Henry VI: July 1433

1433 July

Introduction 1433

Westminster

8 July - 13 August

13 October - c. 18 December

C 65/92, RP , IV.419-457, SR , II.278-88

C 65/92 is a roll of eighteen membranes, each approximately 310mm in width, sewn together in chancery style, and numbered in a later hand. In addition, two separate schedules have been sewn to its dorse. The first, consisting of two separate pieces of parchment, has been attached where membranes 13 and 14 are joined. This has been copied verbatim onto the parliament roll (no. 23). The first part consists of one membrane and begins 'Metuendissimo domino nostro regi', ending with 'intuitu caritatis'; the second part has four membranes: m.1 begins, 'Cum venerabilis pater Thomas'; m.2, 'Et predictus Willelmus'; m.3, 'faceret voluntatem suam'; m.4, 'Item, dicit quod', ending with, 'in premissis'. The second schedule of three membranes records the treasurer's account (no. 24) which has been attached to the dorse of the roll where membranes 12 and 11 are joined. The condition of the roll is good, though membranes 12, 11, 5 and 1 are stained with gallic acid. The lower halves of membranes 18, 9, 8, 7 and 6 are blank.

The composite nature of the roll is clear. After the first membrane (18) of opening business down to the election of a speaker (items 1-9), a new membrane (17) is started for the principal decisions and acts, including the oathtaking by the lords (items 10-16). The next membrane, 16, begins with the commons' request for Bedford to stay in England, and contains his articles, which continue on membrane 15 (items 17-19). Membrane 14 contains the financial grants of the parliament (items 20-22). Membranes 13 and 12 contain only the petition of the bishop of Durham (item 23). The treasurer, Ralph Cromwell's petition follows on membrane 11, and has attached to it as a schedule his financial statement. Membranes 10 to 6 contain the private petitions with items 26, 32, 36, 38 and 40 starting new membranes. Thus the longest private petition, item 40 for Lady Abergavenney, occupies its own membrane. The common petitions begin a new membrane (5) and occupy the remaining membranes of the roll. In all cases save one, the membrane starts with a new petition. Item 60, however, has its main text on membrane 3 with the royal answer commencing membrane 2, suggesting continuous writing up.

The text, written in an official chancery script, occupies the rectos of the membranes only. The dorses are blank apart from later notes, 'parl' 11 H. 6', where the membranes are joined. Marginal headings on membranes 18 to 6 are contemporary, whilst those for the common petitions on membranes 5 to 1 are later. Arabic numerals throughout the roll are later, but the Roman numerals are contemporary. The roll does not appear to be incomplete.

The parliament of 1433 opened on Wednesday 8 July and was prorogued on Thursday 13 August. It reopened on Tuesday 13 October and finally closed around Friday 18 December although the exact end date is not known. It was actually in session for fifteen weeks, making it the third longest of the reign to date (those of 1427 and 1429 being in session for longer). But its total duration from its opening to closure, at twenty three weeks and four days is the longest of the reign to date. Its roll, at eighteen membranes, is the second longest of the reign to date, with only that of 1423 being longer because of the inclusion of the inventory of Henry V's goods. That for 1433 is also boosted by financial materials, in this case the statement of the treasurer, Ralph, lord Cromwell (items 24-25), which occupies a schedule of three membranes attached to the roll. There are also twenty-eight common petitions, the second largest number since the commencement of the reign, outstripped only by the forty-one found at the coronation parliament of 1429.

The parliament of 1432 had closed on 17 July of that year. The writs of summons for a new parliament were issued just over 10 months later, on 24 May 1433. Only six weeks and four days were allowed for elections and travel given that the opening was scheduled for 8 July. This was a parliament, then, which was assembled quickly and which was held less than a year after its predecessor. Only the parliament of 1426 outstrips it in both characteristics, being assembled within six weeks of the issue of summons and held only seven and a half months after the end of its predecessor. The parliaments of 1426 and of 1433 have one major factor in common: both of them were presided over by John, duke of Bedford rather than by his brother Humphrey, duke of Gloucester.

Chroniclers note Bedford's presence at the parliament. Indeed, in the case of Gregory's Chronicle and the BL Cleopatra C IV Chronicle, that is all that is mentioned save for the timing of the first session and the opening date of the second. (fn. int1433-1) Benet is more expansive, noting that Bedford came to the parliament with his new wife, Jacquetta of Luxembourg, although it does not name her. Benet mentions the grant of a lay subisdy but says that it was payable over four years with an exoneration of £6000, when in reality it was payable in four instalments at half yearly intervals (i.e over two years) with a reduction of £4,000. His claim that the parliament lasted until the Purification (2 February) 1434 is very unlikely. (fn. int1433-2) Although, as noted earlier, the precise end date is not known, it is almost certain that this was before Christmas as no prorogation is cited for a Christmas recess.

It is clear that relations between Bedford and Gloucester were not harmonious at this time. Bedford was already aware that criticism of his handling of the war was circulating, fanned by Gloucester. His return from France was no doubt prompted by this as well as by his desire to keep the peace between his brother and Cardinal Beaufort, and within the realm as a whole. Although the parliament of 1432 had ended with a compromise, resentment continued to simmer between Gloucester and Beaufort, since the former had failed in his attack on the Cardinal and the latter had been forced to defend his position and make financial concessions. Events in France were not proceeding well. Negotiations in November 1432 and March 1433, presided over by Cardinal Albergati, were fruitless. Bedford had failed in his attack on recover Lagny despite a long siege from May to August 1432. It was clear that to maintain the English position, and to be able to negotiate from a position of strength in any future diplomatic endeavours, more money and support from England were needed. Bedford's return to England in 1433 was thus motivated by a desire to protect his own position and to strengthen his hand in France, but it seems likely that he had also been moved by criticisms of Gloucester's regime as advanced by Beaufort, who seems to have sought out Bedford in Normandy in the spring of 1433 rather than going as planned to the Council of Basel. (fn. int1433-3)

Prompted, perhaps, by Cardinal Beaufort, Bedford whilst still in France arranged a meeting of the councils of England and Normandy at Calais in April 1433. Gloucester crossed to Calais for this meeting, which was also attended by Beaufort, who secured his return to influence by a generous loan of 10,000 marks. The financial plight of the English was made clear by the fact that there was no revenue which could be put up as security for the loan: some lords of the council provided letters of obligation that repayment would be made out a future lay subsidy or out of exchequer revenues. Harriss notes that this effectively put the treasurership, held by John, lord Scrope, into commission. Indeed it was probably the first stage in removing the latter from office. Scrope, who had been appointed at Gloucester's behest after the king's return from France in 1432, was replaced by Ralph, lord Cromwell on 11 August 1433, slightly over four weeks after the parliament had opened. Cromwell was certainly outside the Gloucester group: he had, after all, complained in the parliament of 1432 (Parliament of 1432 item 17) that he had been removed perfunctorily from the office of chamberlain. His appointment was even more significant as an expression of Gloucester's loss of influence on Bedford's return to England. (fn. int1433-4)

Gloucester and the other members of the English council returned to England in mid-May 1433. Beaufort followed around 10 June, having failed in his efforts to arrange a meeting between the dukes of Bedford and Burgundy at Saint-Omer at the end of May. Links between these two erstwhile brothers-in-law had been damaged by the death of Duchess Anne of Bedford in November 1432 and by Bedford's marriage to Jacquetta of Luxembourg in late April 1433. (The celebration of the marriage was no doubt another reason why Bedford had called his brother and a large number of lords to Calais.) Bedford and his new wife crossed to England on 24 June 1433. Writs of summons for a parliament had already been moved on 24 May for a parliament to be held at Westminster on 8 July. (fn. int1433-5) It would appear, therefore, that the decision to call a parliament had been made at the meeting of the councils at Calais. Bedford's return was already anticipated when the writs were issued, since, for only the second time in the reign, he received a summons.

