Henry VI: February 1449

1449 February

Introduction February 1449

Westminster

12 February - 4 April, 7 May - 30 May

Winchester

16 June - 16 July

C 65/99, RP , V.141-170, SR , II.345-352

C 65/99 is a roll of 7 membranes, each approximately 310mm in width, sewn together in chancery style, and numbered in a later hand. The condition of the roll is generally good, though the left side of membrane 1 is torn, and membrane 2 is stained with gallic acid. The text, written in an official chancery script, occupies the rectos of the membranes only; the dorses are blank apart from the contemporary heading on membrane 1, 'Rotulus parl' de anno regni regis Henri sexti vicesimo septimo xxvij, xxvij, xxvij', and later notes, 'Parl' 27 H. 6 apud Westm' where some membranes are joined. The lower halves of membranes 4 and 5 are blank. Marginal headings on membranes 1, 2, 3 are contemporary, those on membranes 4 and 5 are both contemporary and later, while those on membranes 6 and 7 are later. Arabic numerals throughout the roll are later. The roll does not appear to be incomplete. Its composite nature is clear. The opening business (items 1 to 7) is on the first membrane, with the grants of taxes occupying the next two membranes (2 and 3). The petition concerning soldiers' wages at Calais (item 16) is the only item on membrane 4, with membrane 5 containing the remaining two items of business (the duke of Somerset's credence at item 17 and the precedence case of the earl of Arundel at item 18). The common petitions commence on membrane 6 and run to the end of the roll at membrane 1.

The parliament of 1447 ended on 3 March. The next parliament did not meet until almost two years later, on 12 February 1449. The intervening period was the third longest gap between parliaments in the reign of Henry VI to date. This no doubt helps to explain the relatively long length of the parliament of February 1449 from opening to dissolution - twenty-one weeks and four days. Parliament was in actual session for sixteen weeks and four days. There were two prorogations, thereby producing three sessions. The venue of the parliament was changed from Westminster to Winchester for the final session. Given the length of the meeting, the roll, at seven membranes, is disproportionately short. It does not record an opening sermon, and contains only seven common petitions. But the roll can be supplemented by a number of petitions which relate to the parliament (see Appendix). A further very important source are seventeenth-century copies of deliberations in the lords. (fn. intF1449-1) Dunham suggested that the clerk was accustomed to making lists of who was present, and occasionally added notes of who said what. One of these texts, now in the College of Arms (Parliament of February 1449, Appendix item 1) relates to the first session and gives useful detail on the precedence case which William, earl of Arundel had put forward in 1445 and which remained unresolved. It also shows how the lords decided to apportion the funds raised by the first half subsidy voted by the commons at the end of the first session. Some relate to the first session, and others to the third session held at Winchester in June and July. There are two versions of debates in the lords in the third session. One is in the Huntingdon Library (Parliament of February 1449, Appendix item 3), where the debate, largely about the problems of financing armies to France, is dated to 19 June at Winchester. The second copy, in the British Library (Parliament of February 1449, Appendix item 2) is undated but certainly relates to the same debate, containing material not found in the other version. These materials, taken together, are vital, not only for lists of presences of lords, but also for an insight into how the lords' deliberations were conducted.

Chroniclers say relatively little about the parliament, save for noting the dates and venues of the sessions, the grant of a lay subsidy, and the creation of new peers. (fn. intF1449-2) For recent historians, the parliament is interpreted as revealing a 'widening gap between government and community'. (fn. intF1449-3) It seems likely that the commons displayed truculence in the face of requests for money, despite evidence presented to the parliament by the lieutenant general of France, Edmund Beaufort, now duke of Somerset, of how parlous the English position was in Normandy (item 17). There is little doubt that the main reason for the calling of a parliament was the need for money. The lay subsidy granted at the parliament of 1445 had its last instalment collected in November 1448. The trade taxes agreed in that parliament were also due for expiry, tunnage and poundage on 1 April 1449, and the wool subsidy on 11 November 1449.

The crown's need for money is explained by failure to come to a full peace with France. (fn. intF1449-4) The truce had been extended several times: on 22 February 1447 until 1 January 1448, on 27 July 1447 to 1 May 1448, and on 15 October 1447 to 1 January 1449. Henry never crossed to France to meet his uncle, despite frequent promises to do so. Thus there were no negotiations towards a full peace. Relations were soured by the tardy implementation of the promise to surrender Maine. On 22 July 1447, a solemn undertaking was made to effect the surrender by 1 November next. Orders went to the captains in the area to implement this, but they refused to do so. By February 1448, there was a real threat, as Charles drew his troops up to Le Mans, that war would recommence. By 11 March, at the treaty of Lavardin, the English finally agreed the handover of Maine, and the truce was extended to 1 April 1450. An English embassy was now appointed to treat for a full peace, and Edmund Beaufort crossed to France to take up his charge as lieutenant-general, to which he had been appointed in December 1446. But it made little progress, not least because of French claims of major infractions of the truce by the soldiers evacuated from Maine who had occupied the fortress of Saint-James-de-Beuvron in the marches toward Brittany. A further complication was English support for Giles de Bretagne against his pro-French brother, Duke Francis. French and English ambassadors met for the last time in mid November 1448.

Although the truce still technically had until 1 April 1450 to run, it was already clear by the end of 1448 that hostilities might reopen at any point. Thought had to be given to the financial implications of this. We must assume that this was the principal reason for the summoning of a parliament, but as the roll does not record the chancellor's opening sermon, it is impossible to know precisely what was said at the outset of the meeting about the reasons for its calling.

Writs of summons were issued on 2 January 1449. (fn. intF1449-5) From the sheriffs' returns and endorsements, the names of 272 MPs are known. (fn. intF1449-6) The number of seats was increased to 276 by the representation of Hindon and Westbury for the first time. Twelve law officers were summoned, one less than in 1447. Writs of summons were sent to twenty of the episcopate in person, with the summons for London, then vacant, being directed to the keeper of the spiritualities. As for the abbots and priors, twenty-six summonses were issued, the list being the same as in 1447 with the exception of the Prior of St John of Jerusalem. As for the lay peers, four dukes were summoned, York, Norfolk, Buckingham and Suffolk. The last named had been elevated from marquis to duke on 2 June 1448, and was still the most prominent member of the council. The duke of Gloucester had died on 23 February 1447 during the parliament at Bury. John Holland, duke of Exeter, had died on 5 August, and his heir, Henry, was still under age, having been born on 27 June 1430. Edmund Beaufort, marquis of Dorset, had been created duke of Somerset on 31 March 1448 as he prepared to take up his position as lieutenant-general of France. His continuing absence in Normandy is no doubt the reason for his not being summoned to the parliament. Likewise, John Talbot, earl of Shrewsbury, also in France, was not amongst the earls summoned. These numbered six: Northumberland, Devon, Arundel, Westmorland, Salisbury, and Oxford, all of whom had been summoned in 1447. Two viscounts were summoned as in 1447: John, viscount Beaumont and Henry, viscount Bourgchier.

