Henry VI: January 1442

1442 January

Introduction 1442

Westminster

25 January - 27 March

(C 65/96; RP , V.35-65; SR , II.315-25)

C 65/96 is a roll of 15 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 membranes 15, 13, 12, 8, 7 and 6 are stained with gallic acid. The text, written in an official chancery script, occupies the rectos of the membranes only; the dorses are blank. There are ruled lines on folios 10, 9 and 8. The few marginal headings are contemporary. Arabic numerals throughout the roll are later, but the Roman numerals alongside the common petitions are contemporary. The roll does not appear to be incomplete. Its composite nature is clear. The opening items occupy membrane 13, with the grants of taxes on membranes 14 and 13, the latter continuing with items 9 to 11. 'Private' petitions from item 12 onwards are found on membranes 12 and 11 in continuous form. The long petition concerning the lands of Eton occupies membranes 10 to 8. Common petitions start a new membrane (7). Membranes 4 to 2 are compiled so that items are continued across the membrane breaks.

The previous parliament, which had opened on 12 November 1439, ended sometime in February 1440. The last instalment of the lay subsidy it had voted was due for collection on 11 November 1441, although the trade taxes and the tax on aliens were not due to expire until the same date in 1443. Writs for a new parliament were issued on 3 December 1441. (fn. int1442-1) It opened as planned on Thursday 25 January 1442 at Westminster and lasted until Tuesday 27 March, a few days before Easter, on which day the speaker, William Tresham, announced the tax grants. Only three further dates are to be found on the roll - the election and presentation of the speaker on Friday and Saturday 26 and 27 January respectively, and the granting of the title of Baron Milbroke to Sir John Cornwall on Monday 29 January. The exact chronology of the business of the parliament is thus impossible to reconstruct.

The parliament of 1442 was in session for only eight weeks and four days, making it the shortest parliament of the reign to date, save for that of 1422 (at five weeks). Given the length of the parliament, its roll is disproportionately long at fifteen membranes. This was partly due to the inclusion of grants to Eton, which occupied three membranes at item 17. But it also arose out of what was, considering the relatively short duration of the session, a high number of common petitions - 22, which gave rise to 12 statutes). Very little additional material has been found for this parliament.

The meeting generated little interest on the part of chroniclers. It escapes mention in the Brut, Gregory's Chronicle and the Great Chronicle of London. Benet tells us simply that 'after Christmas the king held a parliament in London in which was granted a fifteenth and a clerical tenth'. (fn. int1442-2) Cleopatra CIV is only marginally more expansive, noting a duration from Christmas to Easter and telling us that the parliament ordained that the sea should be kept for six months at the king's cost, that a whole tenth and fifteenth were to be collected, and that London made a loan of 3,000 pounds. (fn. int1442-3) The parliament of 1442 followed its two predecessors in its high level of concern for defence of the sea. In the matter of continuing concern for the financing of the royal household it also revisited much of the business which had occupied its predecessor of 1439-40.

By 1442, Henry VI was several years into his majority, and the role of the council continued to diminish. Foremost in the king's mind in the early 1440s were plans for foundations at Eton and Cambridge. In August 1440 Henry made the first move by purchasing the advowson of the parish church of Eton and nearby properties. On 12 September, he made clear his intention to found a college of priests there, enfeoffing a group of 12 men with lands of alien priories and specifying reversions to his foundation where lands were already subject to existing grants. (fn. int1442-4) Subsequently, much energy was expended on efforts to gain immunities and special privileges from the pope. Formal foundation of Eton was effected on 11 October 1440. Lands were assigned on 25 March 1441, and building work began in the summer of that last year. The relevant royal charters were ratified in the parliament of 1442 (item 17), occupying three whole membranes of a roll of 15 membranes. Further grants for Eton were confirmed at the next parliament (Parliament of 1445, item 21).

As for the foundation at Cambridge, land was first acquired in September 1440 to establish a college for a rector and 12 scholars, to be known as the royal college of St Nicholas, the saint on whose festal day Henry had been born. This was also granted lands of alien priories, and received its foundation charter on 12 February 1441. The young king laid the first stone of the gateway of the college on Easter Sunday, 16 April 1441. But ratification of the foundation and landed endowment was not effected until the parliament of 1445, in the light of Henry's decision of 1443 to expand the size of the college (Parliament of 1445, item 22), and there is no evidence that the Cambridge foundation came before the meeting of 1442.

