appears to have been a major effort to assemble as many peers as possible, no doubt because of the seriousness of the situation in France, but also perhaps because a coronation was already intended when the first writs were issued. Roskell considered that attendance of the peers was likely to be considerable, pointing to the fact that 37 peers are known to have attended the great councils in April and May. We know the names of 256 possible MPs out of a likely 264, although in some cases the result of a contested election is unclear or else the name on the indenture differs from that on the schedule (see also Parliament of 1429, Appendix item 16). (fn. int1429-22)

Parliament opened in the Painted Chamber at Westminster on Thursday 22 September in the presence of the king. The opening sermon was given by the chancellor, John Kemp, archbishop of York (items 1-4). His central theme was that of heresy and in particular the Hussite actions in Bohemia, but problems in England were not forgotten. There were errors and heresies at home too. (Indeed, the years 1429-31 marked a period of increased concern about Lollardy.) The religious health of the nation was central to its overall condition. Therefore, 'if true faith, due fear and true justice are reborn ... the realm will undoubtedly stand firm'. There was also emphasis on the duty of the prince to maintain justice and to defend his subjects and realms. The use of the plural in this last phrase is significant as indicating the need to sustain interests in France, which technically were not within the remit of the English parliament. The duty of the subject to support the prince was also noted 'when the prince's own faculties are not enough'. According to a St Albans chronicler, ambassadors from France and Normandy had come to the parliament to beseech the aid of the English against the threat of the Dauphin. (fn. int1429-23) Whether this was at the opening or later in the sessions is not specified.

Receivers and triers were then appointed, with one week being allowed for submission of petitions (items 5-8). That more petitions were expected, and had perhaps been encouraged, is suggested by the fact that the quorum of triers was set at the same level as in 1426, but higher than in 1427. The election of the speaker was announced on the second day of the parliament but he was not presented until Monday 26 September. The choice had fallen on William Allington, whose experience from 1398 to 1422 had lain largely in the overseas territories, as treasurer successively of Calais, of Ireland, and of Normandy. He had been closely connected with Thomas, duke of Clarence, but had subsequently developed links with Cardinal Beaufort and Lord Cromwell as well as the earl of Huntingdon. He had served as sheriff of Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire in 1423 and 1427, and had also been a member of the royal council in the 1420s. (fn. int1429-24) But it may have been his experience in France which made him a particularly appropriate choice as speaker since the defence and financing of English interests overseas were likely to be major issues on the agenda. It is possible that some of the common petitions were stimulated by Allington's role, namely item 37 and 58 concerning problems in Cambridgeshire, and item 40 concerning the demands which the Exchequer placed on sheriffs.

Some of the business can be dated with certainty to the first session. The king was crowned at Westminster Abbey on 6 November. As we have already noted, on 15 November, the duke of Gloucester relinquished the title of protector in the light of deliberation in the lords (item 13). As Roskell suggested, the end of the formal protectorship was bound to enhance the significance of the council. (fn. int1429-25) On 18 December 1429 Cardinal Beaufort formally asked permission in parliament to attend the king's council despite his holding of a cardinalate. As the roll notes, it had not been expected in England in the past that anyone elevated to such a dignity would be allowed to attend the royal council (item 17). No doubt his willingness to divert his crusade troops and to make loans to the crown had made his presence acceptable, whatever Gloucester might have thought. With a recent coronation and a likely royal expedition to France, an expression of unity was needed.

Six days before, on 12 December, the commons had announced their grant of a lay subsidy, the first of the reign, to be collected with great speed by 14 January 1430 (item 11). (fn. int1429-26) It would seem likely that the first session had seen ample discussion of the need to secure the position in France, although none of this is recorded on the roll. On 20 December, the last day of the parliament, on the same day that commissioners for collection of the subsidy announced on 12 December were appointed, the commons announced their grant of a second tenth and fifteenth to be levied on 25 December 1430 (item 14). (fn. int1429-27) In announcing their grant, they also expressed their commendation of Cardinal Beaufort, reassured no doubt that he would make generous loans on the security of tax and that he was accepted as royal councillor. Likewise on 20 December, the commons announced continuation of the grant of tunnage and poundage payable by denizen merchants from 6 December 1429 until the next parliament (item 15). (fn. int1429-28) The rates were as in the past, but in the case of poundage, wheat and wheat flour were added to the customary exemption for wool and woolfells. A clause was also added to allow refund of duty to merchants who lost cargoes at sea on which they had already paid duty. The wool subsidy for denizens was still valid until 1431 thanks to a grant at the 1426 parliament (Parliament of 1426, item 24). In July 1426 the council had diverted part of the revenue from the wool subsidy, along with part of the revenue from tunnage and poundage, should be diverted for five years for the support of Calais. On the last day of the first session of the 1429 parliament, 20 December, it was agreed that a increased proportion of the revenue from these sources should be directed to Calais to pay the arrears of the garrison and to fund repairs (item 24).

