Edward II: February 1324

1324 February

Introduction February 1324

Westminster

23 February - 18 March

For the writs of summons see RDP , iii, 342-44; PW, II, ii, 286-8, 289-315

(There is no surviving roll for this parliament)

Despite the completeness of his victory over his internal enemies, the disastrous Scottish campaign in the late summer and autumn of 1322 revealed the underlying weakness of Edward II's position. The futility of Edward's policy towards Scotland was further demonstrated on 3 January 1323 when the earl of Carlisle, Andrew Harclay, the victor of Boroughbridge, acted on his own initiative in making a peace treaty recognising Scottish independence with Robert Bruce at Lochmaben. Although the agreement was repudiated and Harclay was tried and executed for treason on 3 March, Edward had already entered into negotiations of his own. These resulted in a temporary truce on 14 March, followed by a thirteen-year truce, which was confirmed at a council held at Bishopsthorpe near York on 30 May 1323. The final recognition of an independent Scotland by the English crown had to wait until the Treaty of Northampton concluded in the name of Edward III by Isabella and Mortimer in 1328. Although the 1323 truce had been born out of Edward's humiliation, England was at least at peace with all its external enemies for the first time since 1294. England itself was however only superficially at peace. Rebels had been executed before on grounds of treason, but none of so high a rank as Thomas of Lancaster or so closely related to the king himself: the precedent was an ominous one for the future of English political conflict. The confiscations and executions which had occurred in 1322 created resentments among the surviving contrariants and the relatives of those who had perished which were eventually bound to break surface, while the loyalty of many others was to be strained to breaking-point. The escape of Roger Mortimer of Wigmore from the Tower of London on 1 August 1323 was just the beginning of a process which led to Edward's downfall three years later. Although Hugh Despenser the Younger was now the dominant influence on the king, who rewarded him lavishly with grants of land, there is little doubt that Edward himself was the prime mover in much of what happened. Just as his determination to defeat and destroy his enemies had inspired the Boroughbridge campaign in 1321-22, so now it dictated the ruthless zeal with which Edward and his agents exploited the confiscated lands of the contrariants for the advantage of the royal treasury. The new revenues allowed Edward to pay off his father's debts, to fight a war with France in 1323-5 without the need for additional taxation, and to accumulate by the end of his reign a reserve of treasure of about £60,000, equivalent to a year's income. The nature of Edward's regime during his years of almost unfettered rule was aptly expressed by the author of the Vita Edwardi Secundi : 'The harshness of the king has today increased so much that no one however great and wise dares to cross his will. Thus parliaments, colloquies, and councils decide nothing these days. For the nobles of the realm, terrified by threats and the penalties inflicted on others, let the king's will have free play. Thus today will conquers reason. For whatever pleases the king, though lacking in reason, has the force of law'. Edward however had a different view of his achievements in these years after 1322. In 1324 he ordered Master John of St. Albans to paint the walls of the Lesser Hall of Westminster Palace with scenes, probably martial and heroic in character, from the life of his father Edward I, 'whom God assoil'. Perhaps at last Edward felt reconciled with his father and deluded himself that in destroying his internal enemies he had somehow matched Edward I's greatness in war. In October 1323 a crisis arose in Gascony when English officials destroyed the newly erected French bastide at St. Sardos in the Agenais, so ending the good relations between England and France which had endured throughout the reign of Edward II and which had enabled Edward to deal more effectively with his domestic and Scottish enemies. Attempts to resolve the dispute failed and in August 1324 a French army invaded the duchy. (fn. F1324int-1)

No parliament was held between the York Parliament of November 1322 and the Westminster Parliament of February 1324. However on 30 May 1323 a very important council was held at Bishopsthorpe just outside York. This was called to approve the thirteen-year truce with the Scots which English and Scottish envoys had been negotiating since March 1323. (fn. F1324int-2) Those present at Bishopsthorpe included the archbishop of York, the bishops of Norwich and Exeter, the earls of Kent, Pembroke, Winchester, and Atholl, as well as the Younger Despenser and fourteen other magnates, and twenty-four royal judges and clerks. The French envoy, Henry count of Sully, who had recently been freed from by the Scots after his capture at Byland in 1322, the king's confessor, the dean of York, and the mayors of York and Newcastle were also present. Henry de Beaumont, a relative of the queen and a close ally of the king, who was a sworn member of the royal council, was present but disagreed so strongly with the proposed truce that he refused to give his advice to the king. The king angrily dismissed Beaumont from the council and had him committed to prison, from which he was released only after the intervention of eight other councillors. The truce was then duly approved. (fn. F1324int-3)

