Henry VI: March 1453

1453 March

Introduction 1453

Reading

6 March - 28 March 1453

Westminster

25 April - 2 July 1453

Reading

12 November 1453

to prorogue to 11 February 1454

Reading

11 February 1454

to announce move to Westminster

Westminster

14 February 1454 - 16/18 April 1454

C 65/102, RP , V.227-271, SR , II.360-369)

C 65/102 is a roll of 27 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 27, 20, 19, 13 and 12 are stained with gallic acid, and a tear at the head of membrane 27 has been stitched. The text, written in an official chancery script, occupies the rectos of the membranes only; the dorses are blank apart from the contemporary heading, and later notes, 'Parliam' apud Redyng 6 die Marcii a ^o xxxi ^o ', where the membranes are joined. The lower halves of membranes 27, 22, 18, 14, 13, 11 and 9 are blank. Marginal headings are contemporary, apart from those added later to item numbers 21 and 55. Arabic numerals throughout the roll are later, but the Roman numerals are contemporary. The roll does not appear to be incomplete. The format of the roll is discussed later.

The parliament of 1453, in being for a total of fifty-five weeks, was the second longest of the reign of Henry VI's reign to date, opening on 6 March 1453 and closing on 17 April 1454. Like the longest parliament of the reign, that of 1445, the parliament of 1453 sat for less than half of its total duration - twenty-one weeks and four days. The first session, lasting only three weeks, was held at Reading in March. A prorogation for Easter was followed by a second session at Westminster for nine and a half weeks from 25 April to 2 July. A prorogation to 12 November was then made. Despite the commons making generous taxation grants in the first and second sessions to underwrite military activity, it proved impossible to hold on to Guienne. The English were defeated in battle at Castillon on 17 July 1453. It is possible that it was news of this disaster which brought on King Henry's debilitating stupor. The exact date of its onset is not clear but most likely occurred in early August. On 13 October 1453, Edward, prince of Wales, was born.

Parliament was due to reconvene at Reading on 12 November, but it was on that day prorogued further, to 11 February 1454, in the hope of the king's recovery. Richard, duke of York, who had been absent from the first two sessions of the parliament, was brought back onto the council in mid- November 1453. A few days later, Edmund Beaufort, duke of Somerset, who had dominated the king's government to this point, was committed to the Tower where he remained until late January-early February 1455, thus being absent from the parliamentary session of 1454. The parliament did reconvene in Reading on 11 February as planned but was immediately transferred to Westminster where it reopened on 14 February 1454. On 13 February, Richard, duke of York was given commission to hold parliament (item 24; Parliament of 1453, Appendix item 1). The king's incapacity continued to raise significant problems, which were finally resolved by York being chosen as protector by the lords on 27 March 1454, with formal appointment on 3 April. The final session and the parliament as a whole was brought to a close in mid April.

Many of these events are reflected in the roll, for instance, the creation of Henry's baby prince, Edward, as prince of Wales on 15 March 1454 (item 48), and the establishment of York's powers as protector (items 33-40). The roll gives a particularly acute insight into the problems facing a government, and indeed a parliament, when the king was incapacitated. In this context the parliament divides neatly into two phases, the first preceding the king's illness and the second dealing with the consequences of royal incapacity. No other parliament of the reign embraces what was tantamount to a change in regime, from the king and Somerset, to York and a council. The first seven membranes of the roll (27 to 21) are the proceedings of the first phase. Membrane 20 forms a point of transition since it begins with the enrolment of the prorogation of 2 July and the king's handing over of schedules signed by his own hand, but also contains the subsequent prorogations and appointment of a new speaker at the beginning of the final session. The next seven membranes (19 to 13) derive from the business of the last session and are in continuous form of entry, suggesting that they were compiled in one go. Membranes 12 and 11 contain the elevation in the first session of the king's half brothers and were therefore inserted in the final roll before three membranes concerning business from the last session (10-8). The next three (7 to 5) concern business of the first phase but have had a entry from the final session concerning Ralph, lord Cromwell added at the end of membrane 5. Common petitions, as in all parliaments, form a self-contained run for membranes from 4 to 1. The third petition (item 65), which dates to the final session, runs directly on from the first two petitions which date to the first phase (items 63 and 64) rather than starting a new membrane. Given the subject matter (the first two were attacks on the Yorkist group and the last an act of the duke's protectorate concerning magnate obedience), this is doubly surprising, but may be simply the result of economizing on parchment rather than a desire to emphasise continuity. As a result of its length and of its phases, the parliament saw a great deal of further business which was not enrolled. This includes a file of petitions and other acts now classified as C 49/32.

Given major political changes over the course of the parliament and the king's incapacity, we might have expected chroniclers to provide expansive treatment, but this is not the case. Giles' Chronicle, for instance, omits any mention of the parliament at all, but does note the king's incapacity and the fact that all the nobles of the realm elected York as protector. (fn. int1453-1) BL Vitellius A XVI notes the arrest of Somerset and the fact that York was made protector 'after Candlemas at the beginning of the parliament'. (fn. int1453-2) Benet provides a fuller account of the various sessions of the parliament, noting its commencement at Reading and the grant of troops and taxation, its transfer to London, its brief meeting at Reading in November and further prorogation. The transfer to London in February is also noted, as is York's protectorship. (fn. int1453-3)

The previous parliament had ended in late May 1451. Wolffe suggests that Henry's government was much the stronger for the concessions made there over resumption, and for the king's perambulations into southern counties over the summer of 1451. (fn. int1453-4) But the position in the overseas dominions remained parlous. Although Sir Richard Woodville, lord Rivers, had been appointed seneschal of Guienne on 18 October 1450, there were repeated delays in arranging for the crossing of himself and his troops. By 30 June 1451 Bordeaux had surrendered to the count of Dunois. As a result, Woodville's proposed expedition was finally cancelled in mid August 1451 and moneys raised for it were diverted to the defence of Calais, where there were continuing fears of French attack. (fn. int1453-5) On 26 January 1452 commissioners were appointed in Kent, Surrey and Sussex to negotiate loans, since it had been decided that the best measure would be for the king to cross to Calais in person with an army. The recourse to loans was on the grounds that, as the commission noted, 'it is not possible to convoke the three estates and commonalities of the realm to parliament'. (fn. int1453-6) It is interesting to speculate why a parliament was not summoned at this point. Perhaps the need for money was seen to be too urgent. On the same day that the commission for loans was issued, Woodville and others were appointed to arrest ships to resist the enemy and for the king's voyage to Calais. (fn. int1453-7)

Reinforcements were sent to Calais in June 1452, although the king never crossed in person. In the same month John Talbot, earl of Shrewsbury (d. July 1453), indented to serve with an army of 5,000 ' for the keeping of the sea in which journey he must perform great good': it is possible that the English at this stage were contemplating a new invasion of Normandy, which may have drawn the French away from an assault on Calais. Informed by intelligence that the inhabitants of Guienne were smarting at their new French masters, Shrewsbury was appointed lieutenant in Guienne on 2 September 1452, sailing there with his army in mid October. He immediately recovered Bordeaux and went on to re-establish control in the hinterland by the end of the year. Preparations were soon in hand for the sending of reinforcements. On 29 and 30 January 1453 Shrewsbury's son by his second marriage, John, viscount Lisle, and several others indented to cross with troops to serve for three months. Musters were fixed for 5 March. (fn. int1453-8)

The costs of the defence of Calais, the keeping of the sea and the reconquest of Guienne were considerable. The earl of Shrewsbury had had to impose heavy levies on the inhabitants of the areas which he recovered, and there was now a new expedition to fund. On 21 December 1452 commissioners for loans were appointed in thirty-one counties, at which point shipping was being arrested for the passage of reinforcements. The loans were to be raised as quickly as possible, and further efforts were made to raise money by letters sent to individuals under the privy seal, an arrangement which has been interpreted as obligatory aids legitimately demanded by the crown at a time of emergency. (fn. int1453-9) What was desperately needed was parliamentary taxation to repay these various loans as well as to sustain new military activities. There seems little doubt that the decision to call a parliament was largely influenced by this. Writs of summons were issued on 20 and 21 January 1453 for a meeting at Reading on 6 March. (fn. int1453-10)

Although the parliament roll gives only a vague indication of the purpose of assembly - no details of a sermon are provided and only the routine phrases of 'wise and sound governance and defence of the realm' are cited in the opening item - the fact that a lay subsidy was granted in the first session, along with a very generous extension to the trade taxes and a levy of troops, makes the link to military needs and plans even more apparent. Furthermore, by the beginning of 1453 the crown's taxation income needed some renewal. The last instalment of the lay subsidy voted in the parliament of February 1449 had been collected at Michaelmas 1452. The grants of tunnage and poundage and of the wool subsidy made at that same parliament were not due to expire until April 1454, but the tax on aliens had seen its final levy in 1452. The levy on incomes which had been agreed in the parliament of November 1449, and confirmed with amendments in that of November 1450, had yielded a disappointing return and was still not fully collected even in 1453. It must by now have been realised that the hope of gaining much more income from it was unlikely.

Much had happened in the political sphere since the previous parliament had closed in May 1451. Relations between the duke of York and the king had soured over the autumn of that year, fanned by an accusation against Sir William Oldhall, York's associate and speaker in the November 1450 parliament, that he had plotted to kill the king. In late November 1451, Oldhall took sanctuary in the church of St Martin le Grand in London. In late January 1452 the duke of Somerset, on behalf of the king, tried unsuccessfully to have Oldhall removed from sanctuary. Over the next month York began explicitly to accuse Somerset not only of failure to defend his current charge of Calais but also of culpability for the loss of Normandy and Guienne, adding that Somerset was also intent upon turning the king against York, and even of bringing about the latter's disinheritance. York now expressed his intention to have the duke of Somerset removed, by force if necessary. The denouement came through York's meeting with the king at Dartford in early March. Charges were certainly laid against Somerset, but these cut little ice with the king or the other lords. York was forced to make a public declaration to the king of his loyalty and future good behaviour, and his supporters to seek pardons. (fn. int1453-11) Over the summer the duke was confined to his estates whilst arbitration was attempted between himself and Somerset. Oldhall was finally indicted at Peterborough in November 1452 and at Hitchin on 19 March 1453, being outlawed at the beginning of the next month. As we shall see, he was attainted for treason in the second session of the parliament of 1453 (item 64).

By the time the parliament opened on 6 March 1453, therefore, the king, and his principal adviser, the duke of Somerset, were in a very strong position. The prospects of recovery in Guienne must have seemed considerable, and gave a further boost to a government already made more popular by the success of the resumption agreed in the previous parliament. As Wolffe puts it, the parliament of 1453 met 'in circumstances uniquely favourable to Henry', and was 'the most cooperative and generous one Henry ever met'. (fn. int1453-12) As for Somerset himself, his dominance was confirmed when the king granted him precedence over the duke of Norfolk in parliament (Parliament of 1453, Appendix item 37). The position of the king was no doubt further enhanced when the pregnancy of the queen became apparent.

In the writs issued on 20 and 21 January 1453 fourteen law officers were called upon. The names of 280 possible MPs are known, although this includes cases of one man being returned for more than one place. (fn. int1453-13) The total number of seats had been increased to 288 by the revival of the representation of Poole, Bramber, Steyning and Coventry. As Virgoe notes, 'not since 1447 had so many courtiers been returned to the commons'. (fn. int1453-14) At least sixty-one household men are known to have sat, 17101207254f the commons. Bale's Chronicle claims that at this parliament 'the commons took a displeasure because they were restrained from free election of the knights of the shire'. (fn. int1453-15) There is nothing in the roll on this, but it may be related to events in Suffolk. There, the duke of Norfolk had tried to put influence on the shire officials and local gentry to return his nominees, only to find that the sheriff manipulated the date of the election to ensure the return of men sympathetic to the court. This led to Norfolk petitioning the council on 27 May 1454, after the end of the parliament, against the sheriff's behaviour. (fn. int1453-16)

Twenty of the episcopate were summoned in person, with a writ also being sent to the keeper of the spiritualities of Coventry and Lichfield. By 26 March 1453, however, Reginald Boulers, translated from Hereford, had been granted the temporalities of Coventry and Lichfield. He was succeeded at Hereford by John Stanbury, translated from Bangor, who was also granted the temporalities of his new see on 26 March 1453. His successor in Bangor, James Blakedon, was translated in February 1453. Thomas Bekyngton, bishop of Bath and Wells, had been exempted on 18 June 1452 from coming to parliament on account of his age and infirmity but was permitted to send proctors. (fn. int1453-17) Twenty-seven abbots and priors were summoned, the same list as in 1450 with the addition of William Babington, abbot of Bury. The latter died around October 1453, and a successor was elected (Parliament of 1453, Appendix item 4).

As for lay lords, five dukes were summoned as in the previous parliament (York, Somerset, Norfolk, Buckingham and Exeter). But whereas for the parliament of 1450 nine earls were summoned, twelve were called in 1453. The nine summoned in 1453 and in 1450 were Northumberland, Salisbury, Westmorland, Devon, Arundel, Oxford, Worcester and Warwick, and Wiltshire. The last named had also become earl of Ormond after the death of his father on 23 August 1452, and during the second session of the parliament was appointed lieutenant in Ireland, replacing the duke of York. It is likely that his petition concerning the burial place of his father was dealt with at this same session (item 57). A summons was also issued to John Talbot, earl of Shrewsbury. His presence at the parliament is problematic. He was appointed a trier of petitions (item 4), yet is commonly believed to have remained in Guienne from his crossing in October 1452 to his death at the battle of Castillon on 17 July 1453. He was succeeded as earl by his eldest son, also called John, who was present at the last session of the parliament, where a petition was put forward by him to the commons concerning payment for his service in the keeping of the seas (item 61).