It is likely that the authorisation of loans to the total of £50,000 (item 23), almost twice the figure requested in the previous parliament of 1427, also belongs to the first session. Although the item is undated, its place on the roll between an item dated 30 November (item 22) and the diversion of wool revenues to Calais dated 20 December (item 24) suggests that it may also have been agreed on the last day of the first session. By that point the commons had announced a second lay subsidy, thereby guaranteeing ongoing tax income needed to underwrite the loans. (On 6 March, eleven days after the parliament ended, commissioners were sent out to encourage loans with repayment out of the lay subsidy intended (Parliament of 1429, Appendix item 7).

The generosity of the commons at the end of the second session must have been prompted by their being informed of plans for the king to cross to France for coronation. Such an endeavour would be very costly since the king needed to be honourably and appropriately accompanied and there were still military problems to solve before he could advance to Reims, the traditional crowning place. On 20 December, with the grant of a second lay subsidy ensuring future funds and security for loans, the council was able to write to Paris and other towns in France about the king's intentions: this letter, which noted the king's recent coronation in England, went on to state 'and also it was deliberated and decided in our parliament last held by us that we should soon go in person into our realm of France so powerfully accompanied that we hope with the aid of God the Almighty that with our army we shall put the war far from you so that before our return we shall see our good people of France living and working in firm peace and tranquility'. (fn. int1429-29) On the same day the council also established that whilst the king was absent, Gloucester would hold the position of lieutenant at an enhanced salary.

A few further items can be dated to the first session. These include appointments of judicial officers made by the lords of the council in full parliament (Parliament of 1429, Appendix item 1). On the roll we find negotiations with the duke of Bourbon for his release from the captivity in which he had languished since Agincourt (item 12). The text includes a mention that he had paid liege homage to the king. On 1 December the king ordered the duke to be handed over to Thomas Comberworth (item 20). Gregory's Chronicle notes that the duke 'was sworn English' before the king at Eltham. (fn. int1429-30) It was undoubtedly useful, with Charles VII now crowned and Henry's own visit to France anticipated, to gain the public acceptance of French peers such as Bourbon. There may have been hopes that the other major prisoner of Agincourt, the duke of Orleans, would follow Bourbon's example. On 20 November, the council, acting with the assent of all the lords, issued an order that he be transferred from the care of Thomas Comberworth to that of Sir John Cornwall (item 19). The roll also indicates the plans of Gloucester, agreed by the lords in general, to suggest to Bedford that John, lord Talbot, captured at Patay, be exchanged with a French prisoner, Barbazan (item 18). This also likely dates to the first session since Barbazan, held by the English at Château-Gaillard, was rescued when the French took the castle on 24 January 1430. (fn. int1429-31)

On 30 November the capitular election of Marmaduke Lumley as bishop of Carlisle, the see having become vacant by the death of William Barrow (d. 4 September 1429), was approved subject to royal assent, which was subsequently given and the requisite letters sent to the pope (item 21). The choice of Lumley was not unanimous, however, as a council minute dated to 3 December 1429 indicates, with the duke of Gloucester and lord Scrope voicing their opposition (Parliament of 1429, Appendix item 2). Also on 30 November the lords agreed that petitions presented in the parliament against the abbot of Strata Florida should be delivered to the bishops of Ely and Bath and Wells and the lords Cromwell and Scrope for resolution (item 22).

On 20 December parliament was prorogued for Christmas (item 16), with the chancellor expressing thanks to the commons for the good will which they had shown the king - an oblique reference to their generosity in tax grants. With such grants already in hand, one might wonder why the parliament could not simply be dissolved. Clearly the commons expected some 'reform' for their money. When the commons had made their grant of the second tenth and fifteenth they had expressed their hope 'that we shall be informed of good and wise governance in every part of your realm before you dissolve this present parliament' (item 14), and this hope was mentioned again in the text of the prorogation. Several of the common petitions should perhaps be seen in the context of this statement. If the council ordinances had not been established in the first session, then perhaps the commons were also concerned to see this issue settled.