Fifteen of the episcopate received personal summons. The see of St Asaph was vacant, Robert of Lancaster having died around 26 April 1433, although his successor, John Lowe, had his temporalities on17 October 1433 and was probably at the second session. The bishop of St David's, Benedict Nicholls, died on 25 June 1433 and his successor was not appointed until early in 1434. The bishops of Bangor, Salisbury, Rochester, Winchester and Worcester received summons to themselves or their vicars general, as they were expected to be absent at the Council of Basel. In the event, only the bishop of Worcester attended the Council, where he died on 23 August 1433. During the parliament, on 22 November, the commons requested that Thomas Bourgchier might be 'recommended unto our church of Worcester' given that there was now a vacancy. The king responded by sending letters to the prior of Worcester and to the pope (Parliament of 1433, Appendix item 18). Bourgchier was elected on 9 December 1433, and provided to the see by the pope on 9 March 1435, receiving his temporalities on 15 April. Cardinal Beaufort was certainly present at both sessions. Davies suggests that at least eleven bishops attended the first session and fourteen the second . (fn. int1433-6) Twenty-seven heads of religious houses were summoned, the same group as in 1432.

As for lay peers, thirty-five were summoned. These included three dukes, Bedford, Gloucester and York. For the last named, it was his first summons, given that he had come of age in 1432 and had successfully petitioned the parliament of that year for livery of his inheritance (Parliament of 1432, item 25). John, duke of Norfolk had died on 19 October 1432 and his son (b. 1415) was still a minor. Six earls were summoned, as in 1432 (Suffolk, Northumberland, Salisbury, Oxford, Westmorland and Warwick). Twenty-six barons were summoned, of whom twenty-four had also received summons in 1432. The two newcomers were Sir John Cornwall, who had been elevated in the parliament of 1432 to the barony of Fanhope, and John, lord Talbot, who had previously been in France. We know the names of all 264 MPs.

The attendance of lay lords in the first session is not known. An unusually large number of lay peers were appointed triers of petitions: Bedford, Gloucester, Warwick, Stafford, Suffolk, Salisbury, Northumberland, Lovell, Tiptoft, Cromwell and Hungerford (items 7 and 8). It will be noticed that this list includes the earl of Stafford, who was not included in those summoned on 24 May. On 26 July the council excused the absence of Lords Dacre and Fauconberg at parliament so that the truce with Scotland could be better maintained. (fn. int1433-7) It seems that a particularly low number of peers reassembled for the second session which opened on 13 October. On 1 November, new writs were addressed to four bishops (St Asaph, Coventry and Lichfield. Exeter, Hereford), nineteen abbots and priors, and sixteen lay peers (Northumberland, Salisbury, Berkeley, Grey of Ruthin, Strange, Latimer, Greystoke, Botreaux, Dacre, Harrington, Audley, Grey of Codnor, Fitzhugh, Fauconberg, West). These totalled thirty-nine out of the eighty-eight originally summoned. (fn. int1433-8)

Fifty-nine peers took an oath at the parliament sometime between 3 November and 5 December (item 15). These included fourteen bishops, fourteen abbots and priors and thirty-one lay peers. Two of the latter were described as minors, the earl of Devon and the duke of Norfolk, who had never been included in either summons yet seem to have been present at the parliament. The earls of Huntingdon and Stafford, and Edmund Beaufort, count of Mortain, were also in the list of oath takers although they had not received any summons either on 24 May or 1 November. This was also the case for Sir Henry Bourgchier, who had succeeded to the estates of his cousin Elizabeth Bourgchier, widow of Lewis Robessart, lord Bourgchier, in July 1433. At the following parliament of 1435, Bourgchier received a personal summons at the outset as Henry Bourgchier, count of Eu. (fn. int1433-9) Roskell calculated that four of the bishops, eleven of the abbots and priors and ten of the lay peers who had been resummoned had still failed to turn up, although if the oath was indeed sworn on 3 November, it is hardly surprising, as only two days had intervened since the new summons. (fn. int1433-10) None the less, there was clearly now quite a high attendance of peers, and even of abbots and priors, not generally known for their propensity to attend in large numbers, indicative of the seriousness of the issues, and of the desire on the part of the government to have as many peers present as possible.

Parliament opened at Westminster on Wednesday 8 July. Unusually, the opening section remarked not only on the presence of the king but also of the dukes of Bedford and Gloucester and Cardinal Beaufort (item 1). The opening sermon was given by the chancellor, John Stafford, bishop of Bath and Wells, using a text from the Psalms, 'Let the mountains bring forth peace to the people and the hills justice'. The account of his sermon is quite short in comparison with others; the clerk refers, perhaps rather lazily, to how the bishop explained things clearly 'by means of many authorities, histories and examples'. The text enabled the bishop to bring to mind the three estates, and the qualities expected of each of them. Such themes mirror those of other sermons of this period of the minority, not least the emphasis on the need for obedience on the part of the lower orders, the maintenance of true justice by the knights and middle estate, and the need for unity amongst the peers. If everyone conducted themselves in the proper fashion, then this would not only be pleasing to God but also of benefit to the king and his realm. A parliament had thus been called so that the 'mountains' (presumably the lords, for it is unlikely that peace with France is intended) could embrace peace, the 'hills' administer justice to the common people, and the common people obey the holy and secular laws.

It was not until the fourth day, Saturday 11 July, that the speaker, Roger Hunt, was presented (item 9). This may suggest that it had taken time for a choice to be settled, or a volunteer to be found. Hunt had been speaker in 1420 and had sat for Huntingdonshire in every parliament since, save for that of December 1421. He had also acted on behalf of John Mowbray, earl and subsequently duke of Norfolk, in the precedence dispute with the earl of Warwick in the parliament of 1425. He was a lawyer who had served the crown and several of the leading magnates. His links with John, lord Tiptoft, seem to have been particularly strong. Tiptoft was not on good terms with Gloucester, especially as the duke had removed him from his stewardship of the household in 1432. Hunt's election 'may perhaps be taken to suggest that the Lower House was now not very likely to provide much support for the policies of Gloucester and his friends'. (fn. int1433-11)

The presence of Bedford was in part an indictment of Gloucester's previous mishandling of affairs. But Bedford felt vulnerable because events had not gone well in France since the king's visit. Moreover, after an absence of over six years, he needed to reestablish his position in England as the king's elder uncle and heir presumptive. On 13 July, therefore, he made a statement to the parliament (item 10). This began by alluding to matters concerning the king and his possessions in France. Its main purpose, however, was to explain why he had returned to England. Rumours had been spreading that failures in France were due to his mismanagement. He invited any who wished to make such charges to make them openly now, before the king in parliament. Reference here to how such accusers might be dealt with should they be of similar rank and birth to the duke himself, makes it abundantly clear that Gloucester was in the forefront of Bedford's mind as his detractor. Gloucester's presence in the ensuing debate is explicitly mentioned, as is his voice in the denial of any doubts about Bedford's probity, which was then declared through the chancellor. Indeed, Bedford was thanked on behalf of the king (and perhaps even by the king himself, although it is not clear here whether the king spoke in person or through his chancellor) for his services to the king and for coming to England at this stage.

The next item on the roll (item 11) is the prorogation of parliament on Thursday 13 August because of fears of plague in London and its vicinity, and because there were rumours of popular unrest about which the king wished to be informed. Thus it was appropriate that the members should return to their constituencies to find out what was happening. Besides, now was the season of harvest to which the commons had to attend, whilst the lords pursued their 'recreations and hunting'. On the day of the prorogation the treasurer was empowered to restrict assignments from 20 July until 13 October, when parliament was due to reassemble, save for those made for the royal household or in the case of money lent to the king (item 12).