The two other new earls were the king's half brothers, Edmund Tudor, earl of Richmond, and Jasper Tudor, earl of Pembroke. Edmund, born around 1430, had been created earl on 23 November 1452. Jasper (born circa 1431) was probably elevated on the same date, and was certainly an earl by 20 January 1453 when the writs of summons were issued. (fn. int1453-18) These elevations were ratified in the roll of the parliament, with the relevant letters being dated by the first day of the parliament, 6 March 1453 (items 50-53). Griffiths suggests that there was a 'ceremony of ennoblement' held on the first day of the parliament but there is nothing in the roll to confirm this. (fn. int1453-19) As with other peerage creations noted in the rolls, the language deployed makes for interesting reading, with its emphasis on how it befits a monarch, in emulation of the divine majesty, to give each man his due deserts, and how personal virtue should be rewarded. In the case of Henry's half-brothers there is the additional stress on the memory of Queen Katherine and their close kinship with the king himself. Edmund Tudor married Margaret Beaufort, niece of the duke of Somerset, around March 1453, further enhancing the position of the duke.

Three viscounts were summoned. Two of these, Henry Bourgchier and John Beaumont had been summoned on many previous occasions. The fourth son of the earl of Shrewsbury, who had previously been summoned as John, lord Lisle, had been elevated to a viscountcy on 30 October 1451. (fn. int1453-20) He may have attended the first session, but he is known to have crossed to Guienne in early March, dying alongside his father at Castillon on 17 July 1453. There were thirty-six further lay peers summoned. There were only two changes from the previous parliament. George Neville, lord Latimer, who had not received a summons for the parliament of November 1450, did so on this occasion, although he is thought to have become a lunatic by June 1451. (fn. int1453-21) William, lord Fitzhugh had died on 22 October 1452. (fn. int1453-22) His son, Henry, was of age, but did not receive a summons to the parliament at the outset, he was in attendance by the final session. William, lord Lovel, born in 1397, received a summons but was exempted from further attendance on 17 May 1453 on account of his infirmities. (fn. int1453-23)

As ever, it is difficult to know which peers actually attended, especially given the number of sessions. It is extremely unlikely that York attended any part of the first or second sessions, (fn. int1453-24) and we have already noted the problem over the attendance of the first earl of Shrewsbury and his son, Viscount Lisle. There exist two lists of peers in a later hand which may relate to this parliament, being drawn up to reflect the seating order. But historians are not certain of the validity or dating of these lists. (fn. int1453-25) On 13 February 1454, the day before parliament reassembled, the duke of York was given commission to hold the parliament given the incapacity of the king. Twenty six lords were present to agree to this, ten diocesans and sixteen lay lords. The commission is mentioned on the roll (item 24) but the list of lords present is to be found in a chancery warrant (Parliament of 1453, Appendix item 1). When parliament reopened on 14 February, there was a disappointing level of attendance on the part of the lords. Roskell suggests that some 'had shown their reluctance to commit themselves personally by staying away from parliament altogether in this difficult time'. (fn. int1453-26) This explains the petition put forward on 28 February (item 46) complaining about the non-attendance of 'divers and mony Lordes of this land as well spiritual as temporal', and suggesting that fines should be levied from them. The source of this petition is not clear, but it presumably reflects the feeling of York and others that collective action was desperately needed in the light of the king's continuing incapacity. The petition was accepted and fines imposed on those who had not come to the session beginning on 14 February. These fines were levied according to rank, £100 for an archbishop or duke, 100 marks for a bishop or earl and £40 for an abbot or baron. Roskell makes two interesting observations: firstly, that these rates were similar to those proposed in the Modus tenendi parliamentum , and secondly that fines for non-attendance were common in Ireland where York had previously served as lieutenant.

Fines were imposed on three bishops, eighteen abbots and priors, and fifteen lay peers. (fn. int1453-27) Some exceptions were allowed, such as Somerset and Cobham who were at this point in prison, Rivers, Wells and Moleyns who were abroad on royal business, and Beaumont and St Armand who were in attendance on the king during his illness. Those who were absent because of infirmity were also liable to pay a fine although in such cases the level was to be set by the council. Thus on 24 May 1454, five weeks after the end of the parliament, the council decided on the reduced levels which were to be paid by a further three bishops, five abbots, and seven lay lords (Parliament of 1453, Appendix item 3). A petition to the king and council asks for a fine of £40 for non-attendance at parliament to be lifted on the grounds that the new abbot of Bury St Edmunds (John Boon) had been elected after the parliament had been summoned. This was agreed on 15 April 1454 'with the advice of the lords spiritual and temporal in the parliament of the king then congregated' (Parliament of 1453, Appendix item 4). The fine imposed on the abbot of Gloucester was allegedly also excused for the same reason. (fn. int1453-28) Lord Saye was initially fined, but on 29 May 1454 the exchequer was ordered to lift this fine on the grounds that he had not been absent at all 'but within the said time was with us and with other lords of our parliament present in the same'. (fn. int1453-29)

As we know the names of absentees, we can ascertain by process of elimination who might have been present in parliament at the end of February 1454, namely twelve diocesans, six abbots and priors, and twenty-seven lay lords, a total of forty-five out of the one hundred and five summoned. Roskell has noted that thirty-eight lords can be shown to have been present in parliament between 15 March and 16 April, and that the majority were members of the council, implying that the less involved peers were those who had stayed away. It is important to remember that the non-attendance of the lords was not particularly worse in 1454 than it had been on other occasions in the reign. What was significant was the strategy of fining to remind them of their duties.

There are some interesting observations to be made on attendance. The first is that ten who can be shown to be present in the final session were lay peers who do not seem to have received summons to the parliament at the outset. (fn. int1453-30) Two had been summoned to previous parliaments: William Neville, lord Fauconberg, who had not received summons since 1447, owing no doubt to his military commitments in France and on the Scottish border, and William Fiennes, lord Saye and Sele, who had been summoned in 1451 but who may have been serving at Calais in the meantime. Eight had neither been summoned to or appeared in parliament before: Richard Welles, lord Willoughby, the son of Leo, lord Welles and husband of Joan, daughter of Robert, lord Willoughby (the latter had died on 25 July 1452); Henry, lord Fitzhugh, whose father had died on 22 October 1452; Walter Devereux, lord Ferrers of Chartley, who had married Anne, daughter of William de Ferrers (d. 9 June 1450), John Bourgchier, lord Berners (fourth son of William Bourgchier), whose first summons was in 1455. Richard West, lord de la Warre, whose father had died on 27 August and who came of age in 1451; Henry, lord Grey of Codnor, whose father had died in 1444, and who was still only nineteen in 1454; John, lord Strange, whose father had also died in 1444 and who may still have been under age in 1454. The inclusion of two peers under age gives further evidence of the desire to have as many peers as possible present at this time of political difficulty caused by the king's illness.

Moreover, there are variations when we compare the list of those at a council meeting on 15 March 1454 with those recording their names on the parliament roll on the same day in a schedule concerning the creation of the king's son, Edward, as prince of Wales (item 48). The twenty-two named on the schedule were the two archbishops, seven bishops (London, Durham, Salisbury, Ely, Norwich, Lincoln, and Carlisle), two dukes (York and Buckingham), five earls (Pembroke, Warwick, Oxford, Salisbury, Wiltshire), the two viscounts, one prior (of St John of Jerusalem), and three other lords listed as knights (Fauconberg, Willoughby and Stourton). Yet twenty-eight lords are listed as attending the council on the same day, giving powers to doctors to prescribe medications for the king. (fn. int1453-31) Nineteen are as in the parliament list. The bishops of London, Salisbury and Carlisle were not at the council, but those of Winchester, Worcester, Hereford, Coventry and Lichfield were. Also at the council but not in the parliament list was the earl of Devon, who had been cleared of charges of treason in the parliament on 14 March (item 49). All of the other lay lords were at both, with Graystoke (or Greystoke), Clinton, Scrope, Fiennes and Talbot (Shrewsbury) being the additional peers at the council. The prior of St John was the sole religious both at the council and on the parliament list. Cardinal John Kemp, archbishop of Canterbury, died on 22 March, but is known to have been present at the parliament as late as 19 March (item 30)

Towards the end of the parliament, the lords who were present agreed to supply men or give service for the rescue of Calais. Those who were absent were sent letters on 17 April, which was probably the last day of the parliament, requesting they lend money or send men for the same purpose. (fn. int1453-32) This letter noted the generosity of 'such lords of this our land as have been present now late in our parliament ...each of them granting a notable number of people at their charge for the rescue of the said siege and many of them to go in their persons'. The recipients of these letters total fifty-nine lords, comprising six bishops, nineteen abbots and twenty-six other lay magnates. We can show that several of these had been present at some point during the parliament but may have departed before its end.

Parliament opened at in the refectory of Reading Abbey on Tuesday 6 March 1453. The chancellor, John Kemp, who had been translated to the archbishopric of Canterbury in July 1452, was absent. According to the roll (item 1), the parliament was opened by William, bishop of Lincoln, but as the bishop of Lincoln was at this point John Chedworth, this must be a scribal error for William Waynflete, bishop of Winchester, who was amongst those appointed as triers of petitions. When the commons came before the duke of York in the fourth session on 19 March 1454 (item 30), they claimed that at the commencement of 'this present parliament at Reading', the chancellor had spoken about the setting up of a 'sadde and wise' council of wise and discreet peers to whom all people might have recourse in the administration of justice. This suggests that Kemp was present early in the first session even if he was absent at the opening. There is no reference on the roll to the setting up of such a council. Indeed, as we shall see, the commons' complaint in March 1454 was that they had not been informed of the actual establishment of such a council. Another intriguing allusion to the business of the parliament exists in a royal letter sent to the earls of Salisbury and Northumberland on 8 October 1453, where it is noted that 'also that in our parliament which is still continued ('yit continued'), you and all other lords were warned that if any of you felt himself aggrieved against another, he should put his complaint in writing'. (fn. int1453-33) There is nothing on the roll about such an order, although the prorogation of 2 July 1453 with its reference to the king's intention to travel to various parts of his realm to end riots and misdeeds (item 20) would no doubt provide a context for such a command to be made collectively to the lords as they left parliament, and also for a commons complaint about the peace being badly kept (Parliament of 1453, Appendix item 38).

After the appointment of receivers and triers of petitions (items 2-5), the speaker was presented on Thursday 8 March (item 6). The choice fell on Thomas Thorpe. (fn. int1453-34) He had considerable administrative experience in the Exchequer as a summoner and from 1444 to 1452 as Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer, and had links with the Beaufort family. Although Thorpe had lost his post when York's associate, John Tiptoft, earl of Worcester, became treasurer of England on 15 April 1452, his links with Edmund Beaufort were strong enough for him to be promised the reversion of the chancellorship of the Exchequer in November 1452 as well as £200 for the vexations he had suffered. By the time parliament met he may already have become third baron of the exchequer; certainly he occupied this post by 26 April 1453.

A reference in the records of the privy council for November 1453 notes the following: 'Remembering also many and divers declarations made in parliament before this time by the treasurers of England as Lords Cromwell, Sudeley, Saye, the bishop of Carlisle and the lord Beauchamp and others, and especially by the right noble lord, the earl of Worcester, current treasurer of England, in the last parliament of the state of this land'. (fn. int1453-35) This implies that Worcester had presented to the parliament of 1453 the customary budget statement at the beginning of his treasurership. He had been appointed on 15 April 1452 so that this parliament provided the first opportunity to do so. There is no mention of this in the roll, but what he disclosed may have influenced the commons generosity in taxation grants in the first session of the parliament.

The first session which lasted only three weeks until the prorogation for Easter, which was pronounced by the chancellor, Cardinal Kemp, on Wednesday 28 March, two days before Good Friday, with the new session due to commence at Westminster on 25 April (item 12). On the day of the prorogation, the commons' grant of a tenth and fifteenth was announced through the Speaker (item 7). (fn. int1453-36) The reduction for impoverished places was fixed at £6,000, the same rate as in the parliament of February 1449. Lincoln and Great Yarmouth were once again totally exempted. Half of the subsidy was to be paid on 11 November 1453 with the remainder a year later. It was further ordered at the end of the grant that any who had made loans to the king since 29 September 1452 were to have these loans repaid directly from the tax render under the supervision of the commissioners for the loans, the knights of the shires, and the citizens and burgesses of the present parliament. On the same day, 28 March, the commons granted tunnage and poundage to the king from 3 April 1453 for life (item 8), (fn. int1453-37) although there was still a year of the grant made in the February 1449 parliament to run (Parliament of February 1449, item 9). The rates set in 1453 were at 3s per tun of wine for denizens and 6s for aliens, the same as in February 1449. Poundage was also kept the same for both home and alien merchants at 12d in every pound's worth of imported or exported goods, although a higher rate of 2s in the pound for alien merchants was imposed on tin. The customary exemption of cloth was not allowed on this occasion but imports of corn, flour, fish and live animals were excluded from the duties, as were exports of victuals and ale for the supply of the town and marches of Calais.

In addition a subsidy on wool, woolfells and hides was granted also from 3 April 1453 for the rest of the king's life (item 9), although there was also still a year to run on the grant of February 1449 (Parliament of February 1449, item 15). This was set at 43s 4d for denizen merchants on each sack of wool and 240 woolfells, 10s more than in the previous grant of 1449 and omitting any special terms for wools produced in the north. In addition, the 1453 grant imposed a levy of 100s on every last of hides. For alien merchants the rate was 100s per sack and 240 woolfells. This almost doubled the previous rate for aliens of 53s 4d set in 1449, and was accompanied by a further levy of 106s 8d on every last of hides. As a concession, alien merchants were released from the terms of the grant made in the parliament of February 1449.