Parliament assembled again on 16 January, and was in session for a further five weeks, ending on 23 February. It is likely that it was during the second session that new guidelines for the council were approved. The revised council ordinances are found on the roll at item 27. There is an undated copy in the council records with some variations noted between the two texts. (fn. int1429-32) The ordinances were presumably drafted in the council, modeled on those drawn up by the council in Reading in November 1426. (fn. int1429-33) The ending of the protectorship seems to have had little impact on the contents of the ordinances, although 'there is a slight suggestion (e.g. in clause 17) that the special responsibility laid on Bedford and Gloucester in 1426 to ensure that councilors were not corrupted was removed now that the protectorate was ended'. (fn. int1429-34) The 1429 ordinances were exhibited in parliament where they were agreed by the lords and read in the presence of the king and the whole parliament. The lords then swore in parliament to uphold these ordinances. A list of 15 names is given, including Gloucester and Cardinal Beaufort. (This list is the same as in the council records, save that names of the archbishop of Canterbury and of Cardinal Beaufort are reversed.) Although it is possible that these ordinances were drafted during the first session following the end of the protectorship, it seems likely from their position on the roll that they were finalised and sworn to in the second session, since they follow the record of tax grants made on the last day of the parliament, 23 February (items 25 and 26).

Although the text of these ordinances makes clear that they were not formulated to deal with the intended absence of the king, plans for his visit to France were certainly being formulated during the second session. It was already apparent that the cost was not simply that of sending and maintaining the cost of the king and his household. A large military showing would also be necessary to recover lost ground and to ensure royal safety. Negotiations towards Anglo-Burgundian military cooperation were also vital. By mid- December 1429 the council had decided to send an embassy to Duke Philip headed by Cardinal Beaufort. (fn. int1429-35) It is interesting to note, too, the presence at the English court in December of the duke's intended bride, Isabella of Portugal, en route to her wedding, which took place in Flanders on 7 January 1430. (fn. int1429-36) As the Cardinal's niece, and a half cousin of the king, it was no doubt hoped that she would assist in cementing the Anglo-Burgundian alliance. Beaufort crossed to Flanders in early February, and Duke Philip agreed on the twelfth of the month to enter into indenture to serve Henry VI with 1,500 men in return for 12,500 marks. (fn. int1429-37) On 8 March the duke was granted in tale male the county of Champagne, in which Reims lay, clear indication that the English wished to provide him with an incentive to recover the coronation city. (fn. int1429-38)

The significance of Beaufort's missions was not lost on the St Albans chronicler, John Amundesham, who spoke thus of the second session of parliament: 'the parliament was recommenced for the sake of the expedition of the king to France, for which purpose the Cardinal of England, bishop of Winchester, was sent to France so that the French might be pacified against the king's coming'. (fn. int1429-39) Preparations no doubt formalized as this second session drew to a close, encouraged by the commons' generosity announced on the last day of the assembly, 23 February. They agreed to extend the wool subsidy to November 1433 (item 25). (fn. int1429-40) They also granted that the collection of the second tenth and fifteenth granted at the end of the first session should be brought forward from 25 December 1430 to 18 November 1430 (item 26). (fn. int1429-41) This was no doubt known by the time the majority of indentures for the 'coronation expedition' were drawn up between 18 and 20 February, including 19 peers. (fn. int1429-42) The presence of so many lords at the coronation and at the parliamentary sessions can only have assisted in the raising of what was intended to be a prestigious and large army. (fn. int1429-43) This army is also mentioned in one of the petitions on the roll (item 53). This speaks directly of the king's intention, with the advice of his council to cross to his realm of France, and of the request of the lords, knights and esquires who will cross with him in his expedition, to have properly worded letters of protection to prevent their disinheritance in any land disputes in their absence overseas.