It is difficult to know what business was transacted in this first session save for that already noted. The second session, however, is easier to reconstruct, although the roll does not run in wholly chronological fashion. the parliament reopened on Tuesday 13 October. On 18 October, the treasurer, Ralph, lord Cromwell, presented his petition (item 24-25). Presumably this took some time to be discussed. What Cromwell presented was a financial statement of royal income and expenditure based on figures relating to the years 1429-1432. Lord Hungerford had provided such a statement as treasurer to the Leicester parliament of 1426, as had William Kynwolmarsh in 1421. (fn. int1433-12) As Kynwolmarsh had come to office a few months before the parliament of May 1421 (on the very day the writs for that meeting were moved), Hungerford shortly before the parliament of 1426, and Cromwell a month into that of 1433, it is probable that such statements to parliament were expected after the appointment of a new treasurer, although Scrope had not, it seems, provided a statement for the parliament of 1432, nor John Stafford after his appointment in December 1422, and Hungerford's statement appears to be no longer extant.

The link to Cromwell's recent appointment, and to past practice, is made in the opening section of his petition to the parliament, as is an explanation of how the accompanying schedule came about (item 24). Here it is noted that he accepted office 'under a certain protestation', namely that he should detail in writing requests which he considered of potential benefit to the king, 'in order to avoid the displeasure and indignation of your highness'. This implies that he wanted to make clear the financial situation at the point that he took up office, in order to avoid later criticism for problems which were not of his making. He continues by mentioning that both in the current and previous reigns, the 'estate and needs' of the king had been notified to parliament. In the present parliament, 'it had been clearly presented and declared' that there was a deficit, but the lords and commons needed to be made more fully aware of why this was so. Thus, in order that they might understand better, and to remove any doubt they might have, he asked that the lords should inspect and examine books and records of the exchequer drawn up by the officials of the latter. (It is interesting to note that on 12 August, the penultimate day of the first session of the parliament, orders had gone out to the collectors of customs to bring in their accounts in person to the treasurer and barons of the exchequer on 30 September next. Presumably this was connected with the desire to draw up a statement of account. (fn. int1433-13) )

At the end of Cromwell's petition, it is noted that the treasurer presented the books of account which had been drawn up by the exchequer officials, 'and attached to the present roll'. These were then read through in outline and heard (summarie perlecti fuerunt et auditi). This was to the lords, since it was then ordered that this same 'state of the realm' (statum regni) should be shown to the commons in their common chamber on the following day in the same form (eodem modo). It is not exactly clear how the statement was actually communicated. Was it read out in full, or is the use of the term 'summarie' an indication that the treasurer outlined the main points. Likewise, should we take 'auditi' simply as 'heard', meaning that the lords listened to the reading (whether in full or outline), or should it carry the more technical meaning of 'audited' in the sense of being approved and agreed by the lords? The text suggests that the form of presentation in the commons was intended to be the same as in the lords. There can be no doubt that this 'state of the realm' is what is now attached as a schedule to the roll. As John Kirby has argued, the three membranes of the schedule are clearly in an exchequer hand, and were likely prepared in the exchequer by Nicholas Dixon, one of the barons of the exchequer, and others. Kirby noted that the total cost of preparation may have been as high as £78, an indication of how much work was needed to produce the various figures. (fn. int1433-14)

Such a statement was likely common practice at the entry to office of a new treasurer, and therefore not simply a reaction to the particular financial problems in which the kingdom now found itself. It mentions, however, that one of the purposes of the statement was to ensure that provision might be made in the parliament as was necessary for the various costs incumbent on the king - his household, the governance of the realm, defence and other costs, and the settling of royal debts. Cromwell further petitioned for permission to give preference to the household and wardrobe and royal works, and that no gift or alienation of royal revenues, or assignments therefrom, be allowed by the council without the treasurer being asked to comment on them. These sections may reveal present concerns, as also the inclusion within the assent to Cromwell's petition of a promise that the lords, with the commons, would show 'all possible diligence' in order to ensure adequate provision was made in the parliament. Even so, it is possible that the whole content of the petition which Cromwell put forward was standard at the entry to office as treasurer, but that for some reason, it was thought necessary on this occasion to include the petition on the roll, and to attach the statement to it. Here we might propose the political circumstances of the change of treasurer from Scrope to Cromwell, or the competing interests of French and English commitments made obvious at Bedford's return.

The second petition of Cromwell (item 25) implies that he was anxious to show just how much the crown was indebted at the time he took up office, and that if the current rate of expenditure continued, the debt could only increase as the years went on. Within the statement, the individual sources of revenue and the various heads of expenditure are clearly indicated and totals calculated. This could certainly benefit from further detailed research, but even a cursory glance reveals that financial problems were considerable. Gross income was calculated at £65,000 in addition to the lay subsidy, but the exchequer reckoned that, given the level of assignment, it could access only £35,000. With costs at £57,000, excluding war expenses, there was already a deficit of £22,000. Thus it is not surprising that Cromwell should ask the lords to inspect further the books of account and to give guidance on what his priorities in spending should be. It may be that he was already implying that resumption would be needed to meet all costs, or at least that care should be taken in making further alienations from the royal revenues.

The roll does not provide us with an indication of decisions taken. That the statement had some impact is revealed by the fact that there were, as we shall see, increases in some of the rates levied in the trade taxes as well as the grant of a lay subsidy by the end of the second session. Although we cannot know what form debate took on the financial issues, it probably occupied much of the session as well as the council meetings held during the parliament. Interestingly, the privy council records show that on 17 December, probably the penultimate day of the parliament, 'in the chamber of the council of parliament' Cromwell was granted by the lords of the council that he should have such wages, fees and regards as other treasurers had had before him. (fn. int1433-15)

Some other matters can be dated to this second session also. The dispute between John, earl of Arundel (previously known as Lord Mautravers) and John Mowbray, duke of Norfolk seems to have been dealt with then as the latter's right to attend despite being a minor was first put forward on Friday 29 October (items 32-33). This dispute essentially concerned the right of the first John to be summoned as earl of Arundel, despite the claim of Mowbray to the castle, honor and lordship of Arundel and hence the earldom of that name. Mautravers/Arundel was at the time absent in France on royal service, and had not received a summons to the parliament. His only personal summons had been in 1429, when his status was noted as 'knight', and he died in May 1435 before he could be summoned to another parliament. The case was found in his favour, with his valour in France being cited as a reason for royal largesse (items 34-35). It was perhaps the need to determine this peerage case as well as the issue of money that prompted the issue of new writs of summons to the missing peers on 1 November.

The second session also saw several important commons' initiatives which exemplify their concern for good government. On Tuesday 3 November the commons came before the king to express through their speaker their anxieties on public order in certain parts of England, namely Shropshire, Herefordshire, Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and Sussex (item 13). They asked that a writ of Edward II should be read in the hope that the king might be moved to act similarly. The speaker accordingly produced the text of the writ and it was read. This order of Edward II arose from a petition put forward by the commons at the parliament held at York in September 1314 concerning the need to deal with the preservation of order against those who threatened to disrupt it. The bishops had agreed in this parliament that ecclesiastical censure might be used to back up royal justice. The writ, addressed to the bishop of Chichester, ordered that this should indeed be implemented by threatening excommunication against those who violate the peace both of the church and of the king. The lords present at the delivery of the petitions on 3 November 1433 (Bedford, Gloucester and Cardinal Beaufort, along with the chancellor) answered that this was a matter on which the king wished to have discussion with all the lords of the parliament. It is interesting to speculate that the commons were keen to take advantage of the government's requests for money by asking for greater attention to be paid to law and order.

The speaker then presented another schedule, also on 3 November (item 14). This concerned an article aimed at preserving law and order which the lords had sworn to the king in the parliament of 1429. On that occasion, the article was one of several ordinances for the council which had been agreed and ratified (Parliament of 1429, item 27, section XVI). This article banned lords of the council from receiving offenders in their households and using their money or power to influence legal cases, obliging not only themselves but also those under their authority to eschew such improper behaviour. It had already been included in the ordinances for the council in 1426. (fn. int1433-16) At the parliament of 1429, fifteen lords then present in parliament made an oath to uphold the ordinances. The duke of Bedford had not, of course, been present on this occasion. The speaker of the 1433 parliament therefore asked on behalf of the commons that Bedford might now make his oath, that the other lords of the council who had made the promise on the earlier occasion might now reaffirm it, and that all the lords in the present parliament might add their own oath to observe the article. The speaker also added that any lord not present at the parliament, as well as all knights, esquires and other leading members of the realm, should also make promise to uphold the article.