The terms of the wool subsidy diverted 13s 4d of each payment for the wages of soldiers at Calais and 6s 8d for victuals there. These sums were now to be controlled directly by the treasurer of Calais rather than the English Exchequer. (fn. int1453-38) It was also agreed that enough should be diverted to the repair of the Tower of Rysbank and its jetty as the council thought necessary. The rights of Humphrey, duke of Buckingham, established at the parliament of November 1449, to a share of the customs and subsidies arising at the port of Sandwich for the financing of his arrears during his tenure of the captaincy of Calais, (which had ended in December 1450), were also confirmed, as were those of the queen. The privileges of the city of Lincoln to ship 60 sacks of wool tax free were preserved (Parliament of 1453, Appendix item 46).

On 28 March, the commons also announced their grant of a poll tax on aliens for the lifetime of the king (item 10), the grant of February 1449 having expired in 1452 (Parliament of February 1449, item 14). The basic rates were as before: 16d per head for householders and 6d for non-householders, but those born in Guienne and Normandy who were not householders in England were included, whereas they had been excluded in February 1449. The rates for alien merchants (with specific nationalities being noted) were charged a higher rate of 40s and 20s respectively, a marked increase on the 6s 8d for merchants and 6s 8d for their clerks in the previous levy. Although the grant was intended to be paid 'at Easter and Michaelmas next coming' and then at the same feasts for the rest of the king's life, commissions for collection were not issued until 12 November 1454, when it was ordered that the four payments due since the grant was made should be collected retrospectively. (fn. int1453-39)

Given that there was no thought at the point of the grant that there would be any delay in collection of the alien subsidy, we must conclude that the commons' generosity at the end of the first session was considerable. Well might the chancellor, as he announced the prorogation for Easter, thank the commons for their 'faithfulness, tenderness and immense goodwill'. And well might the commons remind York, when he hoped for further grants in the last session, that the grants they had made at the beginning of the parliament 'were as extensive as they can remember having been given to the king by his commons or to any of his noble progenitors' (item 30). Indeed, there is an unenrolled petition dating to this parliament where the commons request that the lay subsidy be properly spent for the defence of the realm, complaining that 'many and great notable sums of money from the subsidy, by sinister suggestion made to you, our sovereign, have been employed to contrary use' (Parliament of 1453, Appendix item 9). It is unclear whether this petition belongs to the parliament in its first phase to 2 July 1453, or to the last session presided over by York when the commons reminded the protector of their previous generosity.

Fortified by taxation grants at the end of the first session, the government was able to make repayments in early April to the earl of Shrewsbury (d. 1453) with parliamentary consent (Parliament of 1453, Appendix item 13). Since the trade taxes and alien subsidy were now granted for the king's life there was also assurance of revenue for the future. In practice, of course, the trade taxes had already become effectively 'perpetual' since parliaments had always agreed to their continuation, and the alien subsidy was effectively an extension of that of 1449, although there had not been a continuous levy before that point. In all contexts, the desire to increase the burden on alien merchants is clear, a consciously xenophobic response to the loss of most of the country's continental possessions since the last grants were made at the parliament of February 1449. The burden on alien merchants was no doubt also linked to the imposition of tolls by the Burgundians on wool purchased at Calais for importation into their lands. This prompted a common petition of protest, which requested that no shipments should be made to the Low Countries unless the duke lowered the toll. The petition contained further complaints against foreign merchants, including the Lombards. However, the petition was not accepted, and not even enrolled (Parliament of 1453, Appendix item 12). That it likely dates to the first session is suggested by the fact that it asked for the ban on shipments to Burgundian lands to take effect from 3 April 1453.

It is also important to note that the government had returned to tried and tested ways of levying money through the lay subsidy, trade taxes, and an alien subsidy, and did not experiment again with a subsidy on lands and fees as they had in the parliament of November 1449. But there was a new form of grant agreed by the commons at the end of the first session in 1453 - the levy of 20,000 archers to serve the king for 6 months (item 11). These men were to be levied locally and paid for by the inhabitants of the towns and shires, 'equally according to their substance'. This was essentially a resurrection of use of the shire levies, something which members of the council had advised in deliberations during the February 1449 parliament (Parliament of February 1449, Appendix item 2). Presumably the archers were intended for a major showing of English strength in France, presumably in Guienne, rather than, or at least as well as, in the defence of Calais and of England itself. (fn. int1453-40) The terms of the grant do not, however, specify any location or use. Although the commons had agreed to the levy of archers in outline, they requested that they should have time and space to consider further how the archers should be raised and paid for. Once this had been sorted out, the archers were to be raised with four months notice. Significantly, given the evident opposition in the palatinate of Chester to the subsidy on lands and the act of resumption, (fn. int1453-41) the levy specifically included Cheshire and Wales.

Parliament reassembled at Westminster on 25 April 1453. (fn. int1453-42) On this day, it was announced that the king had discharged the commons of liability for 7,000 out of the 20,000 archers, implying that there had been reflection on the matter during the parliamentary recess. This 7,000 was to be apportioned as follows: 3,000 from Wales and Cheshire, 3,000 from the lords of the realm, and a further 1,000 from sources unspecified (item 13). As for the remaining 13,000, it was agreed that one point of muster should be established, four months notice given, and that the whole group should be kept together in the king's service thenceforward. The allocation of numbers required from each county and from leading towns towards the 13,000 was then stated (item 14). Commissioners were to be appointed who would assess the liability of inhabitants based on their moveable goods and revenues from lands, rents, etc. [This may have been an attempt to link to the 1450 assessment on incomes.] Exceptions were given for Eton, King's College, the queen, and enfeoffed lands, and lands and incomes already taxed through the clerical tenth through convocation. The archers were to receive 6d per day, a level of pay customary for archers throughout the century, and were to indent with their captains. This levy is therefore a rather strange combination of a shire levy and contracted army.

The levy of archers was never made. The commons indicated at some point in the second session that in return for its deferral, they would make a financial grant for the rescue of Guienne (item 15). The levy was thus deferred for two years calculated from Easter next [presumably 1454], although it was agreed that if the king wished to himself be involved in the defence of the land in person (fn. int1453-43) or if some emergency arose, then the levy could be made on three months notice. Indeed, it is interesting to note that technically the potentiality of the levy remained. One of the reasons given by the chancellor for the calling of the 1455 parliament was 'to advertise and ordain how and when the 13,000 archers granted in the last parliament should be employed' (Parliament of 1455, item 11). In 1457 a commission was issued to men in each county to assign the contribution of archers by each hundred and assess the goods inhabitants had for their support 'pursuant to proceedings begun at the parliament at Reading on 6 March 1453' (Parliament of 1453, Appendix item 25). (fn. int1453-44) The notion that the grant was still live lingered on for several years to come. When Edward IV was granted a similar 13,000 archers in 1472, the commons felt it necessary to request a promise that he would thereby give up the levy granted in 1453. (fn. int1453-45)

If the government's request for a levy of archers in 1453 had been no more than a way of putting pressure on the commons to vote more cash, then it worked. On 2 July, the end of the second session, the speaker announced the grant by the commons, with the assent of the lords, of a half tenth and fifteenth, with the deduction of £3,000 for impoverished places (item 19). But the grant was already known since commissioners to collect both it and the first whole tenth and fifteenth had been appointed on 12 June. (fn. int1453-46) The half subsidy was to be paid in two instalments, on 2 February and 24 June 1454. Lincoln and Great Yarmouth were exempted as usual. This money was clearly intended to underpin loans to support the sending of troops to Guienne. There is evidence of attempts beginning shortly after parliament was prorogued for loans to be raised. (fn. int1453-47) On 7 July efforts were made to persuade Thomas Percy, lord Egremont to go to Guienne 'to do us service of war'. (fn. int1453-48) On 25 July indentures were drawn up for William Fiennes, lord Saye and others with muster intended on 20 August. (fn. int1453-49) In fact the army never sailed. Shrewsbury had been defeated and killed at Castillon on 17 July, although news of this did not get to England until several weeks later. Orders were still being sent out in early August for ships to be raised for troops to go to his aid, (fn. int1453-50) but news of French manoeuvres to block access to the Gironde led to the English abandoning the effort to send a relieving army and supplies. Bordeaux had to be surrendered to the French on 19 October. If the dominant issue at the second session had been how to retain Guienne, then all of the debate and all of the commons' generosity had in effect been in vain.

Other items can be dated to the second session. Edmund Beaufort petitioned as captain of Calais concerning £21,648 10s owed from the time of his appointment on 21 September 1451 to 6 June 1453, the last date suggesting that the petition dates to this session. He asked for and was granted the right to payment from the customs duties of Sandwich once Buckingham's arrears had been satisfied (item 16). The following item on the roll notes a decision agreed by the commons and lords on 16 May 1453, that, to pay for repairs at Calais and in particular for the jetty at Rysbank, £9,300 from the first lay subsidy should be used, £5,300 from the first instalment and rest from the second instalment (item 17). These sums were to come from the contributions of named counties but were not to jeopardize assignments already made for the wages of Viscount Lisle, Lord Moleyns, Lord Camoys and others in their company 'for the defence of this land'. Item 18 was a petition to the king in parliament by the treasurer and victualler of Calais over the diversion of part of the wool subsidy to their support. This must also belong to the second session as it clarifies the distribution of taxation agreed at the end of the first session.

The first of the common petitions on the roll concerned Cade and his rebellion, and belongs to either the first or second session (item 63). This asked for John Cade, otherwise known as Mortimer, to be declared a traitor. The parliament of 1450 had already seen the king assent to a common petition that Cade should be attained for treason and be deemed a traitor for his actions between 8 and 11 July 1450 (Parliament of 1450, item 19). [He had a pardon up to 7 July and was killed on 12th]. The petition of 1453 was longer and waxed more fulsomely on Cade's evil deeds. It asked not only that he should be declared a false traitor but also that 'all his tyranny, acts, deeds and false opinions' should be annulled and cast out of mind, and that any indictments made 'under the power of his tyranny' likewise be invalidated 'and that no man's blood be thereby defouled or corrupted but by the authority of this your present parliament cleared and declared for ever'. The specific meaning of this is made clear by the additional request that all petitions submitted to the king in the parliament of November 1450 'against your will and not agreed by you' should be made null and void and consigned to oblivion, as being 'against the king's regality'. What was at issue here was the petition made in 1450 against the duke of Somerset and others who were deemed to have behaved improperly and were to be removed from the king's person (Parliament of 1450, item 16). (fn. int1453-51) It is highly significant that this attack was now being publicly associated with the earlier actions of Cade, and thereby completely discredited. Interestingly, the recitation of the evil deeds perpetrated by Cade in his rebellion 'under colour of justice and reformation of your laws' includes the 'putting away and removing from your said person' of royal servants and liegemen, a deliberate echo of the 1450 petition against Somerset and others and an interesting example of continuity between parliaments in language and memory.

The petition concerning Cade needs to be read alongside that concerning Sir William Oldhall which immediately follows it as the second of the common petitions in 1453 (item 64). This asked for Oldhall to be deemed a traitor. Amongst his offences it listed his counsel to John Cade and others as well as to those who took the field at Dartford in March 1452, thereby linking the two petitions together. It can be suggested also that the reference in the common petition on Cade to petitions submitted to the king in the parliament of November 1450 'against your will and not agreed by you' was a further attack on Oldhall, given that he had been speaker at that very parliament. That the wording of the two petitions was intended as a indirect but obvious attack by Somerset and his associates on the duke of York is given further credence by the reminder in the petition concerning Cade that he also called himself Mortimer. The petition against Oldhall belongs to either the first or the second session, most likely the second since it mentions grants made before 22 June. That against Cade may be similarly dated.

A more substantial attack on York and his followers may have been made in the parliament at this stage. An unenrolled petition from the parliament of 1455 includes within its text a common petition which it claims was made at the parliament of 1453 (Parliament of 1455, Appendix item 2). This asked that all grants made to any of those who had 'assembled in the field at Dartford' against the king and his kingdom should be deemed void and taken into royal hands. This was effectively asking for an act of resumption against those involved in the incident. Later in the petition they are described as 'your traitors assembled in the field at Dartford', although none is named. The petition of 1455 has it that an act was made in the previous parliament as a result of this petition, but there is nothing on the roll of that parliament. It was during the second session on 12 May that York lost his lieutenancy of Ireland, which was granted for ten years to James Ormond, earl of Wiltshire, now also earl of Ormond, who had a close association with the king dating back to the coronation expedition. (fn. int1453-52) It is possible that York's loss of this office as also of his life office as justice of the forests south of Trent (which was given to Somerset on 2 July 1453) (fn. int1453-53) were as a result of this act. As we shall see, when the last session of the parliament opened, the speaker, Thomas Thorpe, was accused by York of stealing his property from the London house of the bishop of Durham. Thorpe's defence was that he acted on royal orders, providing perhaps another example of the effect of the supposed act on York. (fn. int1453-54) Oldhall's property was also confiscated, but there is no evidence of widespread deprivation of offices and grants against York and his associates in the summer of 1453. This may be, of course, because the king's illness intervened and disrupted any plan to act more fully, or because, as Watts suggests, the crown never dared to go so far as to accuse York of treason. (fn. int1453-55) The repeal of the act in the parliament of 1455 was asked for on the grounds that it was ambiguous about the 'faith, truth and loyalty of many of your true liegemen' and which, if not removed, might lead to 'great and dangerous division amongst the lords'. Once again, no detail was given as to who these lords might be.