The king's high level of interest in both foundations stood in sharp contrast to his distinct lack of enthusiasm for military matters. The war continued in much the same way as before. There were some English successes, such as the recovery of Harfleur in November 1440, but there were also continuing set backs as the French took locations of major strategic importance such as Evreux (September 1441). Richard, duke of York had been appointed lieutenant-general on 2 July 1440, although he did not cross with his army until June of the following year. There can be no doubt that the war would continue to prove expensive, not least because York had negotiated for himself a salary of £20,000 per annum to be paid from English funds, and was crossing with an army of 3,600. The release of the duke of Orleans in November 1440, however, had done nothing to promote a settlement. This was not the result of the duke's reluctance to act on the matter, but simply because he failed to gain influence with Charles VII and faded into political obscurity. English hopes for a mediated peace continued, likely fuelled by the king's own preferences as well as those of Cardinal Beaufort. There were plans for further negotiations in the spring of 1441, but Charles VII deferred these to November. The dukes of Burgundy and Orleans tried to put pressure on Charles to resume negotiations with the English. An English delegation was sent to Calais in February 1442 whilst parliament was in session, but Charles refused to appoint his representatives for a meeting in May, and in the following month the English returned. (fn. int1442-5) By this time the English were committed to sending another army. On 24 March, just before the parliament of 1442 ended, an indenture was drawn up between the king and York for an army of 2,500 for six months service from the intended muster date of 12 May 1442. (fn. int1442-6) This was to cross under John, Lord Talbot, and was detailed first to the recovery of Evreux, Conches and Louviers, with some troops staying on for the siege of Dieppe laid in November.

The continuing occupation of Dieppe by the French was a major contributory factor to insecurity in the Channel, a matter which much concerned those present at the parliament. The protection of Gascony was also proving difficult and potentially expensive. In August 1440, the earl of Huntingdon, as lieutenant of the duchy, and Sir Thomas Rempston, as seneschal, had laid siege to Tartras. Although Huntingdon was recalled in December, in January 1441 Rempston was able to come to a treaty of composition which would have secured control of the city as well as an alliance with the sire d'Albret and the count of Armagnac. But it depended on the outcome of a journée between the English and French armies planned for 24 June 1442. The English government failed to make adequate provision for this; thus the opportunity to advance English interests in the duchy was lost.

At home, the political scene was changing as the king came to rely more and more on his inner circle of men such as the earl of Suffolk. The duke of Gloucester was increasingly, and obviously, a spent force. Although he still sometimes attended the council and had been appointed chief justice in South Wales in February 1440, he was not given the opportunity to serve in France. Early in 1441 Humphrey, earl of Stafford, replaced him as captain of Calais. But worse was to follow. Eleanor, duchess of Gloucester, was charged with indulging in witchcraft in order to predict the death of the king. She was kept in captivity following her second examination on 25 July 1441, found guilty on 23 October, and sentenced to perform various penances as well as to perpetual imprisonment. (fn. int1442-7) Although the duke was divorced from her, on 6 November, it was a further blow to his already flagging position, and to his personal spirit. But his loss of standing was not Beaufort's gain, nor of the latter's making. The Cardinal was still heavily involved in diplomatic manoeuvres but was himself less influential at court, and attended the council rarely, save for matters of direct interest to him. (fn. int1442-8)

The case of Eleanor Cobham was still in the minds of the parliament when it met. Although she had also been accused of treason, she had never been brought to trial in a secular court perhaps because it was not entirely clear how peeresses should be dealt with in such circumstances. As a result of a common petition, the procedure was clarified. Omission of the mention of women from clause 39 of Magna Carta, which gave the right to trial by one's peers, was remedied by extending to ladies 'of great estate' trial before the judges and peers of the realm as already existed for lords (item 28).

Writs of summons for the parliament were issued on 3 December 1441. (fn. int1442-9) Twenty bishops were summoned; for one, Nicholas Ashby, bishop of Llandaff, this was his first summons, although it is not clear whether he attended in person or not. In addition, a summons was issued to the vicar general of the bishop of Ely, Louis of Luxembourg, who was chancellor of Normandy and hence absent abroad. Davies suggests that the two archbishops and seven other bishops, including Cardinal Beaufort, were definitely present at the parliament. (fn. int1442-10) Twenty-six abbots and priors were summoned, the prior of the Hospitallers of St John of Jerusalem being the only absentee from a list which was otherwise the same as in 1439. (Interestingly, however, one of the common petitions, item 32, was probably prompted by the Hospitallers as it concerned a Genoese-assisted raid on the Order's property in Rhodes.)