The text of the article was read out and the lords present, led by Bedford, then swore to uphold it. The oath takers recorded by name on the roll include 14 bishops, 14 abbots and priors, and 31 lay peers, i.e. 59 in all (item 15). The roll tells us that John, lord Scrope made the promise to the chancellor in his own chamber on 5 December because he was infirm. There is reference also to 'alii absentes et ad idem parliamentum postmodum venientes' ('others absent and coming later to this parliament'), which alludes to the issue of new writs of summons on 1 November. It was agreed that the commons should make their own promise to uphold the article. This they did before Bedford and other lords on Friday 13 November (item 16). The last common petition on the roll (item 69) saw a request that the lords who had been absent should come before the council to make the oath subsequently, and that the knights of the shire should provide the chancellor with lists of those in the counties who should be asked to swear also, with further commissions being directed to the lords temporal as well as the bishop of each area to take these oaths, and inform the chancery accordingly. Penalties were established for those who did not pay the oath within three months. Special arrangements were made for the Universities, Cinque Ports, Cheshire and other franchises.

The commons must have had strong concerns about corruption to single out this particular article of the council ordinances of 1429, and to request such a ubiquitous oath taking to uphold its content. Whether they had specific examples of lordly maintenance in mind is difficult to know. It may be that they were more generally exercised about law and order in the realm. Perhaps too they wished to bring to Bedford's attention their concerns without making explicit a lack of confidence in the existing regime. In this context it is significant that on Tuesday 24 November the commons came before the king, with the speaker presenting their petition that Bedford should be persuaded to stay in England (item 17). They spoke of his bravery and loyalty to the king in staying in France despite the difficulties and dangers inherent in this. If he had not done so, who knows what fate might have befallen royal interests there? He had fought in person at Verneuil, 'the greatest deed undertaken by Englishmen in our time save for the battle of Agincourt', and on other occasions. But his presence in England had also been most beneficial, especially in terms of the personal example he set, his wisdom as a councillor, and his firmness and fairness in bringing to justice those who had offended. This may imply that they considered him a driving force in the campaign to improve law and order. The chancellor then discussed the commons petition with the duke of Gloucester, Cardinal Beaufort, the archbishops of Canterbury and York and other lords, who decided that the king should indeed ask Bedford to stay in England. Bedford was overwhelmed by this expression of confidence in him. (fn. int1433-17)

Much discussion followed. By 26 November Bedford seems to have indicated that he might stay in England, and had agreed to a lower fee as councillor, an obviously popular move. A return to France was not ruled out, however, for the text also speaks of how much money Bedford should receive at his crossing to France (item 19). His offer to take a lower fee was announced on 26 November to all the lords. There was further discussion in the council on 28 November on these matters, which includes the interesting observation that the fees of Bedford and Gloucester had both been settled in the past 'sometimes by ordinance of the king's great council in parliament and sometimes by the advice and ordinance of the king's council out of parliament'. (fn. int1433-18) By 18 December, Bedford had also negotiated certain articles for the conduct of government (item 18). Discussion of these had presumably occupied much of the time between 24 November and 18 December, over which period it was decided that he would return to France. Although these articles do not explicitly state that he was going to be absent from the realm, they speak of 'wherever I shall be in the lord's service', implying the continuing likelihood of his not being in England. The articles also show how Bedford intended to play an important and conciliatory role in government even if absent. He wished to know who would be on the council, and that anyone so appointed should not be dismissed without the assent of the other members and of himself. His wishes here were accepted. He also asked to be consulted if any major office of state or bishopric needed to be appointed to. He would also play a role in deciding whether a parliament should be held, adding his opinion to that of the council, 'so that if all of us consider it expedient to summon a parliament, then I may arrange to be there at the parliament to take care of the well-being of my lord and of his realm'. He added his desire that a list should be made of all those ageing servants who had served the Lancastrians so that they might receive due reward when offices or corrodies became vacant. In all respects, Bedford was implying that he would play a greater role in government than hitherto, whether he was absent or not. The articles he laid down obviously placed a further limitation on the freedom of action of Gloucester, although it would remain to be seen how much influence Bedford could actually exercise at a distance.

The articles were agreed by the lords on 18 December. This is the last date noted on the roll. The grant of a tenth and fifteenth and of trade taxes follow the acceptance of Bedford's financial offers (agreed by the lords on 26 November, in item 19), but are not themselves dated (items 20, 21). As tax grants were usually announced on the last day of parliament, we might assume that the grant was made on or shortly after 18 December, although it is possible that it was made earlier, and that the lords continued in discussion on Bedford's articles after the grant had been agreed, and after the commons had dispersed. Commons' approval of Bedford's financial offers is not noted: they are given as being communicated to and agreed by the lords alone (item 19). Collectors for the lay subsidy were appointed on 27 December 1433. (fn. int1433-19)

Although a whole tenth and fifteenth was granted, the render was reduced by £4,000 by remissions and reductions to be granted to places which were deemed to be impoverished. These places were to be decided upon by the two members of parliament for each county or borough in consultation with a local lord. Lincoln was given exemption from a half of the payment due. Overall, therefore, the government's likely income was reduced from around £38,000, the standard render from a lay subsidy, to £34,000. Worse still for a government which still had major cash flow problems, the subsidy was to be paid in four equal instalments over the next two years, with payment dates of 28 March 1434, 11 November 1434, 17 April 1435, and 11 November 1435. The Canterbury convocation had proved no more generous at its assembly in November and December, where a vote of three quarters of a tenth had been agreed but only by a majority. (fn. int1433-20)

For denizen and alien merchants the wool subsidy of 33s 4d granted in the previous parliament was still valid until 11 November 1435 (parliament of 1432 item 12). The parliament of 1433 made no change to the wool subsidy for home merchants, but agreed a new rate for alien merchants of 53s 4d which was leviable from 11 November 1434 for three years (item 21). (fn. int1433-21) Tunnage for home merchants was extended from 11 November 1434 for two years but kept at 3s per tun. For alien merchants the rate was kept at 6s per tun, but the grant was effective for three years from 11 November 1434. In terms of poundage, a grant for two years from 11 November 1434 was made at 12d in the pound for home merchants, with the same level for alien merchants being leviable for three years from the same date. (fn. int1433-22) For home merchants, wool, woolfells, hides, rye, wheat, flour and fish were exempted from poundage as in the previous grant, and imported wine was added. These exemptions were not allowed to alien merchants. A new levy, however, was imposed on home merchants on exported cloth. The rate was established at 12d on every pound's worth of cloth exported in any galley or carrack from 8 December 1433 to 13 January 1434, and at the same rate for all cloth exported from 13 January 1434 to 11 November 1434. This was the first time that cloth exports had been taxed. It was no doubt on the basis of this anticipated tax income that loans of up to 100,000 marks were sought (item 22) between now and the next parliament. No loans had been sought at the previous parliament. The highest previous rate, in 1431, was £50,000 (parliament of 1431, item 26).