A further thirty-five lay peers were included in the writs of summons of 2 January. This contrasts with 31 summoned in 1447. William, lord Fauconberg had been summoned to parliaments between 1429 and 1447, but was not so in 1449, presumably because he was in France. Otherwise all of those summoned in 1447 did receive summons in 1449. To them was added William Bourgchier, lord Fitzwarin, younger son of William Bourgchier, count of Eu, who had married the coheiress of Fulk, lord Fitzwarin, d. 1431), Thomas Hoo, lord Hoo and Hastings (created 2 June 1448: he had sat as knight of the shire for Norfolk in 1431), Richard Woodville, lord Rivers (created 9 May 1448), Thomas, lord Roos (b. 1427, who had recently come of age), and John, lord Stourton (created 13 May 1448). Thus seven peers were newly summoned in January, and a further three later, making a total of ten new peers. Sir Henry Bromflete, baron de Vescy (whose wife was a descendent of the de Vescy line, was summoned for the first time by special writ on 24 January, but William Beauchamp, Lord St Amand (one of the royal carvers who had married the coheiress of lord St Amand, d. 1426), for whom this was also a first parliament as peer although he had sat as knight of the shire for Wiltshire in 1447, was not summoned till 22 May. (fn. intF1449-7) William, Lord Bonville was summoned on 10 March, without a separate creation of the title. He had sat in four preivous parliaments as a knight of the shire. (fn. intF1449-8) According to the chronicler John Benet, Bourgchier, Bonville and Vescy were made peers in the parliament. (fn. intF1449-9) This is possible in terms of timing for the last two, but there is no mention of such creations on the roll, and Bourgchier certainly received a summons in January. Benet's wording may also imply that two earls were created in the parliament - Sir James Ormond as earl of Wiltshire, and Richard Neville as earl of Warwick. The creation of the latter does indeed date to 8 July, at which point parliament was still in session, but again there is nothing on the roll. That of Warwick was confirmed on 23 July 1449.

Some observations can be made on actual attendance by the peers. On 3 February, slightly over a week before the opening, the bishop of Durham, the earl of Westmorland, and ten further men from the north of England were ordered to remain there because of fears of Scottish actions, and so were excused from attending parliament. (fn. intF1449-10) Interestingly, three of those named had not received summons (Sir Thomas Neville, Sir John Neville and Sir Thomas Lumley) so we must ask why they were deemed liable to attend parliament at all. None of those written to on 3 February are found in any other sources as being present at any session of the parliament. The duke of York was certainly not present at the last session. Towards the end of May he began his journey towards Ireland to take up his lieutenancy in person, sailing from Beaumaris on 22 June. (fn. intF1449-11) Nor does he feature in the record of deliberations in the lords in the first session (Parliament of February 1449, Appendix item 1). There is not space to provide a full analysis of the presences revealed by these records of deliberations in the lords, but some interesting observations can be made. The first is that there was not a consistency of presence. Take, for instance, the lists of presences on 20 and 21 March. On the first occasion, twelve bishops and four abbots as well as ten lay peers were present, yet on the next day only ten bishops, one abbot and six lay peers. Suffolk was the only duke present on 20 March, Buckingham the only duke on 21 march. For the final session, we can see present thirteen diocesans, two abbots and eighteen lay lords, that is, thirty-three out the ninety-five summoned.. (fn. intF1449-12)

The session was opened on Friday 12 February in Westminster by John Stafford, archbishop of Canterbury, as chancellor. On Saturday 13 February, the commons elected their speaker, John Say, who was presented on Monday 15 February. Say was an MP for Cambridgeshire and was close to Suffolk, having served on the embassy to France in 1444. (fn. intF1449-13) From at least 1443 he was a yeoman of the king's chamber and had subsequently become esquire of the hall and chamber and by the time of the parliament an esquire of the body. He enjoyed much by way of royal gifts and rewards. During the parliament of 1447 he had been granted the wardship and marriage of his wife's daughter by her first marriage and a life grant of the manor of Lawford (Essex). During the present parliament, he was appointed as one of members of a new group appointed as feoffees of the duchy of Lancaster estates assigned to the administration of the king's will (Parliament of February 1449, Appendix item 18). Serving alongside him as feoffee was his brother William, dean of the chapel royal. As Roskell shows, just before the 1449 parliament was prorogued in March, John Say was granted another royal annuity, and on 10 June, shortly before the final session opened at Winchester, he was given the reversion of the offices of chancellor of the duchy and county palatine of Lancaster to be effective from the death of William Tresham, the current holder, who had of course been speaker in the parliaments of 1439, 1442 and 1447.

There can be no doubt, therefore, that Say was closely linked to the king and his circle, and even during the parliament was in personal attendance on the king on at least one occasion. His selection reveals, perhaps, the accepted significance of the royal household in government at this stage. The government would have anticipated the need to persuade the commons to make a generous tax grant.

During the first session, the lords dealt with a dispute over precedence between William, earl of Arundel, and Thomas, earl of Devon, concerning their seating positions in the Lords. One of the records of lords' deliberations (Parliament of February 1449, appendix item 1) places the date of the discussion as 20 March. According to the entry in the roll (item 18), the dispute between the two peers had begun in the parliament of February 1445, and had given rise to writings produced by both parties in that same parliament, prompting the king, on the advice of the lords, to refer it to a committee of lords for decision. But there is no mention of the matter in the roll for the parliament of 1445. That year may, however, have been the first time William, earl of Arundel attended parliament, although he had been summoned in 1442. Assuming the matter was first raised in 1445, we might have expected it to be dealt with at the next meeting of parliament, namely that of February 1447, but, presumably because of the special nature of that assembly, it was referred to the subsequent parliament.

The entry on the roll of the parliament of February 1449 (item 18) notes that the committee of lords had not had time to deal with the matter and thus it was now referred, on the advice of the lords in the present parliament, to the judges who were to report back to the king and lords. Their reply was that the issue was indeed a matter for the king and lords to deal with in parliament, based on the precedent of the act made in the parliament of 1433 concerning John, earl of Arundel, William's elder brother. Mention of this act made it possible for the current parliament to decide in the earl of Arundel's favour, although it left the way open for the earl of Devon to appeal to the king and lords in parliament. The seventeenth-century copy which tells us the date on which the matter was discussed also reveals something about the nature of the debate. Arguments revolved around whether John, earl of Arundel's title as defined in 1433 had been a new creation or a continuation of his right by inheritance of the existing ancient earldom. Nineteen peers considered it a continuation, only the bishop of Winchester thought it a new creation.

We know from the same record of lords' deliberations that the lords met again on 21 and 24 March, but no business is detailed. It also shows that they met on 4 April (the last day of the first session), and that on that day the king, acting on their advice, granted assignments out of the half fifteenth and half tenth made by the commons. These included £2,100 for the costs of the defence of Calais, £1,000 for each of the marches towards Scotland, 500 marks for the castle of Roxburgh and £2,000 for the keeping of the sea. On 4 April Gervase Clifton, Alexander Iden, and Robert Winnington (the latter serving as an MP in the parliament) were appointed to commandeer ships for the last purpose, and subsequently Thomas Daniel, an important household man, was appointed to the overall command of the fleet. (fn. intF1449-14)

It is likely that the first session of the parliament, from 12 February to 4 April, had been devoted largely to discussion of the English position in France and of taxation. There was an obvious need for money. Item 53 of the roll of the parliament of November 1449, which concerns the act of resumption agreed at that parliament, refers to the chancellor, treasurer and lords of the council showing and declaring the state of the realm to the commons 'at your parliament last held at Westminster'. According to this item, the king was shown at that point to be in debt for £372,000, but had an annual income of only £5,000. The household itself was estimated to cost £24,000 per annum. There is no reference in the roll of the February 1449 parliament to any estimates being put before the commons, and it is more likely that this declaration of finance had been made at one of the Westminster sessions of the parliament of November 1449, although some historians have argued that it relates to the parliament of February of the same year.

Whatever the case, the commons of the latter were persuaded to make some tax grants at the end of the first session. These are enrolled before the prorogation issued on 4 April (item 10), and so must belong to the first session. This is confirmed by the fact that the grant of the lay subsidy honoured assignments and grants made before 1 April 1449.