After the enrolment of the council ordinances at item 28, the remainder of the roll consists of two sets of petitions. The first set is headed ' special petitions ... presented in the parliament by the commons'. The three items found here relate to the levy of poundage in Bordeaux, as granted by the citizens in 1415, which the king now agrees to annul (item 29). The petition is made to the commons, although it is not clear who the petitioners are. The second item is in the form of a petition put to the king and the lords by the town officials and people of Tewkesbury and concerned attacks on their vessels in the Severn by men of Bledisloe and Westbury (item 30). This petition was also granted. The third petition was put forward by John Arundel, warden of St George's Chapel, Windsor, to deal with the problem of confused nomenclature, he being called dean in some contexts (item 31). This also was allowed. (fn. int1429-44)

The second set of petitions is headed 'petitions presented to king by prelates and clergy and by the commons of England'. There follow 27 entries numbered contemporaneously from I to XXVII but with no titles. These form items 32 to 60 on the roll. The first three are presented in a variety of forms. The first is a successful petition by the prelates and clergy that they and their servants should enjoy immunity in coming to, attending and returning from convocation in the same way as the lords and commons had for parliament (item 32). The second is in the form of a proclamation by the king of England that, for the sake of longstanding friendship with Denmark, no Englishman should act to the contrary of the Danish king's requirement that English merchants should use his staple at Northbarn (item 33). The third is in standard petition form but does not name a petitioner or mention the commons. It was a request to the king, in effect from the parliament as a whole, that the powers of commissioners for sewers granted in the previous parliament should be redefined as the wording enrolled on the previous roll had proved unsatisfactory (item 34) (Parliament of 1427, item 43).

A further six of the petitions numbered from I to XXVII are not in the standard form of common petitions. Item 36 was a request for a common balance to be maintained in each town, along with a set national scale of weighing charges. This was particularly aimed at preventing fraud by 'regrators of yarn called yarn choppers' (item 36). Three are petitions put to the commons by named groups which the commons then present to the king. The first of these is put forward by 'poor merchants of several parts of England' asking that lambswool which was valued at less than the 12d on which poundage was levied should be exempt from the custom on wool and all other charges (item 47). This was referred. The second was put forward to the commons by the mayor, aldermen and commons of London, who were fearful that the city customs of London concerning apprentices were being challenged by a clause in the statute of 1406 (item 51). (fn. int1429-45) The third was probably put forward by the lords, knights and esquires who were intending to cross to France on the king's expedition and asked that the king, with the advice of the lords spiritual, temporal and the commons in the present parliament, agree to the wording and operation of the letters of protection to be issued or already issued to those serving in the army (item 53). Another petition concerning errors in writs was probably put forward on behalf of the legal officials (item 55).

After the contemporary numbering ends, we find a series of petitions concerning the Calais staple and other aspects of trading activity, especially concerning foreign merchants and currency exchange (items 60-66). These resulted in what is commonly called the Partition and Ordinance of the Staple. (fn. int1429-46) No answers are given for items 60 to 65. The government was as yet reluctant to act against alien traders. At item 68 there is recorded the decision on the length of office of the mayor of the Calais staple. Gregory's Chronicle notes that it was at the parliament that John Raynwell 'shulde be mayor of the staple of Calais iii yere foloynge'. (fn. int1429-47) At item 67 there is a petition concerning franchisal justice.

Twenty petitions in the numbered sequence from I to XXVII are presented by the commons in their own name, but with slight variations in the opening headings. These cover the value of clothes provided as livery, with appropriate exemption for war retinues (item 35); (fn. int1429-48) piracy to be reckoned as a felony (item 42); forcible entries into lands (item 49; corrections and changes to writs (item 52). As Myers has noted, this petition is also unusual as it was introduced in the lords and sent down to the commons, who then agreed to it so long as certain amendments which they put in a schedule were included. (fn. int1429-49) An important petition concerned the improper conduct of inquests into lands by escheators which had led in some cases to lands held in royal hands being leased at farm before the inquest had been returned to chancery (item 56). The ensuing statute was cited in many subsequent cases concerning inquisitions (for examples, see Parliament of 1429, Appendix items 13 and 14). Item 59 asked for the full observance of the requirement that all goods should be exported through the Calais staple, naming certain exceptions for Berwick-on Tweed and for various Italian merchants, and laying down penalties as well as rewards for informers.

The bad behaviour of Irish students at Cambridge, who were linked to various misdeeds in that city and in the counties of Cambridgeshire and Essex, was also a subject of petition (item 58), much as their counterparts at Oxford had been in 1422 (Parliament of 1422, item 43), with a further attack on Irish students in both universities in 1423 (Parliament of 1423, item 47). Felonies in Cambridgeshire were also the subject of item 37: this may have been linked to the experiences of the speaker, William Allington, who had recently served as sheriff of the county. Further difficulties encountered by sheriffs concerning exchequer levies on the chattels of felons were also the subject of petition (item 40). In this case the answer was to refer the particular difficulties to the council, who would come to a decision 'by the authority of parliament', with the advice of the royal justices and barons of the exchequer.