Three dukes, Gloucester, Norfolk and York, were summoned, although the last was absent in France as lieutenant-general. Eleven earls were called. Six of these (Devon, Northumberland, Oxford, Stafford, Westmorland and Somerset) had been summoned to the previous parliament. The five additional names in 1442 were William, earl of Arundel, and Edmund, earl of Dorset, who both received their first summons on this occasion, and John, earl of Huntingdon, William, earl of Suffolk, and Richard, earl of Salisbury, who had been summoned on earlier occasions but had often been absent on military service. John, viscount Beaumont, was summoned for the first time in that title to which he had been advanced on 12 February 1440, having been summoned since 1432 as a baron. This was the first time the title viscount had been used in England.

Twenty-seven further lay lords were sent writs of summons. Twenty-three had been summoned in 1439, including John, lord Dudley, who had only received his summons to that parliament near its close. One of the lords summoned to the parliament of 1442, Sir John Cornwall, who had been created Lord Fanhope in the parliament of 1432 (Parliament of 1432, item 28), was given the further title of Milbroke in the parliament of 1442 on Monday 29 January, the fifth day of the parliament (item 10). The largesse showered on Cornwall is explained not only by his many years of service to Henry V in France but also by his being the second husband of Elizabeth, sister of Henry IV. This was Cornwall's last parliament as he died on 10 December 1443. Another of the lords present, John, lord Scrope of Masham, who had been summoned since 1426, also presented business to the parliament. Although Scrope had been restored to the lands of his traitorous father in the parliament of 1425 (Parliament of 1425, item 32), there were some lands which the escheator of Yorkshire, Christopher Conyers, had refused to hand over. In 1442, the commons successfully presented a petition on Scrope's behalf for this matter to be dealt with (item 12).

There were three lords who were summoned in 1439 but not in 1442. William, lord Harrington was in fact summoned for the last time in 1439 although he did not die until 1458. Reginald, lord West, and Henry, lord Bourgchier, were not summoned in 1442 though both were before and after this date. Lord Talbot did not receive a summons as he was still in France in December 1441, but he returned to England around 18 February 1442 and thus may have been present at the last stages of the parliament. As we have seen, an indenture for a new expeditionary army was drawn up on 24 March, just before the parliament ended, and it is likely that Talbot had already been earmarked as its possible commander. The commons in the 1442 parliament put forward a petition on his behalf concerning a protection to be granted to him for his future war service in France (item 11). He departed for France in early June, (fn. int1442-11) having been elevated to the earldom of Shrewsbury on 20 May 1442.

Complete newcomers amongst the lay peers in 1442 were Edmund, lord Grey of Ruthin, who had succeeded his grandfather, John (d. 18 October 1440), Henry, lord Scrope of Bolton, who had come of age in February 1440, Ralph Butler, lord Sudeley, created by patent on 10 September 1441, and Robert, lord Morley, who had recently come of age and inherited the title of his father, Thomas, who had died in 1435. Nine law officers were summoned, two more than in 1439. One of them, John Hody, died after the writs were issued: John Fortescue was appointed in lieu on 25 January 1442.

The names of 269 possible MPs are known, but this figure is too high in that it includes cases where the result of a contested election is not known or else the name on the indenture differs from that of the schedule. (fn. int1442-12) Even so, this parliament did see an increase in the number of seats, from the likely 264 of the assemblies of 1422-1439, to 268, the additional four being caused by the revival of the invitation to Plymouth and Downton to return members. It will be remembered that the 1439 parliament had confirmed Plymouth's status and boundaries (Parliament of 1439, item 32).

Parliament opened at Westminster on Thursday 25 January 1442. The opening sermon was given by the chancellor, John Stafford, bishop of Bath and Wells. His sermon, citing an unusually large number of biblical and philosophical texts (or perhaps, being more fully recorded by the clerk), stressed royal authority. He focused on the image of the royal throne, taking his inspiration from a comparison with the throne of Solomon which lay at the top of six steps. (fn. int1442-13) These steps symbolised six moral virtues: good intention; obedience derived from love rather than from fear; cordial affection; prudent rule; diligent execution of ordinances and statutes; and perseverance. Parliament had been summoned to advance all of these virtues, so that vice might be eradicated and tranquility and prosperity follow. This was a catch-all kind of sermon, but one which, as in many other parliaments, stressed the behaviour expected of subjects towards their ruler as much as the other side of the coin.