The unenrolled petition of 1455 gained royal assent, but the matter remains shrouded in mystery, not least because one might have imagined that such an important act of the 1453 parliament would have been enrolled. It may be, of course, that it was included in the draft membranes, but that it was excluded when the roll was compiled at the end of the parliament, since by then York was protector. Yet, against this argument, the petitions against Cade and Oldhall (items 63 and 64) were allowed to remain on the roll. And surely there would have been time in the last session of the parliament of 1453 for any act against the Dartford traitors to have been formally annulled. This raises a more important general point about parliamentary business over a long parliament with several sessions. Might it be that its exclusion from the roll of the 1453 parliament was considered by York to be enough for its annulment? In other words, even though an act was agreed in an earlier session, it was not deemed to be effective unless enrolled on the final roll. In this interpretation, perhaps it was decided to make doubly sure by having the act formally repealed at the following parliament. But therein lies another mystery: why were such an important common petition and decision not enrolled on the roll of the 1455 parliament when the rehabilitations of Thomas Young and William Oldhall were (Parliament of 1455, items 14 and 26)? (fn. int1453-56)

There can be little doubt of the dominance of Somerset and what we might deem 'the court party' in the first two sessions of the parliament of 1453. This is also revealed by an unenrolled item which granted 'by the authority of the present parliament' that Alice, widow of William de la Pole, duke of Suffolk, should have the wardship and marriage of her son John, and the keeping of his lands during his minority (Parliament of 1453, Appendix item 14). This reversed an award of 1 June 1451 which committed these rights to others. This award was surrendered on 1 May 1453 as a result of an act made at the parliament. The grant to Alice must belong to either the first or the second session, more likely the latter. This is also the case for schedules which the king handed over signed by his own hand and which he requested to be inserted on the roll (item 21). These gave exemptions to the act of resumption of the previous parliament, and other ordinances concerning controls on finance, to several persons, including his half brothers who had recently been elevated to earldoms, and various officers of the household. The generous revisions of arrangements to the queen's dower date to either the first or second session, probably the latter since they were confirmed by charter on 21 July. (fn. int1453-57) This is further indicated by the fact that they were presented to the commons in a schedule sealed with the sign manual of the king (items 59 and 60). Given that they are found on the same membrane as petitions concerning the earl of Wiltshire/Ormond and Thomas Romayn's chantry in London, it is almost certain that the latter also belong to the same period of the parliament (items 57 and 58).

On 2 July the parliament was prorogued until 12 November to convene once more at Reading (item 20). The closure on 2 July is recorded on the roll, with Thorpe's announcement of the half subsidy being followed by a vote of thanks to the commons by the chancellor and then by the king himself, although the latter's own words were brief. ('We thank you most cordially. Do not doubt that we shall be a gracious and benevolent lord to you.') (fn. int1453-58) The chancellor then spoke of the long and arduous stay in parliament which the lords and commons had sustained, as well as the long duration of the king's own attendance. [Was it already apparent that the king was 'stressed'?]. It was also announced that he intended to travel to various parts of his realm to deal with riots and misdeeds (a repeat of his judicial gyrations between the first and second session of the parliament of 1450). Wolffe suggests that it was disturbances in Yorkshire in particular that 'appeared to require Henry's personal attention', although there were clearly also plans for him to travel to the south-west since we find him in Kingston Lacy (Dorset) on 31 July. (fn. int1453-59) Parliament could not simply be dissolved since there were petitions unanswered, but the usual mantra was also cited - autumn was approaching when lords would indulge in hunting and the commons in harvest. Thus prorogation was made to 12 November. We must assume that this is an accurate record of the causes of the lengthy prorogation and that it was not in any way occasioned by any sign of a decline in the king's mental or physical health. Indeed there is evidence that he presided over a council meeting on 21 July to sort out the dispute between the duke of Somerset and the earl of Warwick over lordships in South Wales, and he had begun a journey to the south-west which was cut short in early August when he succumbed to some kind of breakdown at his palace at Clarendon.

It is not appropriate here to discuss at length the impact of the king's illness on government. The focus will be solely on how it affected the resumption of parliament, which, as we saw, was due to reconvene at Reading on 12 November. It seems likely that discussion on its reassembly was intended at a great council meeting in late October, which was evidently also intended to discuss the breakdown of order in Yorkshire. Letters were sent out for this before 23 October. On that day Sir Thomas Tyrell was sent to the duke of York with new letters since it was noted that York had not received 'such letters as we wrote out for the assembly of this our great council'. (fn. int1453-60) This has been taken to mean that York had initially been deliberately excluded from the summons, but that it was now felt that he should be included. The letter which Tyrell carried to him mentioned that one of the reasons for the calling of the great council was 'to establish peace and unity between the lords of this land. And since there has been and still is, as it is believed, variance between him and some other of the lords, therefore the king wills that he in all haste disposes himself to come to the council peacefully and moderately accompanied'. A likely further catalyst for holding the great council and for the summoning of York was the birth of Prince Edward on 13 October. As Wolffe notes, this made it easier to invite the duke of York back into the fold since he was no longer in any special position as heir presumptive (if that was indeed how he was regarded). (fn. int1453-61) Another observation can be made on the desire to create magnate unity at this point. If Henry VI's death was feared, then, as in 1422 when his father's premature demise had left an infant king, there was a real need for collective action after the birth of Prince Edward. [An intriguing thought here is whether the late reassembly date of 12 November had been set so that it would follow the birth of the royal child.]

Where and by whom the decision to postpone the reopening of parliament was taken is not clear. York did not arrive in London until 12 November. (fn. int1453-62) A council met on 31 October but its business is not known. (fn. int1453-63) Royal letters were issued on 6 November empowering the chancellor to effect a prorogation to 11 February on the grounds of plague in Reading, and that the king, rather euphemistically, 'was unable to come on the said day and to the said place for other reasons'. No change was planned in location, however. The reassembly on 11 February was to be in Reading. These royal letters are cited in the enrolment of the prorogation (item 22). The text implies that the chancellor did address some kind of assembly in Reading on 12 November, the day parliament was due to reopen, summarizing the previous sessions and prorogations, although, significantly perhaps, omitting any mention of the king's plans to undertake a judicial itineration over the summer in person. The power given to the chancellor 'by king and council' to effect this prorogation was enrolled on the patent rolls as a way of emphasizing collective authority in the absence of that of the king alone (Parliament of 1453, Appendix item 16).

York arrived in London on 12 November. Watts suggests that he had timed his arrival at the council so that it would coincide with the reassembly of parliament, 'perhaps in the hope that the coup of 1450 could be repeated', adding that Kemp had prorogued the parliament in order to prevent this. (fn. int1453-64) If this is true (and there is no direct proof either way), then York cannot have been aware of the letters issued on 6 November which ordered the prorogation. On 21 November York put forward to a council in Star Chamber which was attended by the prior of St John, 10 diocesans and 13 lay lords (not including Somerset), that he had come to the council as the king's loyal subject in response to a royal summons, and that he would act with all his diligence towards the king's welfare and that of his subjects. But he reminded his fellow peers that several people who had previously been his advisors had been commanded to withdraw from him, 'which is to his great hurt and means that he cannot proceed with such matters as he had to do in the king's courts and elsewhere'. He therefore asked that such men should be restored to his counsel. The lords agreed to this considering it 'just and reasonable'. (fn. int1453-65) Although no names were mentioned, his request presumably related to Sir William Oldhall who had been convicted of treason in the second session of the parliament. It does not seem, however, that Oldhall was able to gain his rehabilitation at law until October 1454 when a writ of error was allowed to him. It is likely that he remained in sanctuary until this date. (fn. int1453-66)

According to Benet's chronicle, it was soon after York's arrival in London that his associate, the duke of Norfolk, appealed Somerset for treason 'by many articles', with the result that the latter was committed to the Tower on 23 November. (fn. int1453-67) There is a surviving 'bill' by Norfolk relating to Somerset. (fn. int1453-68) This is addressed to the lords and was considered by antiquarians as a parliamentary bill put to the lords sometime in the last session of the parliament. But as there is no reference in the roll or in other sources to its being heard in parliament it is more likely a petition to the lords in council put forward in the immediate aftermath of York's arrival in London. It refers to articles which Norfolk had put in writing and delivered to the lords, to which Somerset had given answer, but gives no details on either. It then implies that Norfolk had given counter answer and had asked for justice from the lords, which he had not yet got. Therefore he was now making a further appeal to them, in which he cited Somerset's losses in France in particular. It was surely the final defeat of the English in the summer of 1453 which made Somerset vulnerable to criticism, and which prompted his removal from the political scene, leaving the way open for York to increase his influence.

Council records in the aftermath of Somerset's arrest, however, show an obvious effort to vest authority in a council rather than in one individual, an understandable position given the hopes of royal recovery. A great council, attended by over forty peers, met by 30 November and agreed to act together to suppress lawlessness. (fn. int1453-69) On 5 December a smaller group, including York, agreed to attend to 'the politic rule and governance of this land', whilst acknowledging that they would only deal with absolutely essential matters of state, 'until the time their power was more fully declared by sufficient authority - presumably a reference to parliament's role in such definition. (fn. int1453-70) Several other council meetings took place over the next few weeks, attended by an increasing number of peers, suggesting that they were assembling in anticipation of parliament's intended reopening on 11 February. (fn. int1453-71) A letter of John Stodeley written in London on 19 January 1454 reports the coming of many lords and emphasises the level of factionalism between the supporters of York and Somerset. (fn. int1453-72) Even though the latter was in the Tower, it did not stop him, according to Stodeley, 'having spies going in every lord's house in this land'. The latter also remarked that 'Thorpe of the Exchequer' [the speaker of the 1453 parliament] was preparing articles against the duke of York, although Stodeley did not know what these articles were. The letter adds that Thomas Tresham, William Joseph, Thomas Daniell and John Trevilian (all 'Somerset men') had 'made a bille to the lordes desiring to have a garisone kept at Wyndesore for the saufgarde of the Kyng and of the prince, and that they may have money for wages of theym and other than shulle kepe the garyson', implying the possibility of threats to the king and his son. Stodeley's letter thus makes clear the level of chaos and uncertainty which prevailed at this point.

But the most important part of Stodeley's letter concerns the apparent actions of Henry's wife. 'The queen has made a bill of five articles desiring those articles to be granted. The first is that she desires to have the whole rule of this land; the second is that she may appoint the chancellor, the treasurer, the privy seal and all other officers of this land, with sheriffs and all other officers that the king should appoint; the third is that she may give all the bishoprics of this land and all other benefices that belong to the king's gift; the fourth is that she may have sufficient livelihood assigned to her for the king and the prince and herself'. There was a fifth article but Stodeley declared that he did not know its contents. The use of the term 'bill' may imply that the queen intended this to be settled by parliament, presumably following the precedent of the setting up of the powers of Bedford and Gloucester in the first parliament of the reign, but, as with Norfolk's bill against Somerset, it is possible that this was a matter which was intended to be put to the council, at least in the first instance.

The queen's proposals, assuming that Stodeley reported correctly since there is no other evidence of her bill, were entirely legitimate but there was no precedent in England for the regency of a woman (there was in France, of course, with the example of Blanche of Castile). There is no evidence at this point that York was pushing his own rights as possible protector, or that any decision had been come to by the lords more generally, although Watts interprets the composition of council meetings around this time as 'partisan' in its pro-York stance. (fn. int1453-73) As we shall see, it took some time for a protectorate to be established by the parliament. But no doubt knowledge of the queen's plans was a factor in the decision taken by 7 February to allow the parliament to proceed, since it was only by its authority that formal arrangements for government in the absence of the king could be ratified. This also implies that it was now realised that the king's illness was likely to be long-term. Parliament could not simply be dissolved. It had to be continued in order to solve the problem of his inability to rule in person.

On 7 February the earl of Worcester, treasurer of England, was appointed to go to Reading on 11 February, the day parliament was due to reopen, and to prorogue the parliament for three days so that it could transfer to Westminster (Parliament of 1453, Appendix item 17). This he did in the refectory of the abbey, in the presence of at least some lords spiritual and temporal and of the commons, thanking both groups for their 'labours and attention of behalf of the said king', and noting that the king was unable to be present 'on account of certain reasons' (item 23). How many had assembled at Reading we cannot know. The next necessary decision was taken in the great council chamber at Westminster on 13 February. The chancellor asked who should be given commission to hold the parliament. Johnson considers that the question had been deferred to the last minute, given that parliament was due to reopen on the next day whereas four days had been allowed in 1422. (fn. int1453-74) He uses this to suggest that Kemp was trying to keep conciliar control over parliament and to prevent York gaining control. However, this interpretation is untenable: it was essential that power to hold the parliament was vested in one individual. The fact that the decision was left to the last minute was due to the unprecedented circumstances of the time, where an adult king was incapable of making a decision which was his prerogative to make.

The lords present on 13 February - 28 are named - agreed that the duke of York should be given the commission to hold parliament (Parliament of 1453, Appendix item 1). This in itself did not mean he had already been chosen as protector or even that a protectorate was anticipated. It does not even mean that the queen's bill had already been heard and rejected, simply that there was no possibility of a woman being chosen to preside in parliament. Indeed, Johnson considers it possible that the queen's bill was intended to be put to the parliament since she arrived in London on 20 February. Although the commission as recorded in the privy seal warrant gave York power to dissolve the parliament, the commission issued under the great seal reserved power of dissolution to the council. (fn. int1453-75) Johnson sees this as the triumph of Kemp, but more significantly, it was identical to the power given to the duke of Gloucester on 6 November 1422. (fn. int1453-76)

York's commission was read out at the opening of the parliament at Westminster on Thursday 14 February, including the power to dissolve 'with the assent of the council' (item 24). No other opening speech is noted on the roll. An immediate problem was the speakership. Thorpe was a known sympathizer of the duke of Somerset, and had, according to Stodeley, already been preparing to act against York. This was in response to York's own action against Thorpe concerning the latter's earlier impounding of certain of the duke's possessions from the inn of the bishop of Durham. (fn. int1453-77) By the time the parliament opened, Thorpe was in the Fleet prison. Exactly when he had been placed there is unclear. He had attended meetings of the council in August and September 1453 (this in itself is interesting given his role as speaker), but it is possible that he was committed in late November, around the time of Somerset's arrest. (fn. int1453-78) York's action against him is dated to the Michaelmas term. Stodeley's mention of his preparing articles against York would not necessarily preclude his doing this from prison, and it is possible that the articles took the form of a bill which Thorpe intended to present to the parliament when it reopened.