The grant of tunnage and poundage was on the point of expiry. The commons agreed to its renewal, from 3 April 1449 for five years, i.e. to April 1454 (item 9). (fn. intF1449-15) The commons also granted a half tenth and fifteenth to be collected in two instalments, 11 November 1449 and 11 November 1450, with a deduction of £3,000 to be distributed to impoverished places and complete exemption for Great Yarmouth and Lincoln (item 8). This marked a 50 18873064ncrease on the deduction allowed in 1445 when it stood at £2,000 for each half subsidy. Thus not only was the tax to be collected slowly, but its total value was already lower than in the past. Collection of this lay subsidy was to be staggered, with the first instalment due in November 1449 and the second a year later. (fn. intF1449-16) As noted earlier, one of the seventeenth-century copies relevant to this parliament indicates that most of the anticipated yield, which can be estimated at £6,667, was earmarked by the lords on 4 April for the defence of the seas, Calais and the Scottish march (Parliament of February 1449, Appendix item 1) The commons had done relatively little, therefore, to solve the government's financial difficulties before parliament was prorogued for Easter. One other item of unenrolled business can be dated to this first session - a petition from John Talbot, lord Lisle, son of the earl of Shrewsbury, concerning his tenure of the office of chancellor of Ireland (Parliament of February 1449, Appendix item 8), in the light of a dispute with Thomas Fitzgerald, prior of Kilmainham, who had been granted the reversion of the office on 5 April 1448. (fn. intF1449-17)

Parliament reassembled at Westminster on Wednesday 7 May for its second session. We must suppose that the government was hoping to persuade the commons to vote another subsidy. Significantly, it was during this second session that the customary arrangements for the levy of loans, here to £100,000, were agreed on the security of the lay subsidy, clerical taxation and on royal jewels (item 11). Arrangements already made for the financing of Calais were also to be safeguarded. By 28 May 1449, by the advice and assent of the lords in parliament, the duke of Somerset was granted repayment of his loan out of the second instalment of the half tenth and fifteenth voted at the end of the first session, and due for collection in 1450. (fn. intF1449-18) Sometime during the parliament, the lords also assented to a loan of £1,000 being repaid to the duke of Suffolk. (fn. intF1449-19) To a considerable degree, this went against the undertaking in the first session on assignments out of taxation. The second session lasted only until Friday 30 May when it was prorogued for Whitsun (item 12). Announcement was made that it should reopen on Monday 16 June at Winchester, because of fears of plague in London and Westminster. It may be rather that the second session had been deliberately truncated after only three weeks and the venue changed because a deadlock had arisen over taxation and the government felt a cooling-off period would assist in overcoming the commons' reluctance to increase the grants they had made in the first session. It is possible that the parliament had already received an important communication from the duke of Somerset, lieutenant in Normandy, during the first or second session (item 17), but the dating of this item will be discussed more fully below.

The third session opened in Winchester on 16 June. At the end of the session on Wednesday 16 July, the grant of a further half tenth and fifteenth was agreed to be paid in two instalments in November 1449 and November 1451 with the same deductions and exemptions as in the half voted in April (item 13). In total, therefore, the government had a full subsidy granted, but which would take over two years to collect. Some additional funds were also granted at the Winchester session. A tax on aliens was to be levied annually at Michaelmas for the next four years (1449-52) at the same rates as the two previous such subsidies granted in the parliaments of 1439 and 1442 (item 14). There were, however, some new exemptions for those aliens born in Normandy and Guienne, lands which fell under the rule of the English king. It may be that a drift of such people to England had begun or was anticipated as the French threats escalated. Higher rates were introduced for merchants and their clerks, named on the roll as follows: Venetians, Italians, Genoans, Florentines, Milanese, Luccans, Catalonians, Albertines (i.e. members of the Florentine society of merchants called the Alberti), Lombards, members of the Hanse, Prussians and all other foreign merchants. This was a further expression of hostilities to alien merchants, as had been expressed in other recent parliaments.

In addition a poll tax on priests at 6s 8d per head payable at Michaelmas 1449 was engineered through the parliament. This is revealed by the last common petition enrolled on the roll (item 25). It asked the king to grant an amnesty to clergy who had committed rape or who had accepted salaries in excess of those rates which had been laid down by statute. In return, the commons expressed their consent for the clerical poll tax to be levied. The response was that the matter of the tax should be referred to the clerical convocation. That of Canterbury met from 1 to 28 July in London. No doubt mindful of the commons' will, the latter granted the tax and thus the bill became a statute. (fn. intF1449-20)

The wool subsidy was due to expire on 11 November 1449. At the end of the third session, the commons agreed to its continuation to April 1454 (item 15). (fn. intF1449-21) The rates were kept at 33s 4d for native merchants and 53s 4d for alien merchants as in 1445, but there were some important regional differences established. For wool and woolfells produced between the rivers of Tees and Tweed and in Westmorland and Cumberland, a lower rate of 13s 4d was established for native merchants. The special treatment of Carlisle and Lincoln was preserved, (fn. intF1449-22) as were the assignments already made to Lord Fauconberg for the defence of Roxburgh and to John Lemanton for the repairs to Berwick and Roxburgh. Relations with Scotland were not good at this time, with open conflict having broken out in the summer of 1448. It will be remembered that on 3 February, nine days before the opening of the parliament, the bishop of Durham, the earl of Westmorland and ten others were excused for attending parliament on the grounds that their presence was needed to ensure the safekeeping of the north against the Scots. (fn. intF1449-23)

It was also agreed at the third session that 20s out of the 33s 4d standard rate levied in this subsidy should be applied to the costs of defence at Calais for the next four and a half years, apportioning the expected income between soldiers' wages, victuals and repairs to the fortifications (item 16). This was requested in the form of a petition, and was agreed save that adjustments were made whereby more was put towards repairs and less to wages. An exception was made to cover the duty-free export rights granted to the queen on 24 July 1448, but care was taken to ensure that those who shipped wool on which duty was due should not wriggle out of payment by gaining subsequent licences of exemption from the crown.

Parliament must have been well aware of the conflicting demands for funds between the various English military commitments. Some solution was to be provided for Calais, presumably because of mercantile pressures, and the Scottish frontier. But no English funds were ever earmarked for Normandy. This is all the more notable given that the duke of Somerset, as lieutenant-general of France, had communicated to the parliament the difficult position which then prevailed in the English possessions in Normandy (item 17). It is unlikely that he had sent a written statement himself, although some textbooks imply that he did. What he had done was to give letters of credence similar to those provided to ambassadors going abroad on behalf of the king to Thomas Hoo, lord Hastings, chancellor of France, and Reginald Boulers, abbot of Gloucester, a member of the council of the duchy, both of whom had received writs of summons to the parliament. These letters confirmed their status as Somerset's official mouthpiece, so that they spoke on his behalf but in their own words. Whether they had a written text to draw on is impossible to know, but we can at least assume that they were reflecting discussions which they had already had with Somerset in Rouen.

The responsibility to make the presentation at the parliament fell to the abbot. The entry, given in English after a heading in Latin, makes clear that his presentation was made at the king's command (the king's actual presence is not transparent but this reference may imply that he was there) 'to both lords and commons'. Boulers explained first how his master, with personal experience of enemy activity and moved by fear of further damage if remedy was not applied, had wisely reacted by the sending of Hoo and himself to the king with the duke's letters of credence to let the king know 'the doubtful and dangerous disposition of that country'. Boulers' preceded his main speech by explaining that the king had commanded him to 'open to your wisdoms' on behalf of the duke 'as compendiously as I can'. It is possible, of course, that the abbot's speech was more detailed than the resulting entry in the roll, which runs to 1064 words in the original Middle English.