On the second day of the parliament, Friday 26 January, William Tresham was elected speaker, being presented on the following day. He had served in the same capacity in the previous parliament, and his re-election emphasizes the fact that many of the issues raised in 1439-40 were still live. Tresham continued to be highly acceptable to both crown and commons. He had been granted several annuities and other privileges since the previous parliament, and had maintained his links with the administration of the duchy of Lancaster. (fn. int1442-14) Thus he was in a sound position to direct the debate on the financing of the royal household which seems to have occupied much time in the parliament, as it had on the previous occasion.

In the parliament of 1439 it had been agreed to end the enfeoffment of duchy of Lancaster estates as laid down in Henry V's will, and to divert the resulting revenues to the royal household for a space of five years from Michaelmas 1439 (Parliament of 1439, item 16). In the parliament of 1442, as a result of a common petition which noted continuing clamour by those to whom the royal household was in debt, this arrangement was extended for a further three years, i.e. to 1447 (item 35), with the revenues of the duchy of Cornwall also to be put to the use of the household. In addition, there was a common petition for the final dismantling of the feoffment, with the appointment of people to hear the final declaration of the feoffees and a reiteration of the plan to divert the revenues to the royal household, although the petition noted some exceptions to be made for those who already enjoyed revenues from the lands (item 29). (fn. int1442-15)

The king agreed to this last petition, no doubt because it finalised the procedure begun in 1439 to move against the feoffees and to draw on the revenues of the enfeoffment for the household and new foundations. The text of the petition at item 35 of the 1442 parliament suggests that the commons had not been entirely satisfied with the way in which household finances had been handled following the parliament of 1439. Their petition noted that the proportion of the lay subsidy which the 1439 parliament had earmarked for household use had been applied to other purposes, and had been substituted by a similar payment from the customs collected at Southampton by assignments made on 10 February 1442, whilst the current parliament was sitting. The commons thus petitioned that these same customs revenues to an annual total of 5,000 marks should be applied to the household for a further three years, or that if the Southampton customs did not reach 5,000 marks, that the treasurer of England should make alternative provision to the treasurer of the household. The king's reply was equivocal, simply promising to establish, with the advice of such lords as he should decide to consult, ordinances for the expenses and governance of his household as would be pleasing to his people and to God. The commons had already petitioned that statutes concerning purveyance should be upheld, focusing particularly on rights to refuse small-scale goods to government officials unless ready payment was offered, and on the powers of JPs to act in such matters (item 25). The commons made further reference in another petition (item 36) to promises made in the parliament of 1439-40 on prompt and full payment for goods supplied made to the household. Elsewhere on the roll they had already petitioned for the statute of 1362 concerning purveyance to be confirmed, reiterating their desire for lords to be appointed to attend to the good governance of the household and its finances. The royal reply was again favourable, but an exclusion clause was made for those to whom assignments or grants had been made before the first day of the current parliament.

As Griffiths notes, the petitions of the parliament of 1442 concerning the financing of the household had some effect. (fn. int1442-16) There was certainly more effort made between 1442 and 1444 to have the exchequer transfer larger sums to the household, instead of relying on various tallies, and the king did agree to the nomination of lords of his choosing to bring about some reorganization and improved management of the household. But this was a slow process because of the king's reluctance to allow any changes which might damage his prerogatives of patronage or to interfere with the interests of those already holding the benefits of royal largesse. It was only with Henry's marriage, and further commons' concern in the parliament of 1445, that the matter of household reorganization was fully embraced.

The crown was, as ever, in need of money. The previous lay subsidy had seen its last instalment due on 11 November 1441. On the last day of the parliament of 1442 (27 March), the commons' grant of a tenth and a fifteenth was announced (item 5). (fn. int1442-17) As in previous grants, a deduction of £4,000 was to be made for impoverished towns and villages, and Lincoln was once again completely exonerated. Andover and Alresford were given exemption from half of the levy as in 1439, but the total discharge of Wisbech and surrounding villages agreed at that last parliament was not repeated in 1442. New 'special cases' were, however, introduced. Cheltenham (Gloucs.), Scarborough (Yorks.), and Headington (Oxon.) were given exemption from a half of the tax, and Great Yarmouth (Norfolk) a quarter. Payment of the tax was split into two halves. A quarter of the first half (thus an eighth of the full tenth and fifteenth) was to be collected by Monday 28 May, and was earmarked for the safe-keeping of the sea, in accordance with arrangements made earlier in the parliament. These arrangements (in item 30) will be discussed more fully later, but it is worth noting that they suggest that collection of the eighth was initially intended to be even quicker. The 'month of Easter next' is stated in item 30 as the date by which the eighth should be paid into the king's receipt by the collectors. As Easter fell on 1 April, this presumably means 1 May, although the text of the grant of the lay subsidy in item 5 gives the date as the day following the feast of Trinity, which would make it 28 May. With regard to the remaining instalments, the texts in item 30 and item 5 are in accord: the rest of the first half (i.e. three eighths of the whole) was to be paid by 11 November 1442, and the remaining half at the same date in 1443. Appointments of commissioners for the subsidy were made on the two days (28 and 29 March) following the end of the parliament. (fn. int1442-18)