The commons had enough sense of their privileges for them to petition on the opening day of the last session, 14 February, for Thorpe's release and that of another member, Walter Rayle or Raleigh (item 25). (fn. int1453-79) This they did 'through certain of their fellows'. Interestingly it is said that they made request 'to the king and his lords spiritual and temporal assembled in the said parliament' that they should have all the liberties enjoyed as of old. The 'king' was not, of course, present, but his 'kingship' continued to be, no doubt represented by an empty throne. On 15 February York declared to the lords why Thorpe should be kept in custody. He cited the theft from the house of the bishop of Durham which had led to a bill in the exchequer at Michaelmas last to which Thorpe had responded, and explained his committal to the Fleet. The duke's counsel put forward several reasons why Thorpe should not be released: the offence had been committed since the parliament had been started; the process of law had taken place during the prorogation; he should not be released before York had been recompensed in the action; the law should be upheld, parliamentary privilege notwithstanding. The chief justices declared that they could not decide on the point since the privileges of the high court of parliament could only be determined by the lords of parliament, but they added that although there was no general supersedeas brought to parliaments to end all processes - since, if there was, a plaintiff could not get redress because parliament could not determine actions in the common law - it was customary for all, save those accused of treason or felony or imprisoned for security of the peace to be released so that they could attend parliament. The lords heard this advice, but considered that Thorpe should remain in prison notwithstanding the privilege of parliament and his position as speaker, and that a new speaker should be elected. This was a political decision made at York's behest, and may have been a quid pro quo for the treatment of his associate, Sir William Oldhall, speaker of the 1450 parliament, who had been attainted in the second session of the parliament of 1453 at Somerset's behest. (fn. int1453-80)

The decision was communicated to the commons by one of the sergeants at law in the presence of the bishop of Ely and a large number of other unnamed lords. The commons duly elected another speaker, Sir Thomas Charleton (or Charlton), on 16 February (item 29). From 1441 Charleton had been an esquire of the king's hall and chamber, and was still a member of the household at this point. According to Abbot Whethamstead of St Albans, he deliberately had himself made speaker in order to use potential commons' support in a land dispute which he had with the abbey of St Albans and on which he allegedly prepared a bill to the parliament (Parliament of 1453, Appendix item 32). (fn. int1453-81) Whilst this makes for a good story, and casts light on at least one person's views on how speakers could exploit their position, it is more likely that Charleton was chosen because he had household as well as other connections, especially with London which was generally pro-York at this juncture. He was also related to the wife of Richard, earl of Salisbury, a link which Whethamstead also noted, and a feoffee of the earl in the manor of Shenley Hall (Herts.) (fn. int1453-82)

The proceedings of the session which began on 14 February are fairly easily reconstructed. Indeed, the fact that so many items, both enrolled and unenrolled, are dated may reflect a desire for deliberately careful recording under the unusual circumstances of the time. There was concern that not all lords had come to the parliament. As noted earlier, fines were imposed on those who had not done so by a decision made on 28 February (item 46; see also Parliament of 1453, Appendix items 3 and 4). The perceived need to have all lords present, unless they had valid excuse, was no doubt another result of the crisis caused by the king's incapacity. It was important that all should be seen to share in decisions to be made. This was perhaps more important than York's fear that those absent were his enemies, supporters of Somerset.

There were also efforts to solve outstanding magnate disputes. It is likely that efforts were made in late February to order Thomas Percy, lord Egremont, to answer for his acts of violence in the north (Parliament of 1453, Appendix item 26). (fn. int1453-83) In the last item on the roll before the common petitions, Ralph, lord Cromwell asked for surety of the peace from the duke of Exeter, in the presence of York, who is described as 'the king's lieutenant in the present parliament', the archbishop of Canterbury and other lords (item 62). (fn. int1453-84) This was dated 9 March. Cromwell's petition was read twice. Although the lords agreed that surety should be given, they wanted further discussion on the matter given the high penalties demanded in the petition. It was not until 20 March that they gave their consent. Two days later, York ordered the bill to be sent to the commons. We have no further information in the roll on its outcome.

Another matter concerning a peer occupied the early weeks of the session, and indeed may be another reason why it was seen as essential to have a large attendance of lords. This was the treason trial of Thomas, earl of Devon, for his support of York at Dartford in 1452. An indictment had been issued against him on 18 February 1452. This bears a note that it was sent to parliament in January 1454. (fn. int1453-85) Being arraigned before Humphrey, duke of Buckingham, as steward of England, (fn. int1453-86) Devon was acquitted by his peers. As the entry on the roll indicates, York chose to portray the charges against Devon as a slur against his own honour (item 49). The duke therefore made declaration before the lords on 14 March about his own loyalty, declaring that what had been said about him was false and untrue, and that he had never swerved in his loyalty to the king. He required any who thought otherwise to make formal challenge, and asked that his declaration should be enrolled. We might see York's declaration as an essential 'wiping the slate clean' in order to pave the way for the setting up of formal arrangements for the rule of the kingdom in the absence of the king. Indeed, some historians have considered the trial of Devon to be a charade - there is no evidence that what occurred was a full trial in any sense - and hence simply an opportunity for York to 'have his probity publicly acknowledged'. (fn. int1453-87) But the events of 14 March had a wider significance. Although Somerset was still in custody, the rest of the lords, York included, were now formally acting together in public unity, as they were to do in the setting up of the protectorate two weeks later. One ought perhaps not to see this period as the triumph of York but rather as the triumph of collective rule in time of crisis, emulating that of the minority.

It cannot be coincidental that the enrolment of the creation of the baby prince as prince of Wales and earl of Chester is dated to the following day, Friday 15 March (item 48). As in the case of the peerage creations of Henry's half-brothers, the preamble is carefully crafted in terms of language and tone. Royal glory, we are told, does not suffer from being shared, but is further elevated by 'the number of nobles of eminence and glory who support its throne'. The text includes mention of the investment of the baby prince with the cap, ring and stick of his principality and earldom. Whether there was any actual ceremony performed in the parliament is unknown, but it is certainly a possibility, even if it is highly unlikely that the baby prince was present. The royal letters of creation are noted as being read and agreed 'with the counsel and consent of the lords'. The names of twenty-two lords present are then listed as subscribing with their own hands to the royal letters. A meeting on the same day 'in the chamber of the council in the time of parliament' which gave powers to doctors to prescribe medications for the king had a higher attendance of twenty-eight lords, (fn. int1453-88) of whom nineteen are as in the list on the parliament roll.

The roll does not suggest that the commons were present at the ratification of the prince's titles. Two days earlier, on Wednesday 13 March, the chancellor had explained to them the dangers facing Calais, and how there was also the need for provision to be made for the safekeeping of the sea. The sum he suggested was £40,000. The commons spent the next few days discussing this, with reply being made on 19 March to York as lieutenant of the king and to the lords (item 30). The commons brought to mind through Charleton their generosity in the first and second sessions, and said that they could make no further grants because of the poverty in which the people stood. (fn. int1453-89) They also recalled that at the beginning of the parliament the chancellor had said that a learned and wise council would be established 'to which all people might have recourse for the administration of justice, equity and wisdom', but that they had not heard any more about this. They asked that they should now hear of it 'for the great joy and comfort of all those whom they represent', an extremely significant phrase emphasising the strong concept of representation even at this point in time. They concluded by asking York and the other lords to have particular care for the peace of the realm. Chancellor Kemp promised a prompt reply. But he was soon in no position to do so for he died on Friday 22 March.

Kemp's death is noted on the roll at the outset of a record of decisions taken by York and the lords 'assembled in the parliament chamber' on Saturday 23 March (item 31). Clearly the king needed to be 'told' of Kemp's demise and to be 'consulted' on his successor as chancellor. The need for immediate replacement was, one assumes, all the greater given that parliament was in sitting. It was agreed that a group of lords should go to the king at Windsor. This group consisted of three bishops (Winchester, Ely and Chester [i.e. Coventry and Lichfield]), eight lay lords (Warwick, Oxford, Shrewsbury, Beaumont, Bourgchier, Fauconberg, Dudley and Stourton) and the prior of St John of Jerusalem. This was a balanced, non-partisan group, by no means 'Yorkist'. What they were to say to the king had been carefully formulated, and was to be kept secret until disclosed to the king. The group was instructed to communicate the whole of the lords' message to the king if they found him in a state where he could understand and give attention to it. If he was not so disposed, then the first and second articles only should be read to him. The first simply commended York and his fellow lords to the king and expressed their desire for his recovery. The second told Henry how York and the lords had devoted themselves to ensuring that parliament and government were conducted with the well-being of the king and his subjects, and the need for proper administration of justice, kept firmly in mind.

The third part of the message was to tell the king of the death of Kemp, which left England without both chancellor and primate. The wording here may imply they expected Henry to be distressed at the news - 'the said lieutenant and lords consider that they must of true and real necessity inform the king of this'. Presumably this was why the third part was only to be read to the king if he seemed to be in a suitable condition. If he was, then it was hoped that he would give the lords an indication of his preference for who should be appointed to Kemp's positions. The level of lordly anxiety, as well as of anticipation that Henry would not be in a fit state to make such decisions, is revealed by the final clause: 'and they shall try their utmost by all the means they can to have true and clear understanding of the king's intention in the abovesaid matters'. The fourth part of the message was of a more practical nature, namely that they should tell the king that as soon as they had learned of the death of Kemp, York and the lords had ensured that the seals should be brought before all the lords in parliament and placed in a chest which was then sealed with their seals, and placed in the treasury in the keeping of the treasurer and chamberlain.

The final part was to remind the king how the commons had been promised that a learned and wise council would be appointed, and how they had twice reminded the lords of this, asking for information on its membership. They asked that the commons should be given the names of those nominated. The text here implies that the lords had already drawn up suggestions on names but had to allow the king the right of approval and amendment.

The roll goes on to tell us what the group of lords reported back to York and the other lords two days later, on 25 March (item 32). They had indeed come into the king's presence whilst he was having dinner. It had fallen to the bishop of Chester (i.e. Coventry and Lichfield) to speak to the king and to try to explain the lords' message. He recounted how he had told the king of the lords' commendation to him, their great desire for his recovery in health, and the great diligence of the lords in parliament. The king had not made any reply. The bishop, acting on the encouragement of the other members of the embassy, had then proceeded to read all of the articles. But they had not been able to elicit from the king any answer or sign at all. The bishop of Winchester had then said to the king that they would have dinner and return afterwards to see the king again. This they did, and they tried to 'move and rouse him by all the ways and means they could think of' in order to have an answer from him. But still no response came. They then had the king led into another chamber (the reference to this being done by two men implies Henry could not orientate himself). They tried a third time to get him to answer, or even to tell them whether he might wish them to wait on him longer. But as there was still no royal reply, they left Windsor 'with sorrowful hearts'. Having given this report to the lords on 25 March, the group of lords asked for it to be enacted on the roll of 'this high court of parliament'.

There was now no other option than to appoint a protector. Two days later, on 27 March, the lords 'elected and nominated' the duke of York to this position 'during the king's pleasure' (item 33). On the next day the duke present a schedule on paper which contained various conditions for his service. He asked for this to be enacted on the roll, which it was, with the answers of the lords to each of his articles in turn (items 34-37). He began with a protestation on his unworthiness and that his assumption of the position came not from any presumption on his own part but only from obedience to the king and the lords. This he wished to have communicated to the king. This protestation not only echoed his declaration of loyalty made on 14 March but also emphasized the problematic situation where the king had not technically chosen York as protector. As Griffiths points out, York was not Henry's presumptive heir as Bedford and Gloucester had been in 1422. 'To make him protector in the constitutional uncertainty of 1454 might be deemed by some a dynastic challenge on York's part and the duke may have regarded it in precisely the same light'. (fn. int1453-90)

The lords' reply to York's protestation indicates that they shared this dilemma. They not only endorsed York's desire for a formal exoneration to be enacted, but were also keen to make their own. Here they noted the precedent of the minority of the king and the case of necessity whereby they were compelled to choose a protector without royal involvement. York's request for their assistance was also agreed. It may be reading too much into this to say that York was mindful of disputes of the past. His desire for a public statement of support was much to be expected constitutionally under the circumstances of the creation of a protectorship for an adult king. York also asked for clarification of his powers. This gained the response that he should be the chief member of the council and be known as protector and defender. The wording here was identical to that used in the appointment of Gloucester in 1422. It was thus agreed that an act on York's powers should be made by the authority of parliament.

As a result, the formal appointment of York as protector, defender of the realm and of the English church, and chief councillor occurred on 3 April (item 38, Parliament of 1453, Appendix item 20). By this time the consent of the commons had also been given. York's appointment was noted as being made 'by the king with the assent and advice of both the lords spiritual and temporal assembled in the present parliament and also the assent of the commons of the realm of England assembled in the same'. The grounds for the need for a protector were expressed rather euphemistically. It was not possible to say that the king was incapable as a result of the infirmity with which God had visited him. The public justification had to be that attending to matters of state would be too tiring and would impede his recovery. The king's confidence in the industry and circumspection of the duke as well as his proximity as kinsman were noted, although it is fair to say that, based on the report of the delegation sent to Henry, it was unlikely the lords had any indication of whether the king approved or disapproved. The appointment was during the king's pleasure, or at least until Prince Edward came to the age of discretion, assuming that the latter was at that point willing to take up the position of protector himself. The letters of York's appointment then follow on the roll. These were read out, presumably to the whole parliament, and York made public declaration that he was willing to take on the charge until Prince Edward was able to do so.