Various private petitions are on the roll. Cromwell's statement on the financial problems of the crown was presented in this form. But it follows a petition of the bishop of Durham concerning his liberty of Durham (item 23). Bedford's new wife, Jacquetta of Luxembourg, who had accompanied him to England, was given letters of denization (item 26) as were Andrew Ogard, a Dane who had served in Bedford's household and in the wars in France (item 27), (fn. int1433-23) Raoul le Sage, a Norman who had served on the grand conseil under Bedford (item 28), (fn. int1433-24) and the French wife of another of Bedford's captains in France, Thomas Gower (item 31). Another foreigner who had served the English, Hartung van Clux, was given an annuity from the alien priory of Pembroke (item 37) (fn. int1433-25) which was correspondingly deducted from the revenues of the lands of the alien priory for which Humphrey, duke of Gloucester successfully petitioned (item 36). A petition was also put forward at the parliament on behalf of John Beaufort, earl of Somerset, who had been in captivity in France since the battle of Baugé in 1421. This concerned the claim put forward by Alice, wife of Sir John Skidmore and daughter of Owen Glendower, to the lands formerly held by the Welsh rebel which had been granted to the earl's father by Henry IV in 1400 (item 29). It is probable that this case had also generated a petition to confirm the anti-Welsh statute which banned Englishmen married to Welsh women 'of the friendship or alliance of Owen Glendower' from office in Wales or the Marches (item 30). There was also a successful petition to end the port status of Melcombe Regis (later Weymouth) and to transfer it to Poole on the grounds that the latter was better protected from enemy attack (item 38). A recent attack on John Roger and others at Melcombe was cited in support of this. (fn. int1433-26) Melcombe Regis had already petitioned at the parliament of 1426 for a reduction of its fee farm (Parliament of 1426, Appendix item 13), and on at least one occasion before 1433 (see Appendix of undated petitions for period 1422-54). The transfer of port status from Melcombe had a knock-on effect, given that tallies granted to Sir John Radcliffe, seneschal of Guienne, had now to be transferred to Poole. This was effected in the following item (item 39).

The case of Joan, lady Abergavenny, which had come before the previous parliament was continued (item 40). This case was heard by the king and council, and involved the appearance of Joan herself. A compromise was reached (Parliament of 1433, Appendix item 3).

There were twenty-eight common petitions, the highest number since the coronation parliament of 1429 when there were forty-one. The high number was likely due to Bedford's presence. Of these fifteen led to statutes, a high proportion compared with most years. The petitions are contemporaneously numbers from I to XXVIII. The first on the roll, presented to the commons, concerned the brothels (stews) in Southwark which were seen as having enriched themselves by nefarious means and were thus able to exploit their status in law (item 42). The second was put by the commons to the king and concerned the murder of Isabel by her husband, John Carpenter of Birdham, Sussex. The nature of the murder was seen as so horrific that the commons asked for him to be judged as a traitor (item 43). In both petitions we may be seeing some specific expression of the commons' concern for law and order as they had expressed by their motions in early November. This was even more explicit in a petition put to the commons concerning the perjury and bribing of jurors (item 47), and a petition by the commons on the bias often shown by stewards of franchise courts (item 50). It was also apparent in a petition probably by the commons to the king complaining that the appointment of new commissions too often led to the discontinuation of processes (item 49).

Several petitions concerned lands and property law. Two, one by the commons, the other through them, concerned disseisin (items 44-45). Another, in the name of the commons, concerned the problems faced by those who held reversion of lands, but who found that their inheritance had been wasted by lessees before the reversion was effected (item 48). A common petition about ambiguities concerning alienations of honorial lands by the crown, especially those of Bohun, Boulogne and Peverel, was referred to the council (item 57). Several petitions concerned mercantile activity. Merchants of the realm successfully complained that customs officers did not always issue warrants of discharge when duty was paid (item 66). The commons added that they often issued blank cockets, which was deemed an improper practice likely to defraud the king of his rightful income (item 67). There was further complaint about the export of goods other than to the Calais staple, this time asking for the royal right to search vessels at sea (item 64). This was only partially granted on this occasion but met with more success at the next parliament. A petition put forward by 'all the commons of this realm' about the definition of the cloth known as kersey was granted (item 56), as was a petition against candlemakers who were charging too high prices for their products, given the price of wax (item 61). There was also further adjustment to the rates of the Partition Ordinance for the Calais staple first agreed in 1429 (Parliament of 1429, items 60-66), and now settled for the period from 25 March 1434 for three years (item 63).

Hostility to foreigners was apparent in many petitions. The merchants also petitioned against the activities of Scots and Bretons, who despite truces attacked English merchants who then found it difficult to gain redress from the king of Scotland or the duke of Brittany (item 46). This petition was not granted: it is interesting to note that Breton envoys were present in England in August. (fn. int1433-27) The matter of abuse of safe-conducts in general, but again mentioning the Scots specifically, led to a further petition (item 58). The council had discussed the problem of Scottish attacks on the north on 23 July, whilst the parliament was in session. (fn. int1433-28) Hostility to foreign merchants was apparent in a petition put to the commons aiming to prevent aliens acting as brokers (item 51) and in another asking that alien merchants always pay in full for merchandise at the point of sale, to avoid their leaving the realm whilst still owing money to native producers and merchants (item 52). The fear that alien merchants were delaying the sale of their wares in order to benefit from currency fluctuations gave rise to another petition which asked that they should have to sell within three months of arrival in England (item 62). None of these was granted, but the whole issue of alien merchants was to raise its head again in future. This was not granted on this occasion, but was to resurface in later parliaments. Xenophobia was also revealed in a petition by the commons asking that foreign prisoners found at large in London and the kingdom without safe-conduct should be arrested. This was a clear retaliation for the fact that the French were in the habit of arresting and putting to new ransom any English prisoners captured in the war who had wandered away from their host (item 68). This petition was referred to the council.

There was clarification of procedures for debts and recognizances (item 59). A petition about the extortionate behaviour of the sheriffs of Herefordshire which had come before the previous parliament was on this occasion granted (item 53). Also successful was a further petition on weights and measure, following that of the parliament of 1429 (item 54; see Parliament of 1429 item 36). But a petition about tithes on large trees, already presented at the two previous parliaments, was again referred (item 55: see Parliament of 1431 item 45, Parliament of 1432 item 45). One petition concerned parliamentary privilege. The commons returned to the issue of protection for MPs after Richard Quatermains, one of the knights of the shire for Oxfordshire, was assaulted (item 60), and in doing so referred back to an assault made in the first parliament of 1404 by John Savage against Richard Cheddar, stepson and servant of Sir Thomas Brooke (the latter being one of the knights of the shire for Somerset in 1404). The attack had led to a common petition in 1404 concerning freedom from arrest and molestation for both MPs and members of their households. In the parliament of 1432 there had been an unsuccessful petition requesting an extension of protection beyond assault and reforms to procedures (Parliament of 1432, item 39). This had been rejected, perhaps because it asked for too much. In 1433 the petition was simply for the existing statute to be enforced for MPs. (fn. int1433-29) The debts of Henry V once again resurfaced in parliament, this time in relation to moneys owed to the clerk of the ordnance and with a request that the archbishop of Canterbury and other feoffees of the late king's lands make settlement (item 65). This was referred, but it is interesting to note that approval was given for the transfer of funds from the customs at Southampton to bale out the feoffees (Parliament of 1433, Appendix item 16). The last common petition on the roll concerned the need for the absent lords and other communities and individuals throughout the realm to take the oath against maintenance and corruption (item 69).

There is a substantial amount of additional material which can be assigned to this parliament as the Appendix reveals. There was a grant to the duke of Gloucester for an exchange of lands which gave him the site for his new house at Greenwich (item 20), which he was given the right to impark at the parliament of 1437 (Parliament of 1437, item 17). Gloucester's Italian doctor, John de Signorellis de Ferrara, was made denizen (Parliament of 1433, Appendix item 30). There was further clarification of the dower of Queen Katherine in response to a petition she had earlier put forward to the council but asking for parliamentary assent (Parliament of 1433, Appendix item 13). Richard, duke of York also petitioned concerning his lands as a follow up to his petition at the previous parliament at his coming of age (Parliament of 1432, item 25; Parliament of 1433, Appendix item 19). A petition of the countess of Westmorland was shown ('exhibita') to the commons in the parliament and endorsed on 16 December (Parliament of 1433, Appendix item 22). But most noticeable, perhaps, were the grants and confirmations made to the duke of Bedford, an interesting reflection of his presence in the parliament. His titles of Bedford and Kendal, which had been granted by Henry V for life only, were now made hereditary, and his tenure of the earldom of Richmond was confirmed (Parliament of 1433, Appendix items 14, 15, 17).