The trade taxes had been granted in the 1439 parliament to last until 11 November 1443. On the last day of the parliament of 1442, the subsidy on wool exports was extended for two years from 11 November 1443, with specific mention of the need for its levy for the safe-keeping of the sea (item 6). The rates imposed, 53 s 4 d on alien merchants, and 33 s 4 d on denizens, were the same as they had been since the parliament of 1437. Lincoln was again given a special privilege of shipping 60 sacks of wool through Hull free of toll. A further exoneration of duty was given to merchants who had lost goods on ships belonging to Harry Clark and Thomas Tovy, which had been taken by the enemy, and on a ship of John Burton which had been lost at sea. (fn. int1442-19) The grant of tunnage and poundage made in 1439 had been for three years from 1 April 1440. Thus now both were extended for two years from 1 April 1443 (item 8), and were specifically earmarked for the safe-keeping of the sea as had been agreed earlier in the parliament. The rates for imported wine were at 3 s per tun for native and alien merchants, and 6 s for aliens on sweet wines, as in 1439. Poundage was set at 12 d in the pound for all merchants, a reduction of 8 d on the rate set in 1439. The special privileges given to native merchants were as at the previous parliament - exemptions from poundage on exports of cloth, wool and woolfells, and imports of grain, flour, fish and wine, and on all victuals going to Calais.

The tax on aliens imposed in the parliament of 1439 was due to expire at Easter 1443. It was extended at the parliament of 1442 for a further two years (item 7). The rates were as in the previous grant - 16d for householders and 6d for non-householders -, and the levies were to be collected twice a year at Easter and Michaelmas as before, but there were additional exemptions agreed on this occasion for the Irish and for the residents of the Channel Islands, who had had to pay the tax voted in 1439. On 1 December 1442, commissions were issued to JPs to hold inquests into the aliens in their neighbourhood, and the tax was duly collected on 21 April and 29 September 1443, and on 12 April and 29 September 1444. (fn. int1442-20)

The seeking of loans of up to £200,000 was authorised (item 9), a value twice that set in the parliament of 1439, and, as McFarlane noted, 'well beyond any sum that the king was ever likely to collect or the assigned tax to produce'. (fn. int1442-21) The usual clauses protecting men against compulsion in making loans was made fuller and more explicit, whilst at the same time assignments made in advance were protected. Specific mention was made of Sir John Astley. (fn. int1442-22) On 24 March, four days before the parliament ended, the common council of the city of London agreed to lend another 2,000 marks to the king on the basis of a guarantee from parliament regarding repayment. (fn. int1442-23) On 30 March 1442, three days after parliament ended, commissioners were appointed in each county to treat with lay and ecclesiastical persons for a loan towards the raising of an army. (fn. int1442-24) Further such commissions were issued on 8 May and 28 August 1442. In excess of £17, 600 was collected, in addition to loans made by Cardinal Beaufort and the merchant staplers of Calais. (fn. int1442-25)

As noted earlier, a London chronicle laims that 'at the parliament, it was ordained that the sea should be kept for half a year at the king's cost'. (fn. int1442-26) The parliament did indeed see the commons putting forward a specific proposal for how the seas might be kept. This is found at item 30, the thirteenth entry in the section of the roll containing the common petitions. Eight main ships, all in private ownership, were earmarked, each to be accompanied by a number of barges and balingers, and captained by a knight or esquire, with one man named as chief captain. The size of crews was also established. The vessels were to assemble at the Camber near Winchelsea, and were to be given fairly free rein in attacking enemy shipping. This system was to be in place from 15 May to 15 November 1442, financed from a quarter of the lay subsidy granted in the parliament of 1442. The grant of the lay subsidy at item 5 notes this decision, adding that the payment was to be from the first instalment of the tax payable on 28 May next (1442). The common petition (item 30) adds that the ships should take to the seas again from 1 March until 30 November 1443, but on that occasion funded from the tunnage and poundage granted at the parliament of 1442. The grant of the latter (item 8) notes that it was being made for the defence of the realm 'and especially for the safe-keeping of the sea'.