There were also complaints about the Scots not observing safe-conducts which had been issued under the statute of 1414 (item 43). The parliament of 1414 was also invoked in another petition concerning lawlessness in more general terms (item 54). Attacks by Welshmen on boats navigating the Severn were also the subject of a petition (item 44). This covered much the same ground as the petition put forward in the previous parliament (Parliament of 1427, item 42). Another petition, item 48, asked for the statute of labourers made in the previous parliament to be made permanent (Parliament of 1427, item 36). The matter of false indictments made by those within franchises was also raised (item 50), an extension of the issue which had come before the previous parliament where it had given rise to a statute (Parliament of 1427, item 28).

The petition at item 38 asked for confirmation that the court of the constable and marshal should deal with offences committed outside the realm, whilst offences committed inside the realm should be dealt with before King's Bench according to the common law. It is interesting to speculate that this was occasioned to cater for potential judicial processes during the impending visit of the king and his household to France. The war with France also occasioned two further petitions. One concerned complaints about soldiers en route to France exploiting the inhabitants of Kent and Sussex, especially in taking foodstuffs for no or little payment (item 45).

Four of the petitions put forward by the commons concerned parliamentary matters. The most famous is that establishing the forty-shilling freehold as the basis of the franchise (item 39), but there were two others on election expenses (items 41, 46). The common petition which let to the establishment of the franchise argued that 'the election process was now being threatened not by corruption of sheriffs but by the excessive number of people who attended the county court at election time, many of whom, the Commons complained, were poor and without property ( de null valu' ) and yet claimed an equal voice in the election with the leading shire gentry.' (fn. int1429-50) Hence they asked for a property threshold (although a fairly inclusive one which acknowledged the importance of yeomen and wealthy husbandmen) and a residence requirement (within the county). Their petition also asked that if the case of a contested election, the person with the greatest support amongst electors should be returned. Payling suggests that this request was also occasioned by excessive numbers attending, since without a formal means of dealing with divided opinion, the matter could so easily fall to riot.

A further petition invoked parliamentary privilege, in that it concerned the arrest and imprisonment in the Fleet of William Larke, servant of William Milrede, who was member for the city of London, who had been unjustly accused by Margery Janyns (item 57). It is interesting to note that the consent to his release, made by the king on the advice of the lords and at the request of the commons, although the lords acted alone to decide on the outcome, (fn. int1429-51) also needed the assent of the counsel of Margery, and made it clear that she should have execution of the judgment she had against Larke after the end of the parliament.

The penultimate item on the roll, 69, is dated, since it records how, on the last day of the present parliament three petitions presented by the commons to the king, on behalf of the household servants of Henry V, on behalf of his chapel, and on behalf of Margaret Sarnesfield, should be committed to the lords of the council for determination. It ends by noting that the petitions were delivered to Richard Caudray, clerk of the council. The case of Margaret Sarnesfield came before a later parliament (Parliament of 1432, item 23 and Appendix item 19). This is also probably the case for the clerks of the chapel because no grant was made to them until 1432 (Parliament of 1432, Appendix item 1). It is possible, therefore, that decisions on these petitions were put to one side until the king's return from France, and hence not dealt with at the parliament of 1431. It is also relevant to note that Margaret Sarnesfield's protagonists in a dispute over the manor of Helston-in-Kerrier, Richard Penpons, Robert Treage and Sir John Arundel of Trerice had not been elected to the parliament of 1429. This may explain why she was able to gain a favourable outcome on this occasion through the grant of a writ of nisi prius. (fn. int1429-52)

The last item on the roll (item 70) is a petition to the king and lords by the prior of Llanthony concerning a dispute which had been heard in the parliament of Dublin, the records of which the prior now wishes to be inspected in the parliament so that justice could be done 'according to the law and custom of your realm of England'. No answer to this bill is given on the roll.