By the time the parliament closed around 18 December 1433, there can be no doubt that Bedford's pre-eminence had been confirmed, although it was also clear that he would be returning to France. With future funds guaranteed, the council sitting in the 'chamber of the council of parliament' ('in camera consilii parliamenti') made arrangements on 16 December to transfer 12,000 marks to France. (fn. int1433-30) But it was to take several more months and a great council before detailed arrangements were made for Bedford's return. Gloucester had renewed his criticisms of his brother's conduct of affairs. Bedford put forward articles on 14 and 15 June 1434 which included mention of how in the last parliament the king 'by the advice of the three estates of this land' had petitioned him to stay in England'. (fn. int1433-31) This is an unusual use of the expression, especially in the light of Myers' observation that it was at the 1433 parliament that the expression 'by authority of parliament' was first used but complemented with 'by assent of the lords spiritual and temporal and of the commons'. (fn. int1433-32) What role Bedford had in the introduction of such terminology cannot be known. What we do know is that he returned to France in late June 1434, having negotiated financial and military support for his return which included diversion of funds from the enfeoffment of the duchy of Lancaster, a response, perhaps, to the financial problems which Cromwell's statement to the parliament in the second session had made clear. (fn. int1433-33)

Text and translation

Appendix 1433

Westminster

8 July - 13 August

13 October - c. 18 December

1

Petition by William Dallyng against William Paston

Petition to the right sage and wise commons of this present parliament that where every justice of the king is sworn that he should take no fees or reward to give council to any man but only our sovereign lord the king, and thereto is sworn, and there is one William Paston, one of the justices of our sovereign lord in the Common Pleas who takes fees and reward.

The above passage is deleted, and replaced by:

Petition to the commons of the present parliament that William Paston, one of the justices of our sovereign lord the king, takes various fees and rewards from various persons within the shire of Norfolk and Suffolk, and is retained on every matter in the said counties, that is to say, by the town of Yarmouth at 1 s yearly, by the Abbot of St Benet 26 s 8d, by the prior of Saint Faiths 20s, and of the prior of Norwich 40 s , and by the prior of Penteney 20 s , and of by the town of Lynn 40 s , and by the prior of Walsingham 20 s , and by Katherine Shelton 10 marks, against the king to give them counsel to destroy the right of the king and his ward, that is to say Ralph, son and heir of John Shelton.

Dorse: (In Latin) False bill of William Dallyng to the parliament in the time when Henry Grey was sheriff, the next before the thirteenth year of King Henry VIth.

Source : British Library Additional MS 34,888, printed in N. Davis, Paston Letters and Papers of the Fifteenth Century , vol. 2 (Oxford, 1976), 508-9. Original in Middle English save on dorse. Henry Grey was sheriff in 1430 and 1434. The thirteenth year of Henry VI began on 1 September 1434. It is fairly certain, therefore, that this bill belongs to the parliament of 1433, although we cannot be too sure whether it was ever presented.

2

Grant by the king with the advice of the council that Margaret, late the wife of John Darcy, knight, be restored to possession of her lands currently in the custody of the king. It is noted that she had delivered a petition to the king and council in parliament showing that she held divers lands of her late husband in Ireland until it had been found by an inquisition before the late escheator there that she had died. It had been found by inspection of her person, she having appeared before the king and council in parliament, that she was not dead. It was also shown by production of letters patent of 12 July 1431, also produced before the king and council in parliament that she had her then husband, Thomas Swynford, had leave of absence from Ireland for her life. By king and council in parliament. Dated 8 July 1433.

Source : CPR 1429-36 , 283.

3

Pardon by advice and assent of the lords spiritual and temporal in the present parliament to John Beauchamp, lady Abergavenny, of the £1200 forfeited to her and to John Barton and others for her having been found by inquest to have incited William Lee and others to assault Thomas Peynton and others. By king and council in parliament. Dated 8 July 1433.

Source : CPR 1429-36 , 295.

4

Order to the sheriffs of London, Kent, Hampshire, Devon, Cornwall, Bristol, Norfolk and Suffolk, Lincoln, York, Newcastle, Somerset and Dorset, and the chancellor of the county palatine of Lancaster to cause proclamation to be made of a statute made in the parliament of 1353 that all merchants native and alien may sell wool, woolfells, hides and lead throughout his realm and lands so long as they bring it to the staple and that no merchant of England, Ireland and Wales take any wool, hides, woolfells, or lead out of his realm and lands. By king and council in parliament. Dated 16 August 1433.

Source : CCR 1429-35 , 246.

5

Order to the sheriff of Lincoln to cause proclamation to be made of certain statutes and ordinances for the ruling and punishment of buyers and purveyors of victuals, observance of measures and weights, prevention and punishment of routs and riots prohibition of liveries of raiment and justification of craftsmen, labourers, servants and victualler, whereof for their greater peace and advantage the commons in the last parliament did instantly crave the publication and the king is sending the same in form of patent. Dated 4 January 1434.

Source : CCR 1429-35 , 315.

6

Order to sheriffs of counties to cause the names of such persons in their counties as to them shall seem fit to be sworn to observe what the lords, knights, citizens and burgesses in the last parliament were sworn to observe, to be delivered to the chancellor a month after Easter by their bills indented, that the king may deal further to take their oaths according to an ordinance made in that parliament at the special request of the commons that knights of the shire coming thither by authority of the king should cause the names of such persons to be so delivered. Dated 20 January 1434.

Source : CCR 1429-35 , 270-1.

7

Commissioners appointed to treat with groups in counties for loans with security as in act made in last parliament out of grants made in last parliament and other royal revenues. Dated 26 February 1434.

Source : CPR 1429-36 , 353.

8

Grant by the advice of the council pursuant to an act of the parliament held at Westminster on 8 July 1433 (Parliament of 1433, item 22) that Robert Ogle knight captain of Roxburgh should be repaid £800 which he has lent to the king for the defence of the realm from the clerical subsidy granted by the clergy of the province of Canterbury. Dated 23 April 1434.

Source : CPR 1429-36 , 339.

9

Commission pursuant to act of the previous parliament (Parliament of 1433, item 69) to the knights of the shire in each of the counties that they issue their warrant to the sheriff for proclamation in the next court of the county that the following whose names have been certified into chancery by the said knights of the shire as those of persons who should take the oath not to maintain peace breakers, referred to in the said should appear before the said commissioners and take the said oath. There follow like orders to others including the constable of Dover, bishop of Durham, mayor of Oxford and Cambridge etc. Dated 1 May 1434.

Source : CPR 1429-36 , 370-413.

10

Grant pursuant to an act of the last parliament (Parliament of 1433, item 22) that those who have lent the king money for the defence of the realm be repaid from customs, and other royal revenues between Martinmas next and the festival next following, reserving 10,000 marks for the household and 3000 for the chamber wardrobe and works. Dated 9 July 1435.

Source : CPR 1429-36 , 466-8.

11

Grant to the king's sergeant Roger Hunt of £200 out of the subsidies of tonnage and poundage in the port of London. He had been elected speaker of the parliament of 11 Henry VI by the commonalty and confirmed in that office by the king, but was also appointed sheriff of Cambridge and Huntingdon by the king, his noble uncles and by the cardinal of England. He made petition for divers reasons, one being that sheriffs of those counties suffered great losses in the office, to the king on various occasions by the mouth of John Tyrell knight then one of the commonalty, that he might be discharged from the office of sheriff, but the king willed that he should not be so discharged lest other men should obtain precedent thereby. So the chancellor with others of the council in parliament intimated to the petitioners that the king would provide for any loss of his private goods. Whereupon he held the office for two years and lost £160 in addition to his costs of £40, for which he is indebted, so now he is given compensation. Dated 27 February 1442.

Source : CPR 1441-6 , 150.

12

Petition to the king by the abbot and convent of St Mary's York concerning an attack on their lands by the commoners of the forest of Galtres. They request that the matter be referred to the council. There follows a judgment in their favour.

Source : PRO SC 8/140/6996, with judgement at C49/21/22, printed in full in RP , IV.458-9.

13

Decision of the king with the assent of the lords and commons to grant to Queen Katherine letters patent according to a schedule which follows. The schedule refers to letters granted on 20 October 1423 with the assent of the lords and commons in parliament (Parliament of 1423, item 19). The current schedule clarifies some points in these letters.