The first section of Boulers' presentation outlined French infractions against the truce and their refusal to make answer on these, despite Somerset's frequent demands. In this first section, the abbot explained that Charles had issued a semonce to all nobles to gather within 15 days 'the number of which men is great and inestimable', and that the French king had also organised a levy of archers on a parish by parish basis, 'the number of such men so armed and arrayed, as is said by credible persons who have true knowledge of this, exceeds 60,000 men'. The second heading of the abbot's presentation was 'to show that if war should occur, which God forbid, the country of Normandy is in no way sufficient in itself to offer resistance against the great might of the enemies, for many great reasons'. How much emphasis, one wonders, did Boulers give to that loaded phrase 'in itself' to those in the parliament, who no doubt already anticipated that there would be a request for financial aid. After all, these were 'great enemies' and there were many great reasons why the English defensive position was inadequate to resist attack. In this section, the abbot made two subdivisions: 'first', he noted the weaknesses in the fabric of English defence. Even if places had plenty of men and artillery, they were often in a ruinous condition and so could not be defended easily. Necessary repairs would incur 'inestimable costs' (notice here the choice of words). But, as the abbot went on to say in his second remark in this section, when the Norman Estates last made a grant of the aide, they had made clear that the poverty of the duchy was such that they could not bear such great charges in the future, and had asked for the number of men (in garrisons) to be reduced or else it should be showed to the king 'that money might be had from England to cover the said charges'. They had reinforced this by saying that unless they were relieved of tax burdens they would be forced to leave the country 'and allow the land to be abandoned to the enemy'.

Boulers then moved on to the third part, where he reminded those assembled how the last renewal of the truce had only 14 months to run and so it was thought 'right high tyme' to begin your (which must mean the king's) provision for the safeguard of that noble land. In the abbot's words, Somerset beseeched the king and the lords his councillors, 'and heartily willyth all your wysdomes' (meaning the commons) to 'remember the war' or to put it more accurately 'remember Normandy'. The way Boulers did this is interesting, for he invoked the memory of how much English blood had been shed 'for that land's sake'. The abbot then explained why Somerset needed to communicate the position, lest he might open himself to criticism later by his silence. In conclusion, Boulers emphasised how his request made on behalf of Somerset was to the king, the lords in the parliament and 'all your wysdoms that now represent all the comyns of this land', asking the latter in particular to consider the credence and to provide the aid requested. This last statement may imply that the credence had already been made known to the king and the lords, or at least to all those attendant on the privy council, and that they had been instrumental in the decision to have Boulers make his presentation to the lords and commons intercommuned.

But when precisely was Boulers' speech made? There is no date given in the roll. Myers considered that 'Somerset's appeal must have been made some time in February 1449', (fn. intF1449-24) implying that it might have been taken at the first session. Michael Jones has suggested that the duke's appeal was sent to England as a result of the fall of Pont-de-l'Arche to the French on 9 May 1449, and of the complaints made at the Norman Estates at the level of war burden. (fn. intF1449-25) This would place its presentation in the second session. This possibility gains support from the fact that on 27 May Somerset's indenture as lieutenant general was revised to reflect the possibility of open war: he was to be sent an additional 1,300 troops, due to muster for embarkation on 11 June. (fn. intF1449-26) On the next day he was granted, by the assent of lords in parliament repayment of a loan he had made previously (Parliament of February 1449, Appendix item 5).

There are arguments, however, against the suggestion of the second session. If the French had recently taken Pont de l'Arche, a key place close to Rouen, one might have expected mention of this in order that the level of emergency could be made clear. Boulers' speech is completely vague in terms of dating. Even though it mentions the enemy strength it says nothing in detail on their position. There is no mention, for instance, of the taking of Fougères on the Breton frontier by Francois L'Arragonais [de Surienne] on 24 March 1449. It is now accepted that this was not an act of an adventurer but rather a misplaced strategy agreed by Somerset and Suffolk to put pressure on the duke of Brittany. (fn. intF1449-27) Although, as in the case of the capture of Pont-de-l'Arche, the lack of mention of Fougères even obliquely does not prove that the presentation of Boulers predates the attack, but it may well do. A clue to dating is provided by Boulers' mention that the truce had 14 months to run. It had been renewed on 11 March 1448, when the handover of Maine had finally been agreed, to 1 April 1450. Fourteen months before its due end date gives us February 1449, making it possible that Boulers spoke in the first session, and that indeed Somerset had intended his appeal to coincide with the beginning of the parliament. This is also suggested by the place on the roll which Boulers' presentation occupies. It follows the last entry on taxation (item 16) and so is the first item on the roll after the standard opening and closing items. It is immediately followed by a settlement of the precedence case between William, earl of Arundel and Thomas, earl of Devon, which we know from one of the surviving records of lords' deliberations was discussed by a group of lords in the parliament chamber on 20 March, within the first session. (fn. intF1449-28) By analogy with the other rolls of the reign, this suggests that the credence belonged to the first session also. It may therefore pre-date Surienne's attack on Fougères.

Yet there was no immediate response. Not until the end of May was there any action over Somerset's number of troops. Two sets of reports of discussions in the lords note debate on 'how money might be had in order to send armies into Normandy and Gascony', with various ideas being put forward (Parliament of February 1449, Appendix items 2 and 3). Adam Moleyns, bishop of Chichester and keeper of the privy seal, argued that those who had been granted lands in France, as well as those who held annuities and grants of the crown, might give a year's income for the cause. This was, in effect, a suggestion for a form of resumption. Several bishops were keen that the shire levies might be detailed to France. The treasurer recommended more traditional sources for funding - an approach to the commons. The second of the reports of lords' discussions gives the date as 19 June, thus within the third session. But the first gives no date other than noting uniquely that on the same day a letter which Surienne had sent to Suffolk was read out 'before the lords in parliament and considered to be nobly written'. Can this have been anything other than a report on the taking of Fougères, which might again place the debate towards the end of the first session? We do not know how the commons reacted to Somerset's appeal or to the lords' ideas, save that, as we have seen, they had made tax grants by the end of the third session, on which promise loans were raised. By then, events in Normandy were much as Somerset had predicted. Yet not until August and September were further armies recruited to cross for its rescue. Whenever Somerset's appeal was heard, the English response was too little too late. Further research might enable us to date Boulers' presentation with greater precision, but it is fair to say that the reports of the lords deliberations, although fascinating, are problematic in terms of dating, with a strong suspicion that seventeenth-century copyists have artificially created a variety of unreliable versions.

Seven common petitions found their way onto the roll. The first complained that the arrangements concerning the staple at Calais were not being maintained because many were shipping their goods elsewhere, some by licences dubiously or falsely acquired (item 19). One way this was being done was by giving 'new fangled names to the wools and woolfells which were not to be found in the original statute of 27 Edward III concerning the staple. As a result, the income of the staple had, it was argued, declined to only £12,000 per annum. The reply was aimed at continuing the requirements for exports to pass through the staple at Calais, although some exceptions were allowed. This petition needs to be seen alongside the decision taken in the parliament to divert the larger share of the wool subsidy to the costs of the defence of Calais (item 16): clearly the revenues of the staple were not enough for this purpose. There is no doubt that the petition arose as a result of pressure from the mayor of the Staple. Instructions given to an embassy to the duchess of Burgundy on 30 July noted that at the last parliament the mayor had 'sued to obtain certain articles for the benefit and ease of the said Staple'. (fn. intF1449-29)