Several other items on the roll make clear how perturbed the mercantile and maritime lobbies were about the lack of naval defence. The first of the common petitions (item 18), notes that the ships of English merchants were being attacked and seized by the enemy, and those living on the coasts were in fear of their lives. Yet, when Englishmen took captured enemy ships, they were often forced to return both them and the goods seized therein to their owners because the latter had safe-conducts and letters of marque. As a result, it was claimed, merchants were discouraged from maintaining fleets and fighting men to defend the seas and the coastal areas, to the detriment of national defence. In some ways, this protest was in a long line of objections to the issuing of safe-conducts to foreigners, the latter being seen as a way of encouraging piracy against the English. But, in effect, what the petitioners sought and were granted by a statute whereby safe-conducts must be enrolled in chancery before being sent out to their recipients, was more incentive to provide naval service and defence to the crown by being allowed more freedom in acting against enemy shipping. This was also allowed as a response to a further petition (item 37) concerning safeconducts, which echoed complaints put forward at several previous parliaments. Essentially the issue here was that Englishmen suffered much from attacks by foreigners who had safe conducts, and yet found themselves accused of high treason if they acted in self-defence, as the parliament of 1414 had agreed that attacks on those with safe-conducts was a serious offence. In 1435, in the wake of the Burgundian defection, parliament had agreed to the suspension of the statute of 1414 for eight years (Parliament of 1435, item 28). Clearly it was feared that the next parliament would not meet until the suspension had expired, so the petition asked for a twenty-year extension. The matter was agreed in principle but an extension only allowed until the next parliament.

Another common petition concerned maritime interests (item 26). This again concerned those merchants and others who owned ships but who found their vessels arrested by the crown because of misdemeanours caused by their captains and mariners. This was said to be providing yet another disincentive to the building of ships in England. This petition was referred, but in the months which followed the parliament, attention was given to the king's ships and to arrangements for keeping the sea as agreed in response to the common petition at item 30. Four of the members of the parliament of 1442, Sir Stephen Popham Sir William Eure, Sir Miles Stapleton and John Heron esquire, were commissioned on 27 June 1442 to keep the sea, using the eight main ships and support arrangements as decided in the parliament. (fn. int1442-27) The ships were ordered to assemble at the Camber by 1 August. (fn. int1442-28) As it turned out, the service was only for three months rather than the six envisaged by the commons, and the commons' hope of having a repeat of the exercise in the summer of 1443 proved abortive. (fn. int1442-29) Problems subsequently arose over the payment of wages to Sir Stephen Popham for his service, about which his widow may have lodged a petition in the next parliament (Parliament of 1445, Appendix, item 9).

The mercantile lobby was much in evidence in other common petitions put before the parliament. Opposition to the Partition Ordinance was expressed (item 38), presumably on behalf of lesser merchants. It was requested that merchants should be able to sell their wool individually, although at prices determined by the Staple, and that they should have to lodge only a third of the price in bullion at the mint at Calais, for coining and delivery to the merchants on their return to England. The reply to the petition was that the Staplers should 'reform it amongst themselves' by 1 August, and that the reform should apply for seven years. If they did not carry out the reform, then the petition would be implemented as it stood. The matter remained controversial after parliament ended, and there were pressures to abolish the bullion requirement because it was felt to restrict English wool export. Cardinal Beaufort argued in council on 14 October that abolition would damage the negotiating position with the Flemish. But, by 18 October, it was known that the mayor of the Staple had abolished the requirement on his own initiative, claiming that its implementation was impossible because the duke of Burgundy had banned importation of bullion. The council thus decided that that the requirement should be suspended. This turned out to be the right decision, leading to a considerable increase in wool export over the next few years. (fn. int1442-30)

There was also a common petition in the parliament of 1442 against the appointment as customs officials of those who had personal interests in shipping, quayside facilities, hostelries and taverns, such men being suspected of what was effectively the equivalent of modern 'insider dealing' (item 22). This petition was agreed, and gave rise to a statute. There was also protest that goods were being exported from England by denizen merchants in ships belonging to foreigners to locations other than the staple, and that as a result they were getting away with the lower, denizen rates of duty (item 21). A statute thus arose which compelled denizen merchants to pay the same rates of duty as alien merchants in such contexts. What this petition reveals is that alien and native merchants sometimes acted in devious collusion.