According to the Brut, it was on the very day after parliament ended, 24 February 1430, that the king began his progress towards the coast of Kent. (fn. int1429-53) On 26 February representatives of the Lancastrian administration in France who had been in England since late in 1429 left to carry back news of the king's intended arrival. (fn. int1429-54) That this was already intended for April is confirmed by a royal letter sent to the abbey of Bury St Edmunds on 12 February announcing that 'we are concluded that we should pass to our realm of France in the month of April next for the recovery of our kingdom'. (fn. int1429-55) It is tempting to suggest that a royal landing in Calais on St George's Day was already planned, with the intention that the main body of the army should follow within a week, for the indentures had ordered a muster at Dover for 1 May. The 'coronation parliament' had signified both symbolically and practically the young king's royal authority. Now the plan was to assert that authority in Henry's kingdom of France.

Text and translation

Appendix 1429

Westminster

22 September - 20 December 1429

16 January - 23 February 1430

1

On 15 October in the eighth year [1429] at Westminster in full parliament the lords of the council agree and concur that William Paston, sergeant at law, should be one of the king's justices of Common Bench for as long as it pleases the king taking the usual fee for the office. And likewise the lords of the council ordered that John Cotesmore, sergeant at law should be one of the king's justices of Common Bench for as long as it pleases the king taking the usual fee for the office. And at the same time they ordered that John Wanpage should be attorney of the king for as long as it pleases the king taking the usual fee for the office. And that warrants should be made to the Chancellor to issue letters patent for each, according to the usual form.

At the same time it was agreed that Thomas Rolf and Richard Newton should be sergeants at law for the king taking the usual fee from the king as William Paston and William [sic] Cotesmore were accustomed to have in this office. Also that letters patent be issued to William Babthorp appointing him one of the barons of the Exchequer taking the usual fee.

Source : POPC , IV.4-5.

2

On 3 December in the eighth year of the reign [1429] at Westminster in full parliament, relating to letters of the prior and chapter of the cathedral church of Carlisle sent to the king under their common seal concerning the election of Marmaduke Lumley, clerk as bishop of the said place, it was granted and agreed by the lords of the council then present that on the assent of the king to the said election the keeper of the privy seal should make warrant directed to the Chancellor to issue letters patent on the matter as was accustomed in such matters. Present, the duke of Gloucester who disagreed, and the lords of Canterbury, York as Chancellor, Norfolk, London, Bath, Huntingdon, Warwick, Stafford, Bourchier, Cromwell, Tiptoft and Hungerford as treasurer and keeper of the privy seal all agreeing, and Scrope who disagreed.

Source : POPC , IV.8.

3

Dispensation in the case of aliens of the second statute of 2 Henry V requiring that no person be admitted to serve as juror where the debt and damages amount to 40 s unless he have lands and tenements worth 40 s , in the light of the 2nd statute of 27 Edward III concerning procedures in cases to be heard by the mayor of the staple between denizens and aliens, where aliens should be part of the inquest, on the grounds that it cannot be expected that aliens will have 40 s worth of lands in England

Source : SR , II.261-2.

4

Revocation of the protection for one year which was granted on 8 July 1429 to William Haute, esquire, as in Picardy in the company of Sir John Stiward, captain of the tower of Rysbank, because he has been elected a knight of the shire for Kent in the present parliament and tarries in London for the time of the said parliament intent on causes and matters concerning the said county, as the sheriffs of London have testified. Dated 11 October 1429.

Source : CPR 1429-36 , 29.

5

Letters of denization according to an act in the last parliament to Henry Market, born in Germany, and his heirs. By petition in parliament. Dated 26 February 1430.

Source : CPR 1429-36 , 43.

6

Letters of denization according to an act in the last parliament to Conrad Burgh, born in the town of St Catalonia in Germany, and his heirs. By petition in parliament. Dated 1 March 1430.

Source : CPR 1429-36 , 49.

7

Commission to various persons in each county to encourage loans to be made to the king, with surety being given out of the fifteenth payable on the octaves of Martinmas by grant of the commons in the last parliament. Dated 6 March 1430.

Source : CPR 1429-36 , 49-51.

8

Grant by advice and assent of the lords of the council and by authority of an act of the last parliament that repayments should be made to the mayor and commonalty of London and other lenders to the king of moneys lent by them to the king out of the tenth and fifteenth granted by the commonalties of England in the said parliament and payable at Martinmas next. Dated 19 May 1430.

Source : CPR 1429-36 , 60-2, printed in full in RP , V.418-20. The details of repayments to be made to each lender are given, including the county from which the repayment should come. See also CPR 1429-36 , 111 (20 December 1430). Appointment pursuant to the act of the last parliament for the repayment of loans made to the king for the defence of the realm. Various debtors.