Concerns of merchants and no doubt of the Staplers too were also revealed in a common petition complaining that the duke of Burgundy was continuing to prevent English cloth being sold in Brabant, Holland and Zeeland, and as a result the cloth workers were suffering unemployment (item 20). (Interestingly, the petition distinguished between occupations on grounds of gender, speaking of male weavers, fullers and dyers and female combers, carders and spinners.) The reply was that unless the duke lifted the embargo, merchandise from those areas would be banned in England in retaliation. Materials surviving from the privy council show that the matter of the Burgundian ban on sale of English cloth had been discussed there too during the parliament. On 27 March 1449 instructions were given to William Pirton, lieutenant of Guines, and Edward Grimston to negotiate with the duchess of Burgundy on the matter, and to remind her that the truce did allow for freedom of trade. (fn. intF1449-30) These instructions also told the envoys to say that the three estates at the parliament 'had piteously complained upon the said ordinance [i.e. Burgundian ban on sales of English wool] and meekly beseeched the king's good grace that he would ordain and establish that unless the ordinance was removed without delay no merchandise from the said areas [i.e Holland and Zealand] should be accepted in England, but be forfeited if it was so received'. This reference thus helps to date the petition at item 20 to the first session of the parliament of February 1449, and to the period before 27 March in that session. When instructions were issued on 30 July 1449 to a second embassy towards the duchess, they included reference again to parliament's consideration of the matter, adding on this occasion specific reference to 'the act of parliament', which the envoys were instructed to show the duchess. (fn. intF1449-31) The petition had indeed given rise to a statute.

That there was other mercantile business dealt with at the parliament is revealed by an unenrolled petition which led to a statute being issued (Parliament of February 1449, Appendix item 11). This petition asked for the enforcement of the statute of 1402 requiring alien merchants to use the profits they had gained in England to buy products in this country before their departure, and banning them from carrying gold and silver out of the realm.

Another common petition asked for continuation of the ordinance made at the parliament of 1442 concerning the taking of stolen goods into Wales from the marcher counties (Parliament of 1442, item 20). An extension to the next parliament was granted (item 21). It is likely that another petition on a related issue, the illegal taking of distraints in Wales and in the duchy of Lancaster, was put forward but not accepted (Parliament of February 1449, Appendix item 13). A similar bill limited to Wales alone had been put forward in 1447 (Parliament of 1447, item 20). The commons finally achieved acceptance of the bill in the parliament of November 1449 (Parliament of November 1449, item 55).

Four further common petitions on the roll of the parliament of February 1449 concerned the church. The first complained about abuse of privilege of clergy (item 22). Clerks were committing crimes but were able to escape punishment and to keep their ill-gotten gains simply by making purgation before their ecclesiastical superiors. This bill was ordered to be referred to the archbishops and bishops as it clearly concerned the church. (There is an interesting marginal note to the effect that the bill is lacking in the files, perhaps an indication that it literally was passed on to the church authorities to be dealt with. Indeed, the original bill is not amongst those which still survive in the chancery and exchequer collections. Nor is that concerning the goods taken into Wales which also has a marginal note in the roll that 'this was another petition 'for empleement'. Perhaps its original was withdrawn from the file to be dealt with again at the next parliament, given that the extension had been awarded only until then.)

Another petition related back to a decision taken in 1421 (Parliament of May 1421, item 15) that abbots and priors should not act as collectors of the clerical subsidy in the county where they were resident (item 23). Technically this was to last until the parliament which was to follow Henry V's return from France, and was effectively annulled by his death. This matter was again referred to the ecclesiastical authorities as such appointments were in the power of the archbishops and bishops. Another common petition protested against the holding of fairs on major feast days, arguing that this distracted people from their religious duties. It asked that fairs should be banned on such days as well as on Sundays, backing up its arguments with biblical referencing and sermonizing (item 24). The king agreed to it but allowed the possibility of it being overturned if convincing arguments were put forward at the next parliament that its continuation was unwise. The final common petition enrolled on the roll concerned the clerical subsidy, as discussed earlier (item 25).

The parliament had before it other matters which were not enrolled. A petition was put forward by John Paston to the king and lords in parliament concerning his dispute with Robert Hungerford, Lord Moleyns over the manor of Gresham (Parliament of February 1449, Appendix item 4). Interestingly too, a letter survives from Moleyns to the tenants of Gresham written at London 'on the eve of our lady's day last' which ends 'and almighty God keep you, and by his grace I shall be with you soon after the parliament is ended'. This must have been written on 24 March 1449 just before the end of the first session. (fn. intF1449-32) The petition of William Brocas, master of the buckhounds, belongs to the last session as it led to a grant made at Winchester on 5 July (Parliament of February 1449, Appendix item 10). It is likely that there were other matters concerning the royal household and officials, including petitions by the gentlemen and yeoman of the household and by the members of the royal chapel for payment of arrears (Parliament of February 1449, Appendix item 16 and 17). (fn. intF1449-33) These reinforce the financial difficulties facing the crown, not least in showing that the customs were a potentially problematic source of assignment. Four matters relate back to the parliament of 1445 (as did the matter of precedence of William, earl of Arundel), and have been assigned to this parliament rather than to that of 1447 on the grounds that the latter was so short, although dating remains problematic. These concerned the queen's dower (Parliament of February 1449, Appendix item 21) where she was now given priority in her annuity over all other calls on the revenues of the duchy of Lancaster, (fn. intF1449-34) privileges which matched her special treatment in the wool custom, confirmations to Eton (Parliament of February 1449, Appendix item 22) and King's College Cambridge (Parliament of February 1449, Appendix item 23), and the case of violence against Sir Thomas Parr at the parliament of 1445 (Parliament of February 1449, Appendix item 20), which had now been settled out of court. There was a further matter of parliamentary business concerning the contribution of the Isle of Ely to election expenses in Cambridgeshire (Parliament of February 1449, appendix item 15), a dispute which had already come before parliament in 1431 (Parliament of 1431, item 46). The commons also petitioned against the royal powers to requisition horses, a complaint in a long line of criticism of purveyance (Parliament of February 1449, Appendix item 12). (fn. intF1449-35)

Parliament closed on Wednesday 16 July. Although some tax grants had been agreed, they were smaller than the government needed. It seems likely that the crown had made clear its financial position at the parliament, claiming debts of £372,000. It is possible that the commons in the parliament had asked for an act of resumption. This is certainly implied by Bale's chronicle, although it is possible that the chronicler has confused the two parliaments of 1449 and that this reference relates more properly to the parliament which met in November 1449, where an act of resumption was agreed. (fn. intF1449-36) Or it may be that Bale's Chronicle was referring to the fact that the commons' grant of the first half subsidy disallowed any assignments made in anticipation of its levy(item 8). Here, as in their concern to limit the issue of licences giving freedom from customs duty, the commons showed increasing concern that royal revenues should be properly spent.

Events in France were already coming to a head before the end of the parliament. Negotiations had broken down by the end of June, and Somerset had sent troops under Shrewsbury and Osberne Mundeford towards Pont-Audemer, which the French were now threatening. (fn. intF1449-37) By the time parliament was dissolved on 16 July, Charles VII had made clear his intention to reopen the war, although the formal declaration of war did not come until 31 July. Parliament had ended with some funds being made available to the crown, but with a lay subsidy that was not due for full collection until 1451. Under such circumstances, and with growing disasters in France, writs for another parliament had to be issued on 23 September, just nine weeks after the dissolution on 16 July.

Text and translation

Appendix February 1449

Westminster

12 February - 4 April, 7 May - 30 May

Winchester

16 June - 16 July

1

Memorandum that on 20 March 1449 there were present in the chamber of parliament these lords following: the cardinal of York, the archbishop of Canterbury, the duke of Suffolk, the bishops of Winchester, Carlisle, Rochester, Ely, Salisbury, Bath, Chichester, Norwich, Coventry and Bangor, the earls of Arundel and Salisbury, Viscount Beaumont, the abbots of St Albans, Gloucester, Peterborough, and Winchcombe, Lords Cromwell, Dudley, Sudley, Say, Stourton, and Vescy.