Endorsed: The commons assent to this bill. Reply is given that it should be granted as requested.

Source : PRO SC 8/119/5933, printed in full in RP , iv.459-60. See CPR 1429-36 , 294. 8 July 1433. Grant by the assent of the lords spiritual and temporal and of the commonalty of England in the present parliament to Queen Catherine amending misdescriptions of her grant of dower made on 20 October 1423. By petition in parliament. The petition is no doubt that (in French) first heard by the council on 14 [] 11 Henry VI (1433) printed in POPC , IV.179-80 which asks that these matters be referred 'to your next parliament so that the said articles and words can be by you (i.e. the council) and by the assent of your parliament more plainly and clearly expressed and specified in your letters patent. See also PRO E 28/57/96 for the conciliar decision reciting this petition.

14

Request that the duke of Bedford be granted letters patent according to a schedule attached. This concerns the grant to him of the honour of Richmond.

Endorsed: Let it be sent to the king. Reply is given that it should be granted as requested.

Source : PRO SC 8/95/4743B, with schedule at 4743A printed in full in RP , IV.460-1.

15

Petition to the king by John, duke of Bedford, noting that on 29 November 1414 Henry V had granted his brother the reversion of the castle, earldom, honour and lordship of Richmond which Ralph, earl of Westmorland held for his life and which John, duke of Brittany had held, and all the appurtenances of the same, with certain exceptions granted to others, requesting that he receive compensation for certain estates which had not passed into his hands from various sources and reversions. Grant is made with the advice and assent of the lords spiritual and temporal and the commons of the realm of England present in the current parliament.

Endorsed: The commons assent to this bill. Reply is given ordering the clarification of the difficulty over the value of various manors.

Source : PRO SC 8/95/4742 A and B, printed in full in RP , IV. 461-3. See also CPR 1429-36 , 297-8. 8 July 1433. Grant by the advice of the lords spiritual and temporal and of the commonalty of England in the present parliament to John duke of Bedford and his heirs male of his body the various manors in Somerset, Dorset and Wiltshire which William earl of Suffolk and Alice his wife hold, after the death of the said Alice. By petition in parliament.

16

Request that the king grant letters patent by the authority of the present parliament to the archbishop of Canterbury and his fellow feoffees of the duchy of Lancaster according to a schedule attached, and also for security concerning £3,000 which he has lent to the king.

Endorsed: The commons assent to this bill. Reply is given that it should be granted as requested.

Source : PRO SC 8/26/1287, with schedule at 1288, printed in full in RP , IV.463-4. See CPR 1429-36 , 294. undated. Whereas on 15 February last assignment was made of the customs and subsidies of the port of Southampton to the feoffees of Henry V of certain lands in the duchy of Lancaster, in part repayment of loans of £6,028 13 s 7 d , and whereas they have now lent the king in addition £1,000 out of the first profits of the said customs and subsidies and £2,000 out of the revenues of the said possessions, the king, by the advice and assent of the lords spiritual and temporal and of the commonalties of England in the present parliament has assigned to the said feoffees the said customs and subsidies in the port from Easter last until they be satisfied of repayment. By petition in parliament.

17

Petition to the king by John, duke of Bedford noting that at the parliament held at Leicester in May 1414 he had been summoned as earl of Kendal and duke of Bedford, titles granted to him for life. He now requests that these titles should be made hereditary.

Endorsed: The commons assent to this bill. Reply is given that it should be granted as requested.

Source : PRO SC 8/96/4755, printed in full in RP , IV.465. See also CPR 1429-36 , 297-8. 8 July 1433. Grant to him of the honour of earl of Kendal and duke of Bedford to self and heirs male in place of letters of Henry V 16 May 1414. By petition in parliament.

18

To the prior and convent of our church of Worcester. Well beloved in God, since the commons in this our present parliament, considering the closeness to us in blood that our well beloved cousin Thomas Bourgchier has, and the knowledge and skill that he demonstrates ('the connyng and witness that resten in his persone'), desired us openly in our said parliament to have him specially recommended to our church of Worcester which is now vacant by the death of Thomas, the last bishop. We, considering our commons good desire and request, and also the virtues and honest conversation that rests in the person of our said cousin and the closeness of his blood link with us, and willing for these reasons especially as well as for the good worship, well being and profit that he, if God wills, is likely to do for the church and also for us and our subjects, and especially those in the diocese of our said church of Worcester, desire and pray you heartily that in the election which you will be conducting to choose the next bishop, you will, at this special prayer, have our cousin specially recommended, whereby you should not only give distinctive profit and ease to the church but also have ourselves the more well disposed. Therefore, do this at your liking. And God. Etc. Given 22 November, in the twelfth year of Henry VI.

Source : British Library Cotton Titus E V, printed in POPC , IV, 183-4 and RP , V.435. It is noted on the dorse that letters under the privy seal were sent to the church of Worcester to promote Thomas's cause with the pope as well as to persons at the curia in Rome for the same purpose.

19

Petition to the king by Richard, duke of York, to whom by authority of the parliament held at Westminster in May 1432 (Parliament of 1432, item 25), livery of lands previously held by the earl of March had been given. He requests that the current parliament grant authority whereby tallies and debts incumbent upon these estates might be dealt with.

Reply is given that on 12 August 1433, by the king and council being at the parliament then held in Westminster, these matters were discussed and letters under the privy seal issued to deal with them

Source : PRO SC 8/26/1289, printed in full in RP , IV.465-6.

20

Petition by Humphrey, duke of Gloucester, Eleanor his wife and the prior and convent of the house of Jesus of Bethlehem at Sheen, that an exchange of lands in Greenwich, Kent might be permitted according to the schedule attached.

Endorsed: Let it be as is sought.

Source : PRO SC 8/116/5612A, with schedule at 5612B, printed in full in RP , IV.466.

21

Petition to the commons by the abbess and convent of Shrewsbury and by Robert Long, that they beseech the king and lords to allow letters of exchange according to the schedule attached.

Endorsed: Let it be as is sought, for reasonable fine and customary fee.

Source : PRO SC 8/26/1290, printed in full in RP , IV.466-7.

22

Petition to the commons by Thomas Denton, Laurence Cheyne, John Chaldwell, and Richard Foster that they might exchange with the prioress and nuns of the house of St Nicholas of Littlemore, Oxon., various rents and fisheries in Oxford for lands and fisheries in Ely and Thetford, according to a schedule attached.

Endorsed: Let it be as is sought, without taking fine for the sake of God as they are poor.

Source : PRO SC 8/26/1292 with schedule at 1291, printed in full in RP , IV.46-8. See CPR 1429-36 , 287. 8 July 1433. Licence by the advice of the lords spiritual and temporal and at the request of the commonalty of England in the present parliament for Thomas Coventre, Thomas Denton, Laurence Cheyne, John Chaldewll, clerk, and Richard Foster to grant in mortmain to the prioress and nuns of the church of St Nicholas Littlemore Oxon, 60s of yearly rent from lands in Oxford, in exchange for the lands held by the prioress and nuns in Barwey, Ely and Thetford to be granted to Thomas Coventre and his fellows, provided always that the bishop of Ely is not prejudiced by this grant. By petition in parliament and for God because they are poor.

23

Petition to the commons by the mayor, bailiffs and burgesses of Kingston upon Hull concerning their privileges initially granted by Edward I.

Endorsed: Let it be sent to the king.

Source : PRO SC 8/26/1294, printed in full in RP , IV.468. See CPR 1429-36 , 294. 8 July 1433. Grant by the advice and assent of the lords spiritual and temporal and at the special request of the commonalty of England in the present parliament that all the legacies of lands within the borough of Kingston upon Hull made since the date of letters patent of Edward I shall stand. By petition in parliament.

24

Petition to the commons by the keepers of the bridge at Rochester concerning the obligation of the abbess of Denny and the master of the hospital of Strood to contribute towards the maintenance of the bridge.

Endorsed: Let it be sent to the king.

