Henry VI: November 1450

1450 November

Introduction 1450

Westminster

6 November - 18 December 1450

20 January - 29 March (or 20 April) 1451

5 May - 24/31 May 1451

C 65/101, RP , V.210-225, SR , II.357-359

C 65/101 is a roll of 10 membranes, each approximately 310mm in width, sewn together in chancery style, and numbered in a later hand. The condition of the roll is good. The text, written in an official chancery script, occupies the rectos of the membranes only; the dorses are blank. The lower halves of membranes 1 and 5 are blank. Marginal headings on membranes 1 to 5 are contemporary, the rest are later. Arabic numerals throughout the roll are later. The roll does not appear to be incomplete. The opening business occupies the first membrane with the acceleration of the levy of the subsidy beginning membrane 2. The petition of Isabelle Tresham continues after this item and runs on to membrane 3. Membrane 4 contains items 13 and 14, membrane 5 items 15 and 16. The common petitions commence on membrane 6 with the act of resumption. This occupies membranes 6 to 9, with the remaining common petitions starting on membrane 10.

This parliament, which opened on Friday 6 November 1450 and was dissolved in late May 1451, lasted around 29 weeks in all although it was in actual sitting for only 19 weeks in three separate sessions, all of which were held at Westminster. It is the only parliament of the reign, save for that of 1447, where the convocation of the southern clergy was not timed to coincide with the meeting of parliament. The previous parliament of November 1449 had closed sometime around Friday 5 June 1450. Summons for its successor were issued on Saturday 5 September, a gap of only three months, the second shortest in the reign after that between the parliaments of February and of November 1449. The parliament of November 1450 was not, however, as hastily convened as that of its immediate predecessors, for whereas the period between summons and assembly had been only six weeks for the two parliaments of 1449, nine weeks were allowed in 1450. Even so, the fact that the parliament of November 1450 followed so soon after its predecessor demonstrates the grave situation in which the crown found itself during the summer and autumn, being faced with popular rebellion at home and defeat in Normandy. Under such circumstances, it is not surprising that the parliament was highly politicised or that it saw criticism of the government. In particular, Edmund Beaufort, duke of Somerset, recently returned as the defeated lieutenant-general of France, came under attack. The commonly-held view is that Richard, duke of York, himself recently returned to England from his lieutenancy in Ireland, was Somerset's leading critic, and that the events which preceded and occurred during the parliament in effect marked the beginning of the major feud between these two leading peers which escalated further over the early 1450s. (fn. int1450-1)

The parliament which had begun in November 1449 had been brought to a close in early June 1450 when news reached the king of the outbreak of Cade's rebellion. Over the next two months, disorder escalated. On 29 June, the bishop of Salisbury, William Aiscough, was murdered at Edington. Between 3 and 7 July, Cade's rebels were in London. The main rebellion petered out once Cade himself was captured at Heathfield (Sussex) on 12 July, but researches have shown extensive 'satellite troubles' not only in Kent, Sussex and Essex but also in Suffolk, Gloucestershire, Wiltshire, Hampshire, Dorset and Somerset. The government responded by repression but also by a degree of conciliation, acknowledging that there were problems to be solved. On 1 August, for instance, the king ordered a commission of oyer et terminer in Kent to investigate miscarriages of justice, extortions, trespasses and oppressions. (fn. int1450-2)

By this time, there was the added problem of soldiers returning from France who contributed to further disorder and to criticism of the government. The calling of parliament was no doubt stimulated by the final loss of Normandy. Cherbourg, the last English possession, fell on 12 August 1450. There were already fears that Charles VII would now turn his attention to English Gascony. The decision to call a parliament was thus inspired by two concerns: law and order in England, and the English position in France. On the same day that the writs for a new parliament were issued, 5 September, commissions were appointed to deal with rebels in London and in Cambridgeshire, and three days later the duke of Somerset was sent into Kent with the same brief. (fn. int1450-3) As the chancellor's opening speech on 6 November confirms (item 1), the same domestic and foreign issues remained paramount as the parliament opened within a continuing climate of discontent and fears of further crises. Bale's Chronicle suggests that, around the time the parliament began, there was fear of upheaval in London 'because of disputes between the lords', and that as a result orders had gone out to erect chains across the streets to keep the city safe. (fn. int1450-4) The apprehension of the government of the city is confirmed by a letter sent from London to the Grand master of the Teutonic Order on 8 November, which also speaks of the anticipated arrival of York, Norfolk and Devon with several thousand men (Parliament of 1450, Appendix item 10). Several chronicles note that all the lords (and not simply York and his principal ally the duke of Norfolk) arrived at the parliament with large numbers of armed men. (fn. int1450-5) There are signs that the royal government expected trouble. A letter sent by James Gresham to John Paston in October claimed that the king had written 'to alle his men that be in the chekroll to awayte on hym ate parlement in their best array', implying that he feared violence, though Gresham's next words are interesting: 'why noman can tell'. (fn. int1450-6) Bale also claims that on the very day the parliament opened there was a royal proclamation 'that no maner person shuld speek nor medell of eny mater doon in the parliament nor of the lordes'. Gregory's Chronicle also speaks of 'many strange and wonderful bills' put up in several locations, including the door of the king's own chamber at Westminster as well as St Paul's. (fn. int1450-7)