A further set of letters follow which gave the prince the position of protector once he reached maturity. The drawing up of such letters should be seen as a legal nicety, perhaps reassuring the queen that York did not intend to usurp the rights of her son, rather than evidence that it was thought that Henry would never recover. In the enactments which follow in order to clarify the powers of the protectorship, whichever man held it, it is significant to see that the name of the prince always precedes that of York, and that the act was not to be prejudicial to any grants which the king might have made to the queen or to any act of parliament made for her. The terms of appointment were much as in 1422 save that, given the poor financial situation, the wages of York were to be 2,000 marks per annum, lower than that of Gloucester.

On 30 March, the issue of Kemp's successor as archbishop was dealt with (Parliament of 1453, Appendix item 2). A recommendation was put forward 'in the council chamber during the time of the parliament' that the bishop of Ely [Thomas Bourgchier] should be recommended to the monks of Canterbury and the pope, that William Grey should be the successor at Ely and that George Neville, youngest son of the earl of Salisbury, should be recommended for any future vacancy. This decision was taken at the request of the commons by a group of lords including the duke of York. Whether this should be seen as business transacted by the lords in parliament or by an extended council is a moot point. Bourgchier was provided to Canterbury on 21 June 1454, receiving his temporalities on 22 August. Grey was provided to Ely on 21 June 1454, receiving his temporalities on 6 September. [George Neville became bishop of Exeter, being provided on 4 February 1456.]

The earl of Salisbury is described in this text as chancellor of England. His appointment dates to 2 April. Between 11 and 12 o'clock on that day a chest was brought into the great chamber of parliament in the presence of the lords (Parliament of 1453, Appendix item 19). This contained the seals, and had been housed in the Exchequer since the death of Kemp (as item 31 on the roll had described). The earl is described as having already taken the oath as chancellor. Thus chest was now delivered to his London home. On the same day, around 3 pm in the afternoon, he sealed letters concerning the assignment of dower for Anne, duchess of Exeter which had been agreed by the lords in parliament (see also Parliament of 1453, Appendix item 18, which suggests that her case had been settled in the lords by 23 March 1454). The careful recording of this event in the close rolls, with frequent mention of the presence and assent of the lords in general, fits with the efforts made to ensure the new regime was properly constituted. Salisbury was perhaps an unusual choice as chancellor given that the office had been held by clergy: he was York's brother-in-law but may not have had at this stage the very close links of later years which led to his death alongside York at Wakefield.

On 3 April a group of lords assembled in the Star Chamber to discuss the formation of a council. Not all were keen to serve, (fn. int1453-91) but this does not necessarily indicate opposition to York, more the lords' perception of the difficult circumstances in which they found themselves as a result of the king's incapacity. There is no reference on the parliament roll to the names of the councillors being told to the commons, despite their request on 19 March (item 30).

Further business was enacted in parliament after York's appointment as protector. The duke presented a set of articles concerning the defence of Calais to whose captaincy he was appointed at the request of the lords at the parliament (item 54), (fn. int1453-92) thereby displacing Somerset, although there is no mention made of the latter. These make for extremely interesting reading in terms of the negotiation of conditions of service for what was now the principal military command in the realm in England's sole surviving overseas dominion. In his demands we also see York wresting away from Somerset the control and loyalty of the garrison. (fn. int1453-93) York's requests also emphasise fears for Calais' vulnerability should the French choose to attack. The duke was able to use the opportunity to remind parliament that his previous services in Normandy, France and Ireland had not been fully recompensed, but now should be. York's requests concerning his new command included guarantees of adequate payment of wages for the garrison and arrangements for victualling and repairs, and a promise that there would be adequate assistance if the French attacked. He also requested adequate provision for the keeping of the sea. This led to the bishop of London suggesting that four knights (of the shire) be deputed to take charge of the matter, and that discussions with the merchants take place,led by Sir James Strangeways and Robert Beaumont. Lord Grey's name is also mentioned in this context. A group of peers (including Richard, earl of Salisbury, John (second) earl of Shrewsbury, John, earl of Worcester, James, earl of Wiltshire, and John, lord Stourton) subsequently indented for three years from 3 April 1454 to keep the sea. It was decided that they should receive their wages by assignment from the income received from tunnage and poundage for three years from the life grant made to the king in the first session (item 41). (fn. int1453-94) As further sums were needed to pay for the keeping of the seas, on 16 April 1454 it was ordered that certain sums from 16 named towns should be separately levied as loans by 20 June 1454 (item 42). (fn. int1453-95)

The finances of the royal household were an issue n the final session as they had been at many previous parliaments. A petition, perhaps put forward by the household or financial officials, mentions the problem of non-payment for goods purveyed for the household and asked for assignment of specific royal revenues towards payment. A list of proposed assignments from various parts of the royal demesne follows with various provisos to protect the rights of the queen, the duke of York and the duke of Buckingham (item 43). The request was for this to take effect from 1 April 1454 for three years. This was agreed by the commons (Parliament of 1453, Appendix item 7). The implication is that the bill might have been referred to the commons first since the entry goes on to say, after noting the commons assent, that the schedule was read in the parliament and answered with the advice of the lords who added a further proviso protecting the enfeoffments made for the king's will and the rights of royal officials, the latter relating to the act made at the parliament of 1432 (Parliament of 1432, item 20). The following item on the roll revoked the act made for the household at the parliament of November 1449, as well as arrangements made for the East March. This was to take effect from 17 April 1454 (item 44).

Financial concerns also explain the petition dated to 12 April where the merchants of the Staple at Calais requested repayment of a loan of 10,000 marks which they had made for the payment of wages at Calais through warrants for preferential repayment from the clerical subsidy (item 47). This loan was a useful contribution to government income at this point given the lack of further parliamentary tax grants. Further petitions from the merchants of the Staple are also found on the roll in the last session. Exploiting their generosity, the Staplers aimed at protecting and extending their rights (items 55 -56). Their petitions were also partly stimulated by petitions put forward by the commons. One of these, which survives as an unenrolled petition, concerned the price of wool and complained that prices had been so low that the common people had not been able to pay taxes, and the cloth industry had been damaged by so much wool passing overseas (Parliament of 1453, Appendix item 11). The Staplers successfully petitioned that this petition should not be authorised (item 55. II). They also petitioned against another common petition concerning the sale and partition of wool at Calais and the bringing of bullion to the Staple (item 55, III), but the parliament saw fit to confirm the terms of the Partition Ordinance made in the parliament of 1429 (Parliament of 1429, item 60). There were further successful petitions on repayment of loans and on bans of the export of goods other than to the staple (item 55, IIII and V; see also Parliament of 1453, Appendix item 10). They also negotiated a substantial reduction in the level of wool subsidy payable by denizen merchants which had been set at the end of the second session at 43s 4d per sack (item 9). It was now to be 33s 4d 'such as they have paid to you during all your blessed reign'. That was indeed what the rate had been when last set in 1449 (Parliament of February 1449, item 15), and for the majority of the reign. The cause of the Staplers on the rate of wool subsidy was taken up more generally by the commons in a common petition which asked and was granted not only the ten shilling reduction but also the abolition of the poundage on cloth exports which had been imposed in the commons grant at the end of the second session of the parliament (item 71).

The case of Robert Poynings also came before the last session of the parliament (item 45) Poynings had been one of Cade's leading lieutenants, was involved in various riots in London and the south east over 1453-4. (fn. int1453-96) The parliament of 1450 had seen an order for him to appear before the king and lords (Parliament of 1450, Appendix item 4). This was followed up by a second order made by the authority of parliament for him and his accomplices to render themselves to justice, which probably dates to the first or second session as it mentions Poynynges' letters written in January and February 1453 (Parliament of 1453, Appendix item 27). It would seem that at some point Poynynges did enter into a recognizance in chancery, but he later took sanctuary and was subsequently involved in riots in the spring of 1454. This led to further parliamentary action against him in the last session of the parliament since he had broken the terms of the recognizance. It was also in the last session that a petition was put forward to require Thomas Percy, lord Egremont, to submit to justice (Parliament of 1453, Appendix item 26). (fn. int1453-97) York could therefore reassure the commons that he was committed to the maintenance of law and order, a stance which he put into practice by carrying out a judicial progress into Yorkshire in mid-May.

Law and order predominated in the common petitions, which totalled ten. As we have seen, the first two, concerning the declaration of Cade as a traitor (item 63) and the attainder of Sir William Oldhall (item 64) were dealt with in the sessions of the parliament before the king's illness. But the third was dealt with in the last session (item 65). It refers in its opening section to complaints made to the king and council about those accused of riots and other activities against the peace who had been summoned to appear in chancery or before the council and who had failed to do so. This asked for a system of proclamation and penalty in such cases. It specifically mentioned that if the persons were of the rank of peer then they should lose all offices, fees, annuities and possessions they had of royal gift, and, if they continued to refuse to appear, their estate, title and place in parliament. This was agreed, and was to take effect from 1 May 1454 for seven years. This act represented a major effort to ensure the good behaviour of the magnates during the necessary introduction of a protectorship. It was likely passed near the end of the last session, as an important concluding gesture again confirming York' commitment to law and order, and was to be proclaimed throughout the realm before Midsummer.

The next common petition (item 66) protested at the abuse of the courts of the wardens of the marches. It is not clear at what session this was dealt with. The following petition asked for clarification of the applicability of the act of resumption of the parliament of November 1450 to the perquisites of offices held up to and on the first day of the king's reign, given that the act included those granted 'since the first day of your reign' (item 67). Again it is not clear which session this belongs to, but it is most likely early in the parliament as it clarifies an act of the previous parliament. The following common petition aimed at allowing speedy resolution of disputes over attacks at sea between English and foreigners in alliance or covered by safe conduct (item 68). This led to an act due to come into force from 1 May 1454 so was likely dealt with in the last session. This is also the case with the following petition on the length of office holding by those appointed as collectors of customs, alnagers, weighers etc, since it refers to the prince, who was not born until October 1453 (item 69). The next common petition referred back to an item in the parliament of 1442 concerning outlawries in Lancashire (item 70). This may date to early in the parliament since it asked for the statute issued in 1442 for seven years to be extended from 31 March 1452. The following common petition was put forward at the last session and asked for a reduction in the wool subsidy for native merchants, as well as the abolition of poundage on the export of cloth (item 71).

The last entry on the roll took the form of a petition to the commons from Henry Beaumont, Charles Nowell and others concerning the abduction of Joan Beaumont, who was Henry's mother and had married Charles as her second husband (item 72). The case, based in Thorpe in Yorkshire, makes for sensational reading. Joan was forced against her will on 27 October 1452 to go through an illegal wedding ceremony with Edward Lancaster who had lain in wait with other accomplices and raped her. His threats to her included that she would be taken to Scotland unless she agreed to go through with the wedding. The petition to bring the malefactors to justice offered the opportunity to claim that throughout the realm 'various people of power, moved by insatiable covetousness against all rightful courtesy, truth and good conscience' have deployed nefarious schemes 'to endanger, trouble and mistreat all ladies, gentlewomen and other women who are single' and who were substantial property holders. As on other occasions where specific cases of rape were brought to the attention of parliaments, it was really a general point which was being made. Attacks on women were a sure way of alleging that lawlessness was at high point.

The kind of incident occurring in England at this stage is also represented in the petition of Walter Ingham against Thomas Dennys which was certainly intended for submission to parliament (Parliament of 1453, Appendix item 6). That it was actually submitted may be confirmed by reference in a letter of Dennys himself which speaks of a 'strange act being passed against me in the Higher House before the lords', and which he hopes will not pass into the Common house. His letters can be dated to Wednesday second week of Lent, but it was not sent to John Paston until after the death of Cardinal Kemp was known sometime after 22 March (Parliament of 1453, Appendix item 5). The postcript ends with the curious expression 'and the king is relieved'. If this is a reference to the arrangements made for government around 27 March, then it may be that it summarises in one word the notion of the king needing to be spared the troubles of state in order for his recovery to be speeded.

It is unlikely that the parliament continued for many weeks after the protectorship was established. The parliament was still sitting on 15 April when 'in the council chamber in the time of parliament' it was ordered that the collectors of the lay subsidy not pay out any sums or tallies assigned to Ireland until it was decided who should be lieutenant there. (fn. int1453-98) The latest date on the roll, 16 April, is cited in item 42 where the decision to levy loans from towns for the keeping of the sea is noted. On the same day a letter was sent in the name of the king to a group of peers including York, ordering attendance at a council at Westminster on 6 May. (fn. int1453-99) This was intended to be concerned with both domestic as well as international matters: 'all true subjects ought to take to heart the necessary and appropriate provision for the tranquil rule of this our realm internally as well as for the defence of it externally, and especially for the safeguard of Calais and its marches'. On the next day, 17 April, another letter was issued on the advice of the council to the same peers with others added. This concentrated on the jeopardy that Calais stood in and spoke of news of an impending French attack with a very large army. (fn. int1453-100) It mentioned how the lords who had been present in the parliament had granted a number of troops at their own expense for the relief of the siege, with many also agreeing to go in person. Reminding all of 'what a jewel Calais was to the realm', they urged such troops to be ready within 15 days warning. The expression 'such lordes of our land as have been present now late in our parliament' implies that the parliament is now over. Whether the lords had already left Westminster and hence needed to be summoned back is not clear. (fn. int1453-101) Thus the end of the parliament has been considered to be around but probably before 17 April. It is possible that the decision taken on 16 April concerning the raising of funds for the keeping of the sea was in fact taken after the parliament by York and the council but registered on the parliament roll. On the other hand, the evidence we have for issue of writs de expensis for MPs would suggest a closing date of 18 April. (fn. int1453-102)

The parliament ended with York as protector and Somerset in the Tower. We must not forget the unusual and unprecedented circumstances under which this had occurred. Whilst a protectorship had been an obvious necessity in Henry VI's minority, with an end in sight once the king came of age, the creation of a protectorship for an adult king who was present in the kingdom was unprecedented and constantly problematic. It is fair to conclude that the roll disguises the considerable political tensions of the times, not only those of the last session when the protectorate was established but also those of the previous year when York and his supporters were excluded and under attack. What the roll shows clearly is how York endeavoured to re-establish and safeguard his own position whilst at the same time emphasizing the need for collective responsibility. The unusually detailed and near continuous narrative of the roll for the final session was a deliberate creation so that York and his fellow lords record and thereby justify to the king and realm in the future the solutions which they had been forced to come to as a result of Henry's own incapacity and Kemp's death. In this context, it is relevant to note that when the king showed signs of recovery in December 1454, it soon became apparent that he could remember nothing of events since his collapse in the summer of 1453. (fn. int1453-103) But it was not long before he began to unpick some of the acts of the last session on the parliament. Somerset was released in late January/early February 1455 and York was deemed to have resigned the protectorship. Subsequently his captaincy of Calais was terminated and Somerset restored to the position and to royal favour. Armed conflict subsequently ensued.