Source : PRO SC 8/26/1293, printed in full in RP , IV.468.

25

Petition to the commons by Joan, countess of Westmorland, Richard, earl of Salisbury and other executors of Ralph Neville, earl of Westmorland, referring to a petition made by the same at the parliament held at Leicester in February 1426 (Parliament of 1426, Appendix item 6) and to continuing difficulties arising out of a suit which had been pursued between the king and the late earl.

On the dorse is noted that the petition was shown in the present parliament held at Westminster in July 1433, and discussed on 16 December with the assent of the lords in parliament, and judgment reached allowing the petition as it was sought.

Source : PRO SC 8/26/1295, printed in full in RP , IV.469-70. The records of the privy council also note the presentation of the petition to the commons and its endorsing in parliament on 16 December with the conditions then laid down ( POPC , IV.189-90). See also CCR 1429-35 , 322, 17 December 1433. Recognition of Ralph earl of Westmorland and William, lord Fauconberg to the king for £800 to be levied on their lands in Yorkshire on condition that Joan, countess of Westmorland and other executors of Ralph earl of Westmorland named in a petition by the commons presented in the parliament held at Westminster 8 July 1433 and by the authority of parliament committed to the council for the time being to hear and determine shall prosecute that petition before the council and if a judgement rendered in the late king's exchequer against the late earl shall be by the council affirmed that within one quarter of a year they will content the king for £800 thereby recovered against the said earl of or such sum as shall be by the council adjudged

26

Petition to the commons by the creditors of Edmund, late earl of March, on account of debts which remained unsettled at his death.

Endorsed: Let it be sent to the lords. Reply is given that administration of the earl's goods and chattels should be given to the archbishop of Canterbury, William Cantelow and James Faukes.

Source : PRO SC 8/26/1296 printed in full in RP , IV.470-1.

27

Petition to the commons by Sir Robert Shottesbrook concerning the grant of 50 marks per annum made to him by Henry V for service in France to be taken from the issues of the manor of Orston in Nottingham, over the payment of which by the Exchequer he had experienced difficulties.

Endorsed: let it be sent to the king. Reply is given that it should be as sought.

Source : PRO SC 8/26/1297, printed in full in RP , IV.471. See CPR 1429-36 , 297. 13 July 1433. It has been shown to the king and great council in the parliament last held at Westminster on behalf of Robert Shottesbroke, king's knight, that the king granted him 50 marks per annum out of the issues of the manor of Orston during the minority of Thomas, son of Thomas, lord Roos, and that the same Robert through negligence and innocence and lack of legal advice too the manor to farm from Lord Scrope treasurer of England, and prevented from the Exchequer from collecting his annuity. The king, by the advice of the lords spiritual and temporal in the said parliament and at the special instance of the commonalty of the same and in consideration of the grant of the manor at farm having been surrendered grants to the said Robert the said 50 marks.

28

Petition to the king and council by John de Leventhorp, esquire, over payment of an annuity granted by Henry V from Godmanchester given that the king had subsequently made a further grant of the fee farm of the town as a whole.

Reply is made in English that he should be allowed the annuity as well as the fee farm.

Source : PRO SC 8/121/6035 printed in full in RP , IV.472. For Leventhorp see HOC , III.591-4.

29

Request that the king by the advice of the council grant letters under the privy seal to Master Robert Burton, clerk, who had been sent by the clergy of England to the general council at Basle, according to the schedule attached, and also to grant letters of protection to his servants travelling in his company.

Reply is given that this petition be granted, on the advice of the lords in the parliament held at Westminster 8 July 1433.

Source : PRO SC 8/26/1299 printed in full in RP , IV.472-3.

30

Petition to the 'most noble wise and discrete person assembled in parliament for the common good of the kingdom' by John de Signorellis of Ferrara, master of medicine and native of Italy, who has come to England at the order of the duke of Gloucester, to be made denizen according to the schedule attached

Endorsed: The commons assented to this bill.

Source : PRO SC 8/26/1301, with schedule at 1300, printed in full in RP , IV.473. CPR 1429-36 , 294. 8 July 1433. Letters of denization, pursuant to an act of parliament, for Master John de Signorellis de Ferrara, born in Italy, physician of Humphrey, duke of Gloucester, and for the heirs of the body of the said John. By petition in parliament.

31

Petition in English to 'the noble and discrete council both spiritual and temporal' of the king by those who had served as soldiers of Calais that they might have their wages, lands and rents in Calais allowed to them.

Reply is given in English that the soldiers should have free disposition of their lands, rents and goods, but it is not intended thereby to give them licence to dwell within Calais.

Source : PRO SC 8/295/14733, printed in full in RP , IV.473.

32

Petition to the commons by Ralph Kynge and Isabel his wife concerning the latter's inheritance in Pembrokeshire.

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

Source : PRO SC 8/119/5935, printed in full in RP , IV.473-4.

33

Petition to the king that he might consider how Hamo Sutton of Lincoln, Nicolas Wotton of London, Richard Buckland of London, Richard Russell of York, Roger Knight of Lincoln and John Lowys of Boston, merchants of the staple at Calais, had lent to the king £2,918 12 s 10 d for the defence of the kingdom, and grant, by the authority of parliament, letters under the great seal concerning security for repayment according to a schedule attached.

Source : PRO SC 8/27/1302 printed in full in RP , IV.474-5. See CPR 1429-36 , 120. 18 June 1433. Appointment pursuant to act of last parliament to repay Nicholas Wotton and other merchants of staple £5351 6 s 8 d of loan.

34

Petition to the commons by William Warwick of Salisbury concerning the imprisonment of his servant, Walter Trenchville, in Brittany, having been sent there by his master to trade woollen cloth.

Endorsed: let it be sent to the lords. Reply is given that it was agreed by the lords at the request of the commons that letters under the privy seal should be sent to the duke of Brittany on the matter.

Source : PRO SC 8/27/1303, 1304, printed in full in RP , IV.475, printed in Anthology of Chancery English , 237-8. See CPR 1429-36 , 457, dated 20 May, 1435. Authority to all admirals, captains and controllers of ports to arrest any goods of the Lord of Mountaffylan, his tenants and servants in England, Jersey or Guernsey to the value of £300 on the petition by William Warwick of Salisbury, merchant, presented in the last parliament for letters of marque. The duke of Brittany has been applied to by both the petitioner and the king but has failed to give redress.

35

Included in the bundle of petitions to the parliament of 1433 is an incomplete petition from the town of Shrewsbury. This includes a schedule on the administrative and legal structures of the town, but there is no clear indication of the nature of the petition itself.

Source : PRO C 49/22/1, and C 49/22/3, printed in full in RP , IV.476-80. See note in Public Record Office copy of Rotuli Parliamentorum : 'apparently the fragment referred to is part of SC 8/139/6919. The major part of the petition has apparently been found since and the petition reunited. The schedule to which the fragment was attached and from which this transcript was made is now (March 1926) attached to C49 roll 22. C 49/22/1 consists of a complete duplicate of the petition differently endorsed and a fragmentary duplicate of the schedule'. See also Parliament of 1445, Appendix item 10.

36

Petition of the prior and convent of St Bartholmew Smithfield concerning their water supply.

Source : PRO SC 8/121/6034. See CPR 1429-36 , 296-7. 8 July 1433, grant by the advice and assent of the lords spiritual and temporal in the present parliament to prior and convent. By petition in parliament.

38

In the second session of the parliament the accounts of the Brewers' Company reveal payments 'for divers costes to yeve to divers persones of the parlement for to have viii bushel of clene malt for j quarter'. This was part of an effort to have legislation to establish proper measures for the malt which was used in brewing. Further entries show that this was unsuccessful. They were forced to meet after the parliament to redraft the bill which had been 'leid aside' by the parliament.

Source : M. Davies, 'Lobbying Parliament: the London companies in the fifteenth century', Parchment and People in the Middle Ages , ed. L. Clark (Parliamentary History 23, 2004), 140. See also Parliament of 1437, Appendix item 13.