The question is whether the earl of Arundel in the parliament held 12 Henry VI should there be earl by new creation, or else by admission to his old inheritance.

Lord Hastings and Lord Say think it no new creation, but affirm the old title.

Lord Stourton and Lord Dudley affirm according to the same, that my lord of Arundel should have the said earldom by inheritance and not by a new creation.

Lord Cromwell thinks the same, that it should be no new creation but admission to his former state.

The abbots of Winchcombe and Peterborough agree with Lord Cromwell.

The abbots of Gloucester and St Albans agree.

Viscount Beaumont thinks the same

The earl of Salisbury the same

The bishops of Bangor, Chester, and Norwich the same

The bishop of Winchester of the contrary opinion

The bishops of Bath, Ely, and Salisbury hold the first opinion

The bishops of Rochester and Carlisle agree with the first opinion.

Memorandum the 21st of March these lords were present: The archbishop of Canterbury, the duke of Buckingham, the bishops of Winchester, Lincoln, Carlisle, Ely, Rochester, Bath, Chichester, Norwich, and Coventry, the earls of Arundel and Salisbury, Viscount Beaumont, the abbot of Gloucester, Lords Cromwell and Sudeley.

Memorandum the 24th day of March these lords following were present: The Cardinal of York, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the dukes of Buckingham and of Suffolk, the bishops of Winchester, Carlisle, Rochester, Ely, Bath, Chichester, Norwich, and Coventry, the earl of Salisbury, Lords Cromwell, Sudley, Vescy, and Bonville.

Be it remembered that on 4 April there were present in the chamber of parliament the lords whose names follow: the archbishop of Canterbury, the duke of Buckingham, the duke of Suffolk, the earl of Arundel, viscount Bourchier, the bishop of Winchester, the bishop of Rochester, the bishop of Carlisle, the bishop of Llandaff, the bishop of Chichester, the bishop of Norwich, the bishop of Coventry, the abbot of Gloucester, Lord Audeley, Lord Sudeley, Lord Stourton.

Let it be remembered that on the same 4 April the king by the advice of the lords spiritual and temporal in this his present parliament agreed and wills that certain assignment be made by the lord treasurer of England and the chamberlains of the Exchequer out of the first moneys that come from the half fifteenth and half tenth granted by the commons of this land to the king in his parliament, as follows:

First, £1,000 to be paid out in the wages to the soldiers of Calais

also £1,000 for the victualling and artillery of the same town

also £100 for wages and artillery to the treasurer of Calais

also £1,000 for the keeping of the east march towards Scotland

also £1,000 for the keeping of the west march towards Scotland

also 500 marks for Roxburgh

also 500 marks for Le Crotoy

also £2000 for the keeping of the sea.

Source : College of Arms MS 2 H13, f.390, printed in A. R. Myers, 'A parliamentary debate of 1449', BIHR , 51 (1978), 81-2. The text down to the end of the list of lords present on 24 March is also found in identical wording in British Library Lansdowne MS 229. See also R. Virgoe, 'A list of Members of the Parliament of February, 1449', BIHR , 34 (1961), 200-10.

2

In the parliament at Winchester in the time of Henry VI.

The cardinal [archbishop of York], archbishop of Canterbury, bishop of Winchester, bishop of Carlisle, bishop of Llandarf, bishop of Bath, bishop of Worcester, bishop of Chichester, bishop of Norwich, bishop of Chester [sic], bishop of Coventry, bishop of Bangor, abbot of Westminster, abbot of Gloucester, earl of Warwick, earl of Devon, earl of Wiltshire, viscount Beaumont, viscount Bourchier, duke of Suffolk, prior of St John of Jerusalem in England, Lord Roos, Lord Grey of Ruthin, Lord Groby, Lord Moleyns, Lord Dudley, Lord Lisle, Lord Cromwell, Lord Sudeley, Lord Stourton, Lord Southwick.

Collected and noted by Garter.

The question is how money might be had in order to send armies into Normandy and Guyenne.

Lord Stourton thinks that there should be commissions of oyer and terminer to enquire into murders and riots against the peace, and also into liveries, and that every sheriff should certify to the commissioners all the names of knights, esquires and other men of might within his shire so that they can know whom they can empanel of those who are sufficient.

Lord Sudeley and Lord Cromwell think that proper justice should be had and a firm agreement between the lords first.

The bishop of Chichester thinks there are two ways to have money. The first is that all those who have a livelihood be obliged to give the value of that livelihoood to defend the lands. Also those who have grants and annuities by the king's grants should give a year's value of the grant and annuity in advance in order to help in sending armies for the defence of that country.

The bishop of Norwich and the bishop of Chester are of the opinion that impartial justice should be had and that half of the archers of the shire levies should be sent over financed by the grants that have been made to the defence of those areas.

The bishop of Bath and the bishop of Worcester are of the same opinion.

The bishop of Salisbury and the bishop of Ely are of the opinion that precedents in such matters should be seen.

The lord Treasurer thinks that the diligent attention which the lords have given to this matter both regarding ordnance and men to be sent over and in investigating the ways in which money could be had for them to be sent over should be put before the commons. If entreated to consider this great diligence, they would then act benevolently in seeing how money might be found the fulfil the purpose of sending over the said armies.

The lord of Winchester is of the opinion that proper justice should be carried out and then other archers of the shire levy should be used.

The lord Cardinal and the lord of Suffolk are of the same opinion.

The conclusion of this discussion is to take the usual grant of money for the defence of the land.

Also on this day the letter which Sir François l'Arragonais [de Surienne] had sent to the duke of Suffolk was read before the lords in the parliament, and was considered to be nobly written.

Source : British Library Harleian MS 6849, f. 77r-v, printed in A.R. Myers, 'A parliamentary debate of the mid-fifteenth century', Bulletin of the John Rylands Library , 22 (1938), and in W. H. Dunham. 'Notes from the parliament at Winchester, 1449', Speculum, 17 (1942), 402-4.

3

On 19 June in the chamber of the parliament at Winchester.

The question was put forward concerning how money might be had in order to send armies into Normandy and Guyenne.

Lord Stourton thinks that there should be commissions of oyer and terminer to enquire into murders and riots against the peace, and also into liveries, and that every sheriff should certify on the same.

Lord Sudeley and Lord Cromwell think that proper justice should be had and a firm agreement between the lords first.

The bishop of Chichester thinks there are two ways to have money. The first is that all those who have a livelihood overseas [i.e.in Normandy] should give a year's worth of that value to defend the lands. Also those who have grants and annuities by the king's grants should give a year's value of the same in order to help in sending armies for the defence of the country.

The bishop of Norwich and the bishop of Chester are of the opinion that impartial justice should be had, and that half of the archers should be sent over financed by the grants that have been made to the defence of those areas.

The bishop of Bath and the bishop of Worcester are of the same opinion.

The bishop of Salisbury and the bishop of Ely want precedents seen of such matters.

My lord Treasurer thinks that the diligent attention which the lords have given to this matter should be discussed with the commons.

The lord of Winchester is of the opinion that if proper justice was carried out, they might ordain further archers of the shire levy.

The lord Cardinal and the lord of Suffolk are of the same opinion.

The conclusion of the discussion is to take the usual means of granting money for the defence of the land.