Text and translation

Appendix 1453

Reading

6 March -28 March 1453

Westminster

25 April - 2 July 1453

Reading

12 November, prorogued to 11 February 1454

Westminster

14 February 1454-17 April 1454

1

Commission to Richard, duke of York to hold the parliament

The 13 ^th day of February in the 32 ^nd year of the reign of our sovereign lord King Henry VI [1454] at Westminster in the great council chamber it was demanded by the chancellor of England to whom the king's power should be committed for the holding of the parliament at this time, and it was answered, advised and accorded by the lords here listed that the said power should be committed to the duke of York and that the said chancellor of England should make a commission in due and ample form to the said duke of York under the great seal to the abovementioned intent, and to proceed, end and dissolve the said parliament and do all things that shall be necessary for any of the foregoing.

In the day and month and place noted above, it was advised and agreed, those lords present being the lord Cardinal of Canterbury, the archbishop of York, the bishops of London, Winchester, Ely, Norwich, Hereford, Salisbury, Lincoln, Durham, the earls of Warwick, Salisbury, Devon, Worcester, the treasurer of England, Oxford, Shrewsbury, the barons Prior of Saint John, Cromwell, Greystoke, Grey, Ruthin, Fitzhugh, Dudley, Clinton, Fitzwaren, Stourton, Scrope, Rutland.

Source : PRO C 81/1546/76 printed in J. F. Baldwin, The King's Council in the England during the Middle Ages (Oxford, 1913), 197, note 3.

2

The 30 ^th day of March in the 32 ^nd year [1454] at Westminster in the council chamber during the time of the parliament it was advised and ordained at the desire and request of the commons of this land that the right reverend father in God the bishop of Ely, for his great merits, virtues and the great lineage ( bloode ) that he is of, should be recommended to our holy father the pope to be promoted to the archbishopric and church of Canterbury which is now void by the death of the most reverend father in God John Kemp, late cardinal, and the archbishop of the said see. It was also, on 1 April in the place abovesaid, granted and ordained that Mater William Gray, should in similar fashion be recommended to the bishopric and church of Ely and to be promoted thereto at the time that it becomes void by the translation of the right reverend father abovesaid. It was also advised and assented, considering the blood, virtue and wisdom that Master George Neville, son of the earl of Salisbury, chancellor of England, is of, that he should be recommended to the said holy father to be promoted to the next bishopric that becomes vacant within this realm, the promotions abovesaid of Canterbury and Ely having been completed. And that letters under the king's privy seal be ordained and sent.

(Translated from Latin) in the year, month and day and place written above, it was advised that the keeper of the privy seal make such letters under that seal according to the effect of the above, with the lords below subscribing. T. Kent

W. York; T. London; W. Winchester; R. Durham; J. Worcester; W. Norwich; J. Lincoln: J. Hereford

R[ichard, duke of] York; H[umphrey, duke of] Buckingham; R[ichard, earl of] Warwick; J[ohn, earl of] Worcester; Devon; R[ichard, earl of] Salisbury; Beaumont; Bourgchier; W[illiam, lord] Faunconberg; Scales; J[ohn, lord] Dudley; W[illiam, lord] Fiennes; Abergavenney.

Thomas abbot of Gloucester; Richard, abbot of Battle; John, abbot of Selby; Prior of St John [of Jerusalem]

Source : British Library Cotton Titus E VI, folio 273, printed in RP , V.450, and in POPC , VI.168-9. Main text in Middle English.

3

Henry etc to the treasurer and barons of our Exchequer, greeting. Since by the authority of our last parliament begun at Reading and ended at Westminster it was ordained and established by authority of the same that every lord spiritual and temporal who did not come to the said parliament from 13 February last [1454] until the last day of the same month should pay to us a certain sum unless he cannot come because of sickness or weakness. The latter should not be included in the said act but should pay such a fine as should be thought reasonable to the lords of the council as is more fully expressed in the said act. And in so much as it has been supposed by us and our said council that divers lords of this realm, both spiritual and temporal, were so sick or feeble that they could not and were not able to come to our said parliament within the time specified in the said act, that is to say E. bishop of Exeter, Thomas, bishop of Bath and Wells, J. bishop of Rochester, the earl of Westmorland, the abbot of St Albans, the abbot of Bardeney, the abbot of St Benet of Holme, the abbot of Glastonbury, the abbot of Crowland, Edward Gray, lord of Groby, Robert Hungerford the elder, knight, John le Scrope of Masham knight, William Zouche of Harrington, knight, William Lovell knight, Thomas Hoo, knight, our said council has taken just and impartial examination of their said sickness and weakness and found by this examination that it was true. Therefore according to the said act, the said lords of our council have assessed the said lords and each of them to be fined as follows: the bishop of Exeter 80 marks, the bishop of Bath and Wells 80 marks, the bishop of Rochester 20 marks, the earl of Westmorland 50 marks, the abbot of St Albans £10, the abbot of Bardeney £20, the abbot of St Benet of Holme £20, the abbot of Glastonbury £40, the abbot of Crowland £30, Edward Gray, lord of Groby £20, Robert Hungerford the elder, knight, £20, John le Scrope of Masham knight, 40 marks William Zouche of Harrington, knight, 40 marks, William Lovell knight, 40 marks, Thomas Hoo knight, £20, the which assessing of fines made by the lords by our council we send and notify to you so that you can proceed to levy the same and all other things which belong to you in that respect. Given at Westminster 24 May in the 32 ^nd year [1454].

W. archbishop of York; W bishop of Winchester, T. Bishop of Ely; W. bishop of Norwich, J. bishop of Lincoln; Norfolk: R. Salisbury; Oxford; J. earl of Worcester; R. St John; Stourton.

(Latin) In the month, day and place aforesaid the king by advice of the lords of the council listed above ordered the keeper of the privy seal to make letters under that seal according to the tenor above.

Source : British Library Additional Manuscript 4611, art. 82, printed in POPC , VI.181-3. There is a copy also in PRO E 28/84/23. On 29 May 1454 the fine of £40 put on Lord Saye was removed on the grounds that 'we call well to our remembrance that Lord Saye was not absent but during the said time was with us and the other lords of our parliament present in the same, as is proved before our council'. POPC , VI.187-8 from British Library Additional Manuscript 4611, art. 82.

4

Petition 'to the kynge our sovereign lord and his discrete counsell' that the abbot of Bury St Edmunds should not be fined for non-attendance at parliament as he was elected to his abbacy after the parliament was summoned. The reply is given that on 15 April in the 32 ^nd year of Henry VI [1454] the king 'with the advice of the lords spiritual and temporal in the parliament of the king then congregated, considering the abovesaid, wished and granted this bill as it was sought and that there should be a writ of exoneration on the same'.

Source : PRO SC 8/28/1386, printed in RP , V.335. Petition in Middle English with reply in Latin.

5

Letter of Thomas Dennys to John Paston.

This letter in Middle English relates to the petition put forward by Walter Ingham (Appendix item 6) and is interesting for its references to the different parts of parliament. Dennys tells Paston how 'a strange act is passed against me in the Higher House before the lords, of which I send you a copy, never the less I hope to God that it shall not pass into the Common House'. Dennys gives further details of his position and of the threats to his servants in Norfolk as well as to his wife who went into premature labour after her arrest.

The letter is dated at the Fleet prison on Wednesday in the second week of Lent [20 March 1454], and has as a postscript ' now the Cardinal (i.e. Archbishop Kemp) is dead and the king is relieved'. Kemp died on 22 March. The reference to the king being relieved may relate to the appointment of a protector given that the act refers to how the king's recovery will not be assisted if he has to carry the burdens of office.

Source : British Library Additional Manuscript 34,888 folio 93, printed in Paston Letters and Papers of the Fifteenth Century , ed. N. Davis, vol. 2, 85-6.

6

Petition of Walter Ingham

Petition of Walter Ingham of Norfolk, gentleman, that Thomas Dennys sent him a forged letter at Dunston on 11 January 1454 making it look as though the letter came from the earl of Oxford, who was totally ignorant of the letter, and that the earl had commanded him to come to him at Wivenhoe, Essex on 13 January. The petition goes on to explain how Dennys prepared several men 'as if for war with jakkes, salettes, lange de boeufs, and boar spears in two ambushes in two places', plotting to kill Ingham. This action was because Ingham had worked with his father for a writ of sub poena against Dennys and Agnes, his wife. Ingham was seriously wounded, and now has to use crutches because of a wound to his right leg. His friends had complained to the chancellor asking that a sergeant of arms should be sent to arrest Dennys in order that he should appear before the chancellor in Chancery as he was then in London. One of the sergeants did go to Lincoln's Inn to arrest Thomas, who tried to resist but was placed in the Fleet by order of the chancellor. 'Wherefore may it please your highness, of your most noble and abundant grace, by the assent of your lords spiritual and temporal and of your commons in this your present parliament assemble, and by authority of the same' to order that Dennis should remain in the Fleet prison and not be allowed bail until he has answered to the actions put by Ingham as petitioner, considering that he would do Ingham further harm if allowed his liberty.

Source : British Library Additional Manuscript 27,444 folio 24, printed in Paston Letters and Papers of the Fifteenth Century , ed. N. Davis, vol. 2, 86-8.

7

Petition in English that the king, by the assent of the lords and commons assembled in the present parliament, that the act made in the parliament at Westminster November 1449, which ended at Leicester, be revoked as other arrangements have been made in the present parliament, and that the letters patent made for the East March in the same parliament also be annulled so that the king is not double charged. This act is requested to begin on 'this same day, that is 17 April 32 Henry VI [1454].

Reply is given that the king wills it, save that assignments already made should be honoured. It is noted that the commons assented to this bill.

Source : PRO C 49/29/18, printed in RP , V.272.

8

Petition in English by the commons concerning the king's silver mines in Devon, Cornwall, Somerset and Dorset.

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

Source : PRO C 49/29/19, printed in RP , V.272. As this petition mentions the mines of the Lord Prince it must date to after the birth of Edward in October 1453.

9

Petition in English by the commons to the king concerning the proper spending of the tenths and fifteenths.

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

Source : PRO C 49/29/20, printed in RP , V.272-3.

10

Petition in English by the commons concerning the preservation of the staple at Calais, complaining that too many licences have been granted to ship wool elsewhere and requesting that this act should take effect from 8 April 32 Henry VI [1454].

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

Source : PRO C 49/29/21, printed in RP , V.273-4.

11

Petition of the commons concerning the price of wool, complaining that prices have been so low that the commons of the land have not been able to pay taxes and the cloth industry has been damaged by too much wool passing overseas. A memorandum of prices by region is attached. The request is for the act to take effect in June next for ten years.

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

Source : PRO C 49/29/22, schedule at C49/29/23, printed in RP , V.274-5.

12

Petition in English by the commons concerning the staple at Calais complaining that too many licences have been given to ship wool, woolfells, hides, lead and tin elsewhere. Complaint is also made of the high toll charged by the duke of Burgundy at Gravelines, and requesting that no shipments be made into his territories unless he lowers the toll: remedy is to be applied with effect from 3 April 31 Henry VI [1453]. There are further complaints against foreign merchants, especially those of Lombardy.

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

Source : PRO C 49/29/24, printed in RP , V.275-7.

13

Grant by advice of the lords spiritual and temporal and the commons in the present parliament to the earl of Shrewsbury in repayment of money due to him. By petition in parliament. Dated 8 April 1453.

Source : CPR 1452-61 , 116.

14

Grant by the authority of the present parliament to Alice, duchess of Suffolk of the wardship and marriage of her son, John, and the keeping of his lands during his minority, in accordance with letters of 4 November 1445, despite the commitment of the same on 1 June 1451 to Thomas Scales and Miles Stapulton of the keeping of the inheritance of the young John de la Pole.

By the king. To this bill the commons consent. Let it be as desired.

Source : PRO C 49/28/12, printed in full in RP , V.394. That this belongs to the parliament of 1453 is confirmed by the entry on the Fine Roll ( CFR 1445-52 , 220-1) cancelling the award to Scales and Stapleton and noting that they surrendered their letters on 1 May 1453 pursuant to an act made at the parliament which began at Reading on 6 March and afterwards adjourned on 25 April to Westminster. See also C 49/29/17, act annulling grant made to the late duke of Suffolk but exonerating his wife from arrears, which may also belong to this period and perhaps parliament.

15

Appointment of John, cardinal and archbishop of Canterbury, chancellor of England to be at Reading on 12 November next and to prorogue the parliament begun there of late and adjourned to the said date and to 11 February next at Reading. By king and council. Dated 6 November 1453.

Source : CPR 1452-61 , 139.