9

Assignment following the act of the parliament held at Westminster 22 September 1429 to Henry Chichele, archbishop of Canterbury, Henry Beaufort, bishop of Winchester, Thomas Langley, bishop of Durham, Sir Walter Hungerford, John Wodehouse esquire, and John Leventhorp, the feoffees of Henry V for lands in the duchy of Lancaster for repayment of £3,028 13 s 7 d lent by them to the king for the defence of the realm, out of the customs and subsidies arising in the port of Southampton. Dated 4 December 1430.

Source : CPR 1429-36 , 104.

10

Licence for Dennis [ ] born in Ireland to stay in England for life notwithstanding the proclamation made by authority of the last parliament for all the king's lieges of Ireland residing in England to return to the land of their birth. Vacated because nothing was done therein. Dated ? 1431.

Source : CPR 1429-36 , 107.

11

Licence by the advice of the lords spiritual and temporal in the present parliament for the abbot and convent of Abbotsbury to acquire in mortmain 20 librates of land from John Stafford, bishop of Bath and Wells, Sir Humphrey Stafford or others. By petition in parliament. Dated 28 September 1429.

Source : CPR 1429-36 , 63. See also CPR 1436-41 , 287, 28 June 1439, licence for the following to grant the following parcels to the abbot and convent of Abbotsbury in part satisfaction to the amount of 24 marks pa, of the licence to acquire in mortmain lands and rents not held in chief and worth £20 pa from John, bishop of Bath and Wells, Humphrey Stafford and others which was granted to the said house by the advice and assent of the lords spiritual and temporal in the parliament of 8 Henry VI (1429).

12

Inspeximus and confirmation by the advice of the lords spiritual and temporal in the parliament held at Westminster in the king's eighth year [1429] and at the special request of the commonalty in the same of letters patent dated 22 May 1405 making the priory of St Andrew Northampton a denizen instead of an alien priory. Ratification also of the estate of Henry Brybroke as prior of the same and grant that he may be discharged from any liability which may have arisen out of any voidance which may have occurred between the making of the said letters patent and the date of the said parliament. Dated 27 November 1437.

Source : CPR 1436-41 , 128. See also CPR 1452-61 , 44, 15 Feb 1453. Before the king and council, on behalf of the convent of the priory of St Andrew Northampton which has been long without a prior, it has been shown that, in the parliament held at Westminster 1429 on the petition of the commons by authority of that parliament, it was granted that to the prior and convent that they should have free election in vacancy and keeping of temporalities. This is now granted as a result.

13

Pardon to Simon Eyre, mayor and escheator of London, of a fine of £20 forfeit by him for not returning to the Chancery or Exchequer within a month of an inquest taken before him on Monday in St Nicholas last touching lands concerning Nicholas, son and heir of Thomas Southcotes, according to the statute in the parliament held at Westminster on the morrow of St Matthew, 8 Henry VI [22 September 1429]. Dated 14 February 1446.

Source : CPR 1441-6 , 409.

14

Commitment to Henry Aleyn by mainprise of two others of keeping of manor of Boxtede (Essex) taken into king's hand by death of Thos Boxtede who held of king to day of his death to hold the same from time of death of said Thomas to Easter next according to the form of a statute published in the last parliament so that he answer to exchequer for issues forthcoming in the meantime if they shall be adjudged to the king and keep the manor in the meantime without waste and destruction. Dated 28 May 1430.

Source : CFR 1422-30 , 321-2. Many other entries in the Calendar of the Fine Rolls refer to this statute of the 1429 parliament.

15

Royal response to a bill regarding the amendment of records partially agreed to by the commons. 8 Henry VI.

Source : PRO C 49/19/20 (formerly Parliamentary Petitions 9303). See also SC 8/25/1204.

16

Verdict against the late sheriff of Buckinghamshire for false return of knights of the shire. 8 Henry VI.

Source : PRO E 175/3/27. For discussion of dubious elections in 1429, of which there were at least three, see HOC , I.68, n.36, and IV.790-1. I am grateful to Dr Hannes Kleineke for this reminder.

17

Record of payment in the accounts of John Coryngham, canon, steward and receiver general of Windsor, to the clerks of chancery for the conception and writing of bulls (sic) directed to the lords of the council and to the knights and burgesses of parliament.

Source : Dean and Canons of Windsor MS XV.48.9, m. 5 (accounting year Michaelmas 1429-1430). I am grateful to Dr Hannes Kleineke for this reference.