Assignments were made to the treasurer and chamberlains of the Exchequer from the first moneys arising from the half fifteenth and tenth granted by the commons in this parliament to be paid out in the way which follows:

first, £1,000 to be paid out in the wages to the soldiers of Calais

also £1,000 for the victualling and artillery of the same town

also £100 for wages and artillery to the treasurer of Calais

also £1,000 for the keeping of the east march towards Scotland

also £1,000 for the keeping of the west march towards Scotland

also for Roxburgh 500 marks

also 500 marks for Le Crotoy

£2,000 for the keeping of the sea.

Source : Huntingdon Library, San Marino, CA, Huntingdon MS 202, f. 30v-31r, printed in R.A. Griffiths, 'The Winchester session of the 1449 parliament: a further comment', Huntingdon Library Quarterly , 42 (1979), 189-91. The same text with only marginal differences of expression is also to be found in British Library Harleian MS 78, f.1, printed in A. R. Myers, 'A parliamentary debate of 1449', BIHR , 51 (1978), 82.

4

Petition of John Paston

To the king our sovereign lord and to the right wise and discrete lords assembled in this present parliament

Beseeches meekly you humble liege man John Paston that he and others enfeoffed to his use have peacefully possessed the manor of Gresham within the county of Norfolk for 20 years or more until the 17 February in the 26 ^th year of your reign, when Robert Hungerford, knight, lord Moleyns, entered into the said manor, and how John Paston, after the entry, sued the lord Moleyns and his counsel in most lowly manner that he could, daily from the time of the said entry until Michaelmas next, during which time various communications occurred between the counsel of the said lord and the counsel of your said beseecher, and in so much as in the communications no title of right was shown at any time for the said lord which was not fully and clearly answered, so that your said lord's counsel remitted to your said beseecher to sue the said lord for his final and proper answer, and after the suit made against the said lord by your said beseecher, at Salisbury and elsewhere, at his great cost, but without any answer but only delays, which caused your said beseecher on 6 October to have to inhabit a mansion within the said town, keeping his possession thereof until 28 January last, when the said lord sent to this mansion riotous people numbering a thousand persons with blanket bends of a sute as men rising against your peace, arrayed in manner of war with cuirasse, brigandines, jacks, salettes, glaives, bows, arrows, pavis, guns, pans with fire, and teynes brennyng therin, long crowbars to pull down houses, ladders, pickaxes with which they mined down the walls, and long trees with which they broke up gates and doors and so came into the said mansion. The wife of your said beseecher was there at the time with 12 people in her company, whom they drove out of the said mansion and mined down the wall of the chamber in which was the wife of your beseecher, and carried her out of the gates and cut asunder the posts of the house and let them fall down and broke up all the chambers and coffers within the said mansion and rifled and in the manner of a robbery bore away all of the stuff, array, and money that your said beseecher and his servants had there to the value of £200, selling part of it and giving the other part away, the rest they divided between them to the great and outrageous damage of your said beseecher, saying openly that if they had happened to find there your said beseecher and John Dam who was his counsel, and other servants of your said beseecher, they would have died. And still several of the miscreants and unknown riotous people, contrary to your laws, daily keep the said manor with force and lie in wait for the friends, tenants, and servants of your said beseecher, and grievously vex and trouble them in various ways, and seek them out in their houses, ransacking and searching their sheafs and straw in their barns and other places with spears, swords and gisarmes, so that they might have slain any they might have found, and some have been beaten and left for dead so that they, for fear of their lives, dare not go home to their houses nor engage themselves in husbandry, to the great hurt, fear and dread not only of your said beseecher but also of his friends, tenants and servants. And also that they compel poor tenants of the said manor, now within their daunger , to take against their will feigned complaints in the courts of the hundred there against the said friends, tenants and servants of your said beseecher, who dare not appear for fear of bodily harm, nor can get any copies of the said complaints to remedy them through the law, because the man who keeps the courts is in cahoots with the said misdoers and was one of the people who rose up and who by virtue of the said complaints grievously amerced the said friends, tenants, and servants of your said beseecher to their outrageous and unbearable hurt.

May it please your highness, considering that if this great insurrection, riots and wrongdoing and the daily continuance of the same, so heinously committed against your crown, dignity and peace, are not by your high might duly punished, it shall give great boldness to them and all other evildoers to make congregations and conventicles in riotous fashion, unable to be arrested, to the subversion and final destruction of your liege people and laws; and also how your said beseecher is not able to sue the common law in redress of this heinous wrong because of the great might and alliance of the said lord; and also that your said beseecher can have no action by your law against the said riotous people for the good and chattels which they so riotously and wrongfully took and bore away, because the said people are unknown to him in terms of their names and their persons, to provide, by the advice of the lords spiritual and temporal assembled in this present parliament, that your said beseecher may be restored to the said good and chattels which were riotously taken away and that the said Lord Moleyns be commanded that your said beseecher should not be, with the use of force in the manner of war, kept out of his manor contrary to all your statutes made against such forcible entries and withholding, and that Lord Moleyns and his servants be placed under such a rule that your said beseecher, his friends, tenants and servants, may be safe and sure from damage to their persons and peacefully occupy their lands and tenements under your laws without oppression or unrightful vexation towards any of them, and they the said uprisers and causers of the same might be punished so that others may eschew the making of any such uprising in this your land of peace in the future, And he shall pray to God for you.

Source : British Library Additional Charter 17,240, printed in N. Davis, Paston Letters and Papers , I.51-3. Original in Middle English. Moleyns had driven John Paston out of the manor of Gresham on 17 February 1448. The attack on Margaret Paston occurred on 28 January 1449. Thus the petition was probably presented to the February 1449 parliament although it is not clear in which session.

5

Grant to the duke of Somerset in repayment of a loan of 2500 marks for the defence of England from the second part of a moiety of a tenth and fifteenth granted in the present parliament and to be paid at Michaelmas 1450. By king and council in parliament. Dated 28 May 1449.

Source : CPR 1446-52 , 219

6

Grant by advice of the lords in the last parliament to Gervase Clifton in payment of a loan of £1,000 made by him for the defence of the realm according to an act in the same parliament from the subsidies on merchandise brought into the port of Sandwich. By king and council with the authority of Parliament. Dated 12 August 1449.

Source : CPR 1446-52 , 278.

7

Grant by advice and assent of the lords spiritual in the last parliament to the duke of Suffolk of £1000 in payment of a loan of the said sum from the first part of the second moiety of the tenth and fifteenth granted in the said parliament due in November 1449, and from the first part of a tenth granted by the clergy of the province of Canterbury due in March 1450. By king and council with the authority of parliament. Dated 22 August 1449.

Source : CPR 1446-52 , 268

8

Grant by the advice and assent of the lords spiritual and temporal in the last parliament to the archbishop of Canterbury, Henry, duke of Exeter, William, duke of Suffolk, Anne, duchess of Exeter, Richard Cowdray, clerk and Richard Joynour of London, grocer in payment of a loan of £5,970 according to an act in the said parliament from the first issues of the customs or subsidies on wools, woolfells in the ports of Ipswich and London, and if in the present parliament or convocation of the province of Canterbury any grant be made whence they could have prompter payment they shall have such payment on surrender of these present letters. Dated 20 January 1450.

Source : CPR 1446-52 , 332. Possibly belongs to Parliament of November 1449.

9

Petition in English to the king by John Talbot, son and heir of John, Talbot, earl of Shrewsbury, concerning his tenure of the office of chancellor of Ireland, which he wishes to have confirmed given that other letters have appointed Thomas FitzGerald to the same office.

Reply is given that the king by the assent of the lords grants that John Talbot should have this office.

Source : PRO SC 8/27/1345, printed in full in RP , V.166-7. Exemplification of his petition made in parliament, dated 4 April 1449, in CPR 1446-52 , 260.