The Bishopsthorpe council was also the occasion of the approval of two major programmes of administrative reform, the Household Ordinance of York of June 1323 and the Cowick Ordinance of the same month which reorganised the exchequer. (fn. F1324int-4)

The writs of summons were issued at Nottingham on 20 November 1323 for an assembly to be held at Westminster on 20 January 1324. The writs say that the king wishes to have a 'colloquium and tractatum' with those present and do not describe the intended assembly as a parliament. A marginal note on the Close Roll refers to the meeting as 'de tractatu habendo'. On 26 December 1323 writs were issued at Kenilworth postponing the assembly at Westminster until 23 February 1324. These writs state that the king has 'ordained' the holding of a parliament to have a 'colloquium and tractatum' with those attending. A marginal note on the Close Roll also describes the intended meeting as a parliament. HBC describes this meeting solely as a parliament, without indicating the ambiguous nature of the initial summons on 20 November. The intended absence of the prelates, abbots and lower clergy from the assembly of magnates and royal judges and clerks summoned for 20 January probably explains why the meeting was not described as a parliament in the writs of summons of 20 November. Similarly the inclusion of the prelates and other clergy in the writs of 26 December postponing the assembly until 23 February turned the proposed meeting into a parliament.

Writs of summons were issued on 20 November to ten earls (Pembroke, Chester, Norfolk, Kent, Atholl (from Scotland), Arundel, Angus (from Scotland), Winchester, Surrey, and Oxford. (The earl of Carlisle had been executed for treason in March 1323)), forty-nine barons; to the treasurer, the bishop of Exeter; to twenty royal judges and clerks; and for the election of representatives of the knights of the shire and burgesses. The archbishops, bishops, abbots, priors, and representatives of the lower clergy were not summoned on this occasion. However, on the same date, 20 November, the Archbishops of York and Canterbury were ordered to convene their clergy at York and London respectively on 20 January 1324 (the date of the intended meeting of the earls, barons, etc.) to consider the state of the church and of the realm. Also on 20 November, twenty-three abbots, and three priors were ordered to attend the provincial council of Canterbury in London.

The writs of summons issued on 26 December for the postponement of parliament until 23 February were sent to ten earls (Pembroke, Chester, Norfolk, Kent, Atholl (from Scotland), Arundel, Angus (from Scotland), Winchester, Surrey, and Oxford), forty-nine barons; twenty-three royal judges and clerks (the bishop of Exeter is included in this list); and for the election of representatives of the knights of the shire and burgesses; writs of summons were also sent to the two archbishops, seventeen bishops (including the four Welsh bishops; also including the bishop of Exeter, who was therefore summoned twice), twenty-eight abbots and four priors. On the same date (26 December) the archbishops were ordered that representatives of the lower clergy should attend the parliament. In order to make the summons clear, the archbishops and the abbots who had been summoned on 20 November to attend provincial councils of the clergy at York and St. Pauls, London, on 20 January 1324, were told that these councils were to be cancelled and that neither they nor the lower clergy were to convene as previously ordered.

The writs of summons issued on 20 November gave the purpose of the proposed meeting as 'touching the king and the state and the honour of the kingdom.' The writs of 26 December do not specify the business to be addressed but state that the original summons of 20 November was for 'certain special business'. The writs also state that the king has 'ordained' the postponement of the parliament until 23 February for 'the greater convenience and utility of the kingdom'.