There was still anti-alien feeling in evidence, however, witnessed for instance by a petition against aliens as brokers in London which was not immediately approved. The king agreed to look at the existing statute (of Edward III) and to make remedy (item 27). This petition was probably directed against Italians who were still prominent in banking activities in London. (fn. int1442-31) Events in Rhodes, where some Genoese had allegedly assisted Saracens in an attack on the property of the order of the Hospitallers, led to a common petition that the Genoese should be held as enemies of the faith and of the realm (item 32). The king responded by saying that he would do his Christian duty, once he knew more about the case. A slightly more positive response was made to claims that the Hanseatic league had been placing restrictions on English mercantile activity in their area. The king did agree to send letters to the master of Prussia (i.e. the Grand Master of the Teutonic Order) demanding redress and promise of reform, adding that if no signs of co-operation had been forthcoming by 11 November 1442, thought would be given to placing restrictions on the Hanseatic merchants in England (item 39). It is interesting to note that English merchants had already lodged a complaint to the council in late November 1441 about the behaviour of the Hanseatic merchants. The delegation of the latter then in England was ordered to make reply, and further enquiries had followed. (fn. int1442-32) Clearly someone, either the English merchants, or the council, had seen fit to refer the matter to parliament when it met.

Closer to home, there were complaints in the parliament of 1442 that imports were coming in through Wales and thus avoiding duty; the resulting statute, to last until the next parliament, condemned such importers to forfeiture of their goods (item 24). There was also a request that the worsted weavers of Norwich should introduce closer inspection by their officials of the sizes of cloths produced; this was agreed by statute for three years (item 31). In 1437 it had been agreed that grain could be exported so long as home prices were not above a certain level and so long as it was not sold to the enemy (Parliament of 1437, item 21). A statute had allowed this until the next parliament. A petition in 1442 asked for this statute to be reinstated for a further 10 years (item 23). The response agreed this in principle, but only until the next parliament, unless no parliament was held within ten years, in which case the statute would last for the ten years anyway.

The majority of the 22 common petitions concerned trade and maritime matters. Of the remainder, three arose, as we have seen, in the context of the debate on the financing of the royal household (items 29, 35 and 36), with a general petition concerning purveyance (item 25) perhaps also being linked to this. Five concerned legal matters. One which led to a statute was the indictment of peeresses, prompted by the case of Eleanor Cobham (item 28). Another reiterated a petition put forward in 1439 (Parliament of 1439, item 49), on a matter first dealt with under Henry V, that exigents and outlawries in Lancashire should affect only possessions of the accused in that county. In 1439, the decision had been reached to allow this until the next parliament, and in perpetuity if no problems arose in the meantime to change the opinion of the king and lords of parliament. In 1442, it was agreed that a seven-year extension should be granted by statute (item 19).

Another petition arose out of problems of jurisdiction. The counties bordering Wales complained about offences committed by Welshmen who then retreated into Wales, and successfully asked a statute whereby judicial officials in the counties would be able to carry out full investigations and such offences might be treated as treason (item 20). (fn. int1442-33) There was perhaps a resurgence of anti-Welsh feeling at this time, as revealed also in the petition noted earlier about concealed imports via Wales (item 24), where, significantly again in terms of the difficulties of jurisdictions, the king was to effect prosecutions in the nearest county in England to the Welsh port through which the merchandise had been imported. Two further common petitions did not lead to statutes. The interests of the counties of the south coast of England were represented in a complaint that soldiers were raping and pillaging their way through the area en route to service in France (item 34). The king promised to consult with his council for a suitable remedy. Finally, a petition concerning procedures in land pleas where the king had a potential title was referred (item 33).

On the main part of the roll, three items concerned peers: the elevation of Sir John Cornwall to the barony of Milbroke (item 10); the protection of Lord Talbot for his service overseas (item 11), and the full restoration of John, lord Scrope, to his lands (item 12). The last two were presented in the form of petitions by the commons on behalf of their beneficiaries. This was also the case for item 17, presented by the commons on behalf of the provost and college of Our Lady at Eton. This recited the royal letters of foundation of 11 October 1440, as well as royal letters of 25 March 1441 granting lands to the college, and confirming the latter's tenurial and jurisdictional rights. The commons also presented a bill on behalf of the abbot of Vale Royal (item 13). The latter had been disadvantaged in suits brought before the petty sessions in South Wales, where the abbey held lands. It was agreed that any such suits should be referred to the great sessions rather than the petty sessions so that the abbot would be fully informed and find it possible to respond. The text notes that the same petition had been passed by the commons in the last parliament at Reading and afterwards endorsed by the king, although there is no reference to this on the roll, and so far no stray petition for 1439 has been discovered.