16

Appointment of John, earl of Worcester, treasurer of England, to be at Reading on 11 February 1454 and to prorogue the said parliament until 14 February next at the palace of Westminster. By king and council. Dated 7 February 1454.

Source : CPR 1452-61 , 140.

17

Grant for life by the assent of the lords spiritual and temporal in the present parliament to Anne, duchess of Exeter, of the third part of the possessions late of John duke of Exeter and pardon for her entering the same without due suit and livery thereof, a like grant by letters patent dated 27 October 1447 being ambiguous in the opinions of divers skilled in law. By king and council in parliament. Dated 23 March 1454.

Source : CPR 1452-61 , 160-1.

18

Memorandum that on Monday 2 April 1454 between 11 and 12 o'clock various lords brought into the great chamber of parliament at Westminster in the presence of other lords attending the parliament a chest containing the three seals, which chest had been in the possession of Archbishop John Kemp, chancellor, deceased. On the day of his death this chest had been delivered to the Exchequer. It was now delivered to the earl of Salisbury, who had taken the oath as chancellor, and was transported to his house in London called Le Harbour ('Le Erber'). It is further noted that on the same day in his house the earl in a long chamber in his house, sealed with the great seal letters concerning the assignment of dower for Anne, duchess of Exeter 'by the assent of the lords spiritual and temporal present in the parliament'.

Source : CCR 1447-54 , 508-9, printed in RP , V.449-50. The lords present are all named.

19

Appointment during pleasure by the advice and assent of the lords spiritual and temporal and of the commonalty of England in the present parliament in consideration of the king's infirmity of the duke of York as protector according to an act made in t he said parliament on the date of these presents until Prince Edward comes of age. By the king by authority of parliament. Dated 3 April 1454.

Source : CPR 1452-61 , 159.

20

Commission to Henry, viscount Bourgchier and others to negotiate loans to be repaid from tonnage and poundage granted in parliament for the transport of army for the safekeeping of the sea and the defence of Calais. Dated 21 April 1454.

Source : CPR 1452-61 , 147-8.

21

Inspeximus of a petition put to the king in our last parliament held at Reading on 6 March 1453 by the community of our realm of England in that same parliament on behalf of Roger Chamberlain knight, and now residing in the files of our Chancellor. The petition is then recited, beginning 'to the right wise and discrete commons in this present parliament'. It recites how Roger, late of Greenwich, servant to Humphrey, duke of Gloucester, was indicted of treason, and requesting, 'by the advice of the lords spiritual and temporal in this present parliament assembled' that the record of indictment be annulled and that he be restored to all his lands and goods. This is followed by an inspeximus of the reply by the advice of the lords spiritual and temporal in the parliament and the commons, and by the authority of parliament on the dorse of the petition: let it be as it is desired. Exemplification of this is thus ordered in these presents at the request of Chamberlain. Dated 15 May 1454.

Source : CPR 1452-61 , 154, printed in full in RP , V.449, and RP , VI.62-4 where it is wrongly ascribed to 1472.

22

Note that at parliament of 31 Henry VI at Reading the king with the advice of the lords spiritual and temporal and the commons did give by authority of parliament to Margaret, his consort £40 per annum for life from the farm of manor of Kingsthorp, Northants. Dated 18 November 1454.

Source : CCR 1454-61 , 4-5.

23

Order to let John Nanfan have all the customs of Guernsey and Jersey, by letters patent of 24 Sept 31 Henry VI [1452] the king appointed him governor of the islands 'and in the parliament last held at Reading it was agreed by advice of the lords spiritual and temporal that appointments and covenants made between the king and Nanfan for the keeping and governance of the said islands be duly observed according to letters under the great seal, as appears by endorsement of a petition presented by the said John in parliament which is on the chancery file. Dated 8 December 1455.

Source : CCR 1454-61 , 84-5.

24

Commission to men in each county to assign how many archers each hundred etc can provide and what goods inhabitants have for support thereof, pursuant to proceedings begun at parliament at Reading 6 March 1453 adjourned till 22 April at Reading. Dated 17 December 1457.

Source : CPR 1452-61 , 406.

25

Petition in English that, as Thomas Percy, Lord Egremont and Richard Percy, esquire, his brother, have often raised men of Yorkshire, Cumberland, Westmoreland and Northumberland in riot, and Egremont has refused to appear in response to various summons, the first being for 3 March 1454, proclamation be made in York that they should appear before the chancellor by a certain date, with further details on what should happen if they do not.

Reply is given that it should be as desired.

Source : PRO C 49/28/13, printed in full in RP , V.395-6. This was placed by the editors of Rotuli Parliamentorum in the 'annis incertis' for Henry VI but the reference to the proclamation makes it likely to date to the parliament of 1453-4.

26

Order concerning Robert Poynings, late of Southwark, esquire, who was an adherent of John Cade, for his arrest, as he has continued to be involved in stirring up riots, despite a general pardon granted to him earlier. The offences referred to are dated in the petition to January and February 31 Henry VI [1453]. The king wills and ordains 'by the advice of our lords spiritual and temporal and by the assent of our commons in this our present parliament assembled and by authority of the same' that he and his accomplices should appear in Chancery within eight days of proclamation being made.

Reply is given that it should be as is desired. It is noted that the commons assent to this bill.

Source : PRO C 49/29/8, printed in full in RP , V.396-7. (Poynings had several pardons, eg on 14 August 1452 (PRO C 67/40 m.19), 5 August 1455 (C 67/41 m 31), 28 Jan and 14 May 1458 (with respect to the two acts in the parliament of 1453, C 67/42 m.33: CPR 1452-61 , 421, KB 27/789, rex rot. 4,5. (See also Parliament of 1450 Appendix item 4 for order for him to appear before king and lords in that parliament. See also POPC , VI.127-8 for his petition to the king and answer 21 May 1452. See also R. M. Jeffs, 'The Poynings-Percy dispute', BIHR , 34 (1961), 148-64). I am grateful to Dr Linda Clark for this information on Poynings.

27

Petition of Thomas de la More, esq., sheriff of Cumberland.

Source : PRO SC 8/29/1446, printed in RP , V.63-4 where it is wrongly dated to 1472. This dates to the last session of the parliament of 1453-4. See the petition to the council in PRO E 28/85/21, 22, and P. Booth, 'Men behaving badly? The West march towards Scotland and the Percy-Neville feud', The Fifteenth Century , III (2003), 95-116. I am grateful to Dr Linda Clark for these references.

28

Payment to clerk of the Chancery 'for his reward in labouring to search for statutes and other things with the intention of labouring to the parliament for a charter for the craft that there might be powers of search throughout England.

Source : C. Welch, History of the Worshipful Company of Pewterers of the City of London , I (London, 1902), 18, cited in Myers, 'Parliament 1422-1509', 172-3. No relevant petition has been located.

29

Note that in the parliament of 1453 the king's half brother Jasper put forward a bill in the Lower House ('in domum inferiorem').

Source : Registrum abbatiae Johannis Whethamstede , ed. H. T. Riley (Rolls Series, 1872), I.2-4.

30

Commission to William Montacu the younger and others reciting how various king's lieges living near the coast and others engaged in trade have been imprisoned and put to ransom and their ships, vessels and wares taken, and merchants under the king's friendship, protection and safe conduct have been taken and robbed, the king, by advice of the lords spiritual and temporal in the last parliament, desired Richard, earl of Salisbury and others to go to sea with large fleet, the which they did: and appointing Montacu and his fellows to arrest all ships and other vessels able to serve on the sea, as well as mariners within the counties of Hampshire, Somerset, Dorset, Devon, Cornwall and Bristol and bring the same to a certain port as necessary. Dated 4 June 1454.

Source : CPR 1452-61 , 175.

31

Abbot Whethamstede's comments on Sir Thomas Charleton, second speaker of the parliament of 1453

Resistance made to a certain knight who strove to take away from the church by the authority of parliament the manor of Burston.

Also in those times there was in the county of Middlesex a certain young knight whose neighbours called him 'Thomas Charletone'. Although he did not resemble a fox in person, he nevertheless had foxy ways and he assiduously, to use the words of the poet, 'carried in his corrupt breast the wily fox'. [Persius, Satires , book v, line 117] Sly, cunning, and crafty, he achieved many great things, and recovered many lands, rents and possessions from various people, and thereby frequently enriched himself further at the cost of others. Buoyed up by such means, and elevated, and with his heart puffed up within him, he proposed to go on to even greater things and to vex in particular our mother church and to despoil it permanently of its manor of Burston for which he put forward a claim. Taking counsel from men who were similar in sense and skill to himself, and who were accustomed to giving advice by subtlety rather than solidity, he learned from them that because common rights stood in his way, he could not proceed further in the matter unless he could make himself speaker in the parliament which was then soon to be held ( in parliamento de proximo tunc tenendo ), and by the force of that office take the commons with him and thereby promote his plans according to the desire of his own heart.

The knight, so informed, made every effort so that he might be made speaker in the parliament, and thus mediated with his known friends and relatives that by their labours and pressure he was indeed made speaker within the commons. When he had been so made and had taken up the rule of the Lower House ( regimen Domus Inferioris ), with the advice of the counsel previously mentioned, he wasted no time in putting together a certain bill in which he sought, by the authority of parliament, that he might have that manor restored to him which his father had sold and on which his mother had raised fine in court and thereby alienated in perpetuity according to common law. The abbot was informed by a letter from Lord Cromwell about the drawing up of this bill as well as about Sir Thomas's labours in expediting it. Straightaway, so that he might resist him most forcefully, he put on the armour of God, the sword of faith and the breastplate of righteousness [Ephesians, 6:14, 16], and advancing with the same, he erected such a barrier and resisted so strongly with the aid of his friends that finally Sir Thomas abandoned his plan, the manor remained with the monastery, and the knight won shame rather than profit by his labour.

Praise be to the gracious God who looks favourably and with mercy on his servants so that whatever adversities are hurled against them, whether human or diabolical, he dashes and renders as nothing by his wise mercy.

Source : Registrum Abbatis Johannis Whethamstede , ed. H. T. Riley (Rolls Series, 1872), I.136-7. Original in Latin.

32

Act granting John Ormond, late a prisoner in France, licence by letters patent to export tin and wool elsewhere than to the Staple.

Source : PRO C 49/32/10. Formerly Parliamentary Petition 6382. Probably 1453.

33

Petition to add a money penalty to the statute of 4 Henry IV c. 2 concerning appropriation of churches.

Source : PRO C 49/32/11. Formerly Parliamentary Petition 1846. Probably 1453.

34

Petition to settle disputed points in grants of chattels of felons.

Source : PRO C 49/32/12. Formerly Parliamentary Petition 1849. Possibly dating to 1453. This may relate to item 65 on the roll.

35

Petition to confirm the grant of a market on Saturday to Tarring Neville, Sussex.

Source : PRO C 49/32/18. This may belong to the parliament of 1453. The original grant was made on 11 June 1444, noting the vulnerability of the inhabitants to attack by the French as they travelled elsewhere to sell their goods: Calendar of Charter Rolls 1427-1516 , 40.

36

Note of the king's pleasure that the duke of Somerset and the heirs male of his body should take precedence over the duke of Norfolk and his heirs in parliament.

Source : PRO C 49/32/6. This must belong to the first session of the parliament of 1453, or shortly before it.

37

Complaint of the commons that the peace is badly kept.

Source : PRO C 49/32/17. Formerly Parliamentary Petition 2053. This may relate to item 30 on the roll, where the commons came before York at the opening of the last session, or else it may be linked to item 65.

38

Petition to grant the executors of the late Thomas Swynbourne licence to alienate the church of Waldingford in mortmain to the priory of Little Horstead, Sussex.

Source : PRO C 49/32/13. Formerly Parliamentary Petition 2363. This may belong to the parliament of 1453.

39

Petition for the grant of an annuity to John Topcliffe, sergeant at arms.

Source : PRO C 49/32/14. Formerly Parliamentary Petition 2405. This may belong to the parliament of 1453.

40

Act on behalf of the executors of Ralph Holland.

Source : PRO C 49/32/15. Formerly Parliamentary Petition 5305. This may belong to the parliament of 1453.

41

Order on a petition from the commons for John Elmham to be brought to answer before the chancellor.

Source : PRO C 49/32/16. Formerly Parliamentary Petition 2994. This may belong to the parliament of 1453.

42

Proviso clause relating to Calais.

Source : PRO C 49/32/19. This may belong to the parliament of 1453.

43

Grant to Roger Knight and Thomas Pycow, merchants of the staple, in part payment of money lent by them to king and pursuant to an act in last parliament by assent of the lords spiritual and temporal therein at the petition of mayor and staple that they may ship from Hull in order to be recompensed. By king and council in parliament. Dated 16 October 1454.

Source : CPR 1452-61 , 209-210. There are similar grants in subsequent months to other merchants of the staple, all noted as granted by king and council in parliament ( CPR 1452-61 , 217; 226).

44

On petition of the king's esquire, Gervase Clifton, who was owed money for his service at sea, was granted £500 out of the second moiety of the lay subsidy granted by commons in parliament held at Reading 6 March last. Dated 30 May 1453.

Source : CPR 1452-61 , 78. See also ibid., 108, for £600 similarly to Edward Hull constable of Bordeaux. Dated 10 July 1453. It is possible that these petitions were made in parliament

45

Grant by advice of the lords spiritual and temporal in the last parliament to the mayor and citizens of Lincoln that they may ship 60 sacks of wool of any other growth than that of Westmorland and Cumberland in the ports of Kingston upon Hull and Boston to the staple of Calais for 5 years from 3 April 1454 without payment of the subsidy granted in the said parliament pursuant to a later grant by the commons in the said parliament. By king and council by authority of parliament. Dated 20 November 1454.

Source : CPR 1452-61 , 199.