The parliament of February 1324 was held during the period of administrative reform, associated with the name of the treasurer, Walter Stapeldon, bishop of Exeter. The reforms were undertaken with the aim of improving record keeping and ensuring the efficient collection of royal revenue. The Household Ordinance of York of June 1323 and the Cowick Ordinance of the same month, which reorganised the exchequer, were early instalments of this process. In January 1324 an official estimate of the king's revenue was completed, revealing a net total of over £60,000. The net income from confiscated lands in England alone came to £12,643, exceeding by £900 the income from the ordinary farms of the shires and other traditional land revenues of the crown. The net revenue from Gascony came to £13,000, while customs duties yielded £16000. It is likely that the estimate was drawn up in response to Edward's order of 21 April 1323 demanding information about the value of his lands and of the other profits of his kingdom. At the same time another household ordinance, that of May 1324, was being drafted, with the purpose of controlling expenditure and cutting out waste. In January 1324 the king ordered the collection of all debts due to the contrariants, and in February ordered the scrutinising of the accounts of the former treasurer, Walter Langton, as well as the accounts for the lands of the Templars and for the collection of papal tenths. In June 1324 the division of the exchequer into two sections, dealing with the counties north and south of the Trent, was brought into force in order to increase the efficiency of revenue collection. Stapeldon appears by this time to have considered that the king was going too far in his obsessive searching out of possible sources of revenue, and in 1325 was replaced as treasurer. (fn. F1324int-5)

Whether any of these financial matters were discussed by the parliament of February 1324 is unknown: it is more likely that they were the preserve of the king and his council rather than of parliament. (fn. F1324int-6) One item that was discussed both by the council and by the parliament concerned rights of possession to former Templar lands. The preamble to the Statutum de Terris Templariorum , which was passed during the parliament, states that 'a conference was held in the parliament at Westminster before the king in the presence of the prelates, earls, barons, nobles and great men of the realm and others there present as to whether the lords could with safe conscience retain the lands of the Templars, by the law of the land. The greater part of the kings council having assembled, as well justices as other lay persons, the justices stated that this might be done, but because the lands were given for religious purposes it seemed good to the king, noblemen and others assembled in that parliament that the lands should be given to religious'. 'Thereupon in the same parliament it was agreed, ordained and established for law to continue for ever' that no one should retain possession. (fn. F1324int-7)

Another topic of discussion during the parliament was certainly the worsening state of Anglo-French relations, because of the destruction in October 1323 by English officials of the newly erected French bastide at St. Sardos in the Agenais. The incident came at a delicate time because of French demands that Edward should perform homage for the duchy of Aquitaine to the new French king, Charles IV, and because of growing anxiety in England that France might lend support to Roger Mortimer of Wigmore, who had gone to France after his escape from the Tower of London in August 1323. English envoys met Charles IV in Paris in December 1323, when the French king agreed to the postponement of Edward's homage until 30 June 1324, but did not indicate what steps he intended to take about St. Sardos. When English officials in Gascony failed to appear before the Paris Parlement on 9 February to answer charges over the destruction of the bastide, relations deteriorated swiftly. In April Charles IV issued a general proclamation of arms for 10 June 1324. During the Westminster parliament it was decided to send envoys to France to try to settle the St. Sardos dispute and to postpone further Charles IV's demand for homage. On 30 March the archbishop of Dublin and Edward II's half-brother, Edmund earl of Kent, were appointed as ambassadors. On their arrival in Paris, they at first agreed to surrender the castle of Montpezat, but they went back on their word. When they also asked for the postponement of the act of homage, Charles IV concluded that Edward II condoned the actions of his Gascon subjects and officials and did not intend to perform homage. The stage was now set for war. (fn. F1324int-8)

A moment of real drama occurred when the bishop of Hereford, Adam Orleton, was brought before the parliament to answer charges that members of his household had assisted Roger Mortimer of Wigmore at the time of his escape from the Tower of London in August 1323. Despite Orleton's claim that as an ecclesiastic he was answerable only to the Church authorities, he was brought before Hervey of Stanton, the Chief Justice of the King's Bench. The archbishops of Canterbury, York, and Dublin together entered the court, carrying their processional crosses before them, and led Orleton away. This avoided a direct clash between Edward II and Pope John XXII, but ensured that henceforth the bishop of Hereford would be one of the king's enemies. (fn. F1324int-9)

In the absence of a Parliament Roll for this assembly, it is not known whether formal arrangements were made for the receipt and answering of petitions during the parliament. There are however some surviving petitions for 1324-25, some of which may belong to this parliament. (fn. F1324int-10)