10

Petition in English to the king by William Brocas, master of the buckhounds, concerning his wages.

Reply is given that it should be as is desired, according to a schedule attached.

Source : PRO SC 8/27/1346, printed in full in RP , V.167-8. Grant made by King and council in parliament, dated Winchester, 5 July 1449, CPR 1446-52 , 241. For Brocas's career, see HOC , II.363-4.

11

Petition in English to the commons concerning the statute made under Henry IV (1402) concerning alien merchants, who were thereby obliged to purchase English merchandise with the profits of their own sales and not to carry out gold and silver from the realm, noting that this has not been upheld and requesting new controls.

Endorsed: let it be sent to the lords. Reply is given that it should be as is desired, to last until the next parliament. At the end of the schedule attached to it is the note: 'As to all the matter contained in the schedule, not included within the bill to which this schedule is annexed, the commons are not in assent'.

Source : PRO C 49/27/16, with schedule at /17, printed in full in RP , V.155-6.

12

Petition in English of the commons concerning William Gervais who had claimed to be the king's courser and had horses to the king's use by virtue of this position, requesting that the office of courser be annulled and that limitations be placed upon the taking of horses for the king's use.

Endorsed: let it be sent to the lords. Reply is given that the king will consider this further.

Source : C49/27/15, printed in full in RP , V.154. [This might well be a reaction to his powers to purvey horses accorded in January 1448, CPR 1446-52 , 118.]

13

Petition in English to the commons concerning those of Wales and the duchy of Lancaster who take distraints when they have no power to do so.

Endorsed: let it be sent to the lords. Reply is given that the king will consider this further.

Source : PRO SC 8/27/1341, printed in full in RP , V.154-5. (A common petition to this end was approved in the parliament of November 1449 item 55, but the endorsement of this present petition implies that it cannot be the original submitted in that parliament. A similar petition relating solely to Wales had been put forward as a common petition in 1447, Parliament of 1447, item 20).

14

Petition in English to the commons concerning the search and examination which should be made by customs officials and mayors, bailiffs and portreeves of the merchandise of alien merchants at their entry to the realm.

Source : PRO C 49/27/17, printed in full in RP , V. 156-7, and in part in Anthology of Chancery English , 263-4. Undated but may relate to parliament of February 1449.

15

Petition in English to the commons by the people who live in the Isle of Ely concerning a dispute with the people of Cambridgeshire over the payment of wages and expenses of the knights of the shire chosen to the county, where agreement had been reached that those of the Isle of Ely would pay £200 in order that in future the expenses would be met entirely by those living elsewhere in the shire, now requesting that the people of the Isle of Ely should thus henceforth be quit of any contribution.

Endorsed: let it be sent to the lords. Reply is given that the king wills it.

Source : PRO SC 8/27/1342, printed in full in RP , V.157. Undated but may relate to parliament of February 1449. This matter had already come before the parliament of 1431 (Parliament of 1431, item 46).

16

Petition in English by the sergeants, gentlemen and yeomen of the king's household concerning payment of their wages. As these were normally to be paid out of the customs, there had been difficulties because of the changing of the customs officials. Thus it is requested that the wages should be met out of the profits of wardship, marriages and reliefs coming to the crown.

Endorsed: let it be sent to the lords. Reply is given that it should be as is desired saving the king's right to restrain this grant for good reason between now and next Lammas. A schedule is attached which the commons approved.

Source : PRO SC 8/27/1343 printed in full in RP , V.157-8. This petition refers to Roger Fiennes as late treasurer of the household. He held this office until November 1446. This petition may thus date to the parliament of 1447 but more likely belongs to that of February 1449.

17

Petition in English to the commons by the priests and clerks of the king's chapel concerning sums due to them in arrears of their wages. As these were normally to be paid out of the customs, there had been difficulties because of the changing of the customs officials. Thus it is requested that the wages should be met out of the profits of wardship, marriages and reliefs coming to the crown.

Endorsed: let it be sent to the lords. Reply is given that it should be as is desired saving the king's right to restrain this grant for good reason between now and next Lammas.

Source : PRO SC 8/27/1344, and C 49/27/18, printed in full in RP , V.158-9. This petition refers to Roger Fiennes as late treasurer of the household. He held this office until November 1446. This petition may thus date to the parliament of 1447 but more likely belongs to that of February 1449.

18

Petition in English by John Bury, one of the sergeants-at-arms of the king, who had been granted the office by letters patent dated 26 May 1447 in return for his good service in France where he had been taken prisoner, concerning non payment of wages.

Endorsed: let it be sent to the lords. Reply is given that it should be as is desired.

Source : PRO SC 8/105/5220, printed in full in RP , V.158-9. As the original grant is dated 26 May 1447 ( CPR 1446-52 , 38), the first parliament this petition could be presented to is that of February 1449.

19

In Latin, the king wills that letters patent be made to the archbishop of Canterbury and others granting them various manors in the duchy of Lancaster.

Endorsed: let it be sent to the lords. Reply is given that the king with the advice of the lords and commons grants this petition.

Source : PRO C 49/27/22, printed in full in RP , V.165-6. As those to whom letters were granted includes the speaker of the parliament of February 1449, John Say, and his brother, it likely relates to this parliament.

20

Petition of Robert Belingham, of Burneside, Westmorland, gentleman, Thomas Belingham of the same, gentleman, one of the burgesses of the present parliament, Robert Dickenson late of the same, yeoman, Thomas Strickland, late of Brandreth in the same county, yeoman, and John Selinger, late of Shute in the county of Devon yeoman, concerning a process ordered against them in the parliament in March 1446 at the petition of Sir Thomas Parr, one of the knights of the shire in this present parliament for Cumberland, because of their alleged attack on Sir Thomas. They were summoned to be arrested, and an act was made against them on 12 April 1446 in the case of their non-appearance. Although the parties had not made an appearance as required, they had now come to an agreement with Sir Thomas, and so request that the act should be repealed.

Endorsed: let it be sent to the lords. Reply is given that the king agrees to the petition under certain conditions concerning the rights of the lords of any of the parties to escheats by virtue of attainders or processes against the parties.

Source : PRO SC 8/27/1348, printed in full in RP , V.168-70. (See Parliament of 1445, item 41 and Appendix item 6). I am grateful to Dr Linda Clark for the dates of the process and act.

21

Letters patent concerning change to the dower arrangements for Queen Margaret, with a schedule attached, made with the assent of the lords spiritual and temporal and the commons of this present parliament..

Endorsed: let it be sent to the lords. Reply is given that the king assents to this act.

Source : PRO C 49/27/21, printed in full in RP , V.164-5. This cites the initial grant made in the parliament of 1445, and makes amendments to it.

22

Petition in English to the king by the commons that by the advice of the lords and the authority of parliament he should grant his letters patent to the provost and college of St Mary at Eton according to the terms in an annexe attached, which concern the property holdings of the college.

Endorsed: let it be sent to the lords. Reply is given in English that this petition should be granted by the authority of parliament, given that the college was of the king's foundation and for the devout zeal which he has towards the church as well as for the reverence of God and the Virgin Mary.

Source : PRO C49/27/19, printed in full in RP , V.159-61.

23

Petition in English to the king by the commons that by the advice of the lords and the authority of parliament he should grant his letters patent to the provost and scholars of the college of St Mary and St Nicholas at Cambridge, according to the terms in an annexe attached, which concern the property holdings of the college.

Endorsed: let it be sent to the lords. Reply is given in English that this petition should be granted by the authority of parliament, given that the college was of the king's foundation and for the devout zeal which he has towards the church as well as for the reverence of God and the Virgin Mary.

Source : PRO C 49/27/20, printed in full in RP , V.161-4.