These references suggest that public interest in the parliament was substantial and that the king and the lords anticipated the assembly to trigger further trouble. There was also the matter of responsibility for the loss of Normandy and the other French lands, a question already raised by Cade and his rebels. The duke of Somerset, lieutenant-general at the fall of the duchy, returned to England in late July. He was appointed constable of England on 11 September and captain of Calais on 21 September. Given the scale of the disaster in France, continuing royal confidence in Somerset was bound to prompt more questions. As Watts puts it, 'the duke's emergence as the king's chief minister within a few weeks of his return must have confirmed public impressions of a link between domestic corruption and defeat in France'. (fn. int1450-8) The parliament saw criticism of Somerset and of others considered responsible for both foreign and domestic failure. To what extent was Richard, duke of York, behind this?

York, who had been in Ireland as lieutenant-general since June 1449, left Dublin soon after 28 August 1450, landed in Wales around 7/8 September, and was in London by 27 September. (fn. int1450-9) His return was potentially significant,not least because of the rebels' call earlier in the summer for the king to 'take about him a noble person, the true blood of the realm, that is to say the high and mighty prince the duke of York, late exiled from our sovereign lord's presence by the false traitor Suffolk and his affinity'. Furthermore, there is some suggestion that the king had forbidden his return at this point, (fn. int1450-10) although this sits uneasily with the fact of his being included in parliamentary writs of summons moved on 5 September. The exact reasons for York's return to England are unclear. That he was concerned at the lack of assistance being sent to him by the royal government is made clear in a letter which he sent from Dublin to his brother-in-law, the earl of Salisbury, on 15 July 1450. This outlines his fears of insurrection in Ireland and the lack of royal response to his request for aid. The duke was clearly unaware that the parliamentary session at Leicester (the fourth session of the November 1449 parliament) had already ended since he asked Salisbury 'to show unto his good grace and that you will be so good that this mine language may be enacted at this present parliament for mine excuse in time to come'. In other words, York wanted Salisbury to raise the matter at the parliament, not only for the sake of securing funds but also so that if anything went wrong in Ireland, the duke would have exonerated himself from blame. Hicks suggests that the word 'enacted' implies that York 'wanted his letter to Salisbury formally registered on the parliament roll to exculpate himself from any unfortunate consequences. He wished to avoid the sort of charges being levied against those responsible for events leading up to the loss of Lancastrian France'. (fn. int1450-11)

Since the letter arrived too late for the last session of the November 1449 parliament, it is possible that York was now returning in person to make his case. This would certainly fit with the content of his missives to the king before he reached London in late September. The first, perhaps drafted around 12 September or even before he left Ireland noted that it had come to his attention that slanderous things had been said against him during his absence in Ireland, and insisting that he remained a loyal subject. The second, which post-dates his arrival in Wales, gave further details of the slanders and added that named individuals had attempted to arrest him at his landing. (fn. int1450-12)

At his entry to London on 27 September, with, according to chroniclers, between 3,000 and 5,000 men, York went to the palace of Westminster for an audience with the king. It is interesting to note that his coming with armed force to this audience was cited as one of his offences in the justification of his attainder at the parliament at Coventry in 1459 (Parliament of 1459, item 7). Between his entry to London on 27 September and 6 October 1450, York put forward another bill. This no longer dwelt on personal affronts but noted the high level of concern in the kingdom about the execution of justice, and urged the immediate arrest of those who were held to blame, offering his own services 'for to execute your comaundements in these premises of suche offenders and redresse of the seid mysrewlers'. (fn. int1450-13) York did not identify whom he considered such traitors to be, but he was clearly associating himself with the cause of reform. This bill may that remarked upon in a letter of William Wayte to John Paston on 6 October as 'meche after the comouns desyre'. (fn. int1450-14)

Two royal replies are known, but neither is dated. One addressed the first allegations concerning York's reception in England, blaming popular rumour and reassuring York as 'our trewe and faithful subiecte and as oure weel bilovid cosyn'. The second referred to the duke's advice on the 'settyng up of iustice and spede punyschyng of certayn persons endited or noysed', and said that the king had decided to set up a 'sad and substantial consaile' of which York would be a member. It emphasised, however, that action was to be undertaken by collective advice of the chancellor and lords. This was no doubt aimed at disabusing York of any ambition to lead a personal crusade against the alleged traitors. (fn. int1450-15)

There is also extant a set of articles which York addressed to the king and the lords of his council. These presumably followed his offer to lead the assault on traitors and were likely submitted before the beginning of parliament. They repeated the demand for the arrest and trial of traitors but went much further in expressing the view that the injuries and oppressions 'maignetened by high astates' and the extortions and subverting of the king's laws had been the cause of rebellions at home as well as the loss of Normandy, Maine and Anjou. (fn. int1450-16) As we shall see, there was a common petition put forward at the parliament (item 16) which asked for the removal of persons around the king who were deemed responsible for the lack of justice and other defaults (although the loss