Another matter which had come before the parliament of 1439 was also brought up again in 1442. In 1439, William ap Gwilym ap Griffith, who was the son of a Welshman and an English mother, Joan, daughter of Sir William Stanley, petitioned to be considered an Englishman and thus not handicapped by the restrictions on land tenure imposed on the Welsh as a result of their rebellion in the reign of Henry IV (Parliament of 1439, item 29). His request was allowed with the proviso that he should not marry a Welsh woman or hold office in Wales by royal grant. In the parliament of 1442, he petitioned to have the second proviso lifted. This was agreed in terms of offices held for life or years, but his desire to be allowed hereditary offices was referred (item 16). (fn. int1442-34)

Two further petitions on the main part of the roll were presented by the commons on behalf of others. That enrolled as item 14 concerned the petition of the inhabitants of Yorkshire, Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire about the rebuilding of a bridge at Snaith so that the cut known as the Dyke, an important passage for ships on the River Calder, could be more navigable. (fn. int1442-35) The petition found at item 15 concerned a Scottish ship and its goods which had been seized and sold for 250 marks by William Bedford, lieutenant of the admiralty in the north under the late duke of Bedford. It had later been agreed that the ship and its goods should be given to Sir Robert Ogle to compensate him for the ransom of 750 marks which he had paid to the Scots. But, as William Bedford had raised less money from the sale than had been granted to Ogle, a dispute had arisen over payment which had led to the former's arrest and his subsequent payment to Ogle of 400 marks for his freedom. It was agreed by parliament that both men should be compensated out of the estate of the late duke of Bedford.

Parliament ended on Maundy Thursday, Tuesday 27 March, on which date the grants of the lay subsidy, the wool subsidy, tunnage and poundage and the tax on aliens were formally announced by the speaker. The assembly seems to have been conducted in a reasonably co-operative spirit. The commons were still concerned about household finances; the royal response was aimed at stalling on the matter whilst appearing to listen and take action. Roskell, however, interpreted the meeting in a less positive light. For him, that the fact that trade taxes were extended only for two years and that they were 'subject to careful appropriations, especially for the safe-keeping of the sea' suggested 'a lack of confidence and some distrust'. He further notes that government credit had sunk so low that it was hardly likely that the level of loans, set at £200,000, could be met by the time of the next parliament, unless of course there was a large gap between parliaments. What he overlooks, however, is that the two-year extension to taxes would not take effect until the grants made in 1439 had expired, which was not until November 1443. Thus although the final payment of the lay subsidy voted in 1442 would be made in November 1443, the crown was assured of income from trade taxes until the end of 1445, and had surely been granted enough in 1442 to allow security for loans to be made.

We must look to developments after the parliament, and to the background to the parliament of 1445, to examine how well things worked out in practice, and what new issues arose in the light of failure in France and the move towards truce and the marriage of the king. Immediately after the parliament of 1442, there was perhaps a feeling of buoyancy and optimism as a new army under Talbot was raised and despatched to France. On 20 May 1442, he was elevated to the earldom of Shrewsbury. As we saw, item 11 of the roll of the parliament of 1442 is Talbot's successful petition for a full legal protection to cover his intended service overseas, without any exception being made for the assize of novel disseisin. Although the petition is couched in general terms, it was undoubtedly occasioned by Talbot's concern that his absence did not damage his family's interests in the long-running dispute over the lordship of Berkeley. (fn. int1442-36) Its enrolment provides another example of how meetings of parliaments were used as opportunities not only for the crown to negotiate for military service, but also for potential commanders to gain concessions in return.

Text and translation

Appendix 1442

Westminster

25 January - 27 March

1

'Two days before the opening of the January session of Parliament in 1442 the court of aldermen decided to propose bills in protest against the recently granted royal patents to wine-drawers and wool-packers, and other bills to limit the privileges of sanctuaries such as that of St Martin-le-Grand. But if the Londoners did put up such bills they never reached the Parliament Roll'.

Source : C. Barron, 'London and parliament in the Lancastrian period', Parliamentary History , 9 part 2 (1990), 358. See also C. Barron, 'London and the Crown 1451-61', in The Crown and Local Communities in England and France in the Fifteenth Century , ed. J. R. L. Highfield and R. Jeffs (Gloucester, 1981), 91, based on City of London Record Office Journal III, folios 109, 114, 75, which shows that 'the alderman wished to make grant of a royal loan conditional upon the revocation of the cloth-packers and wine-drawers' patents. They claimed that such patents conflicted with the city's chartered rights and infringed the jurisdiction of the mayor. As a deterrent, they ordained that any freeman who accepted such an office by royal grant should lose his freedom and pay a £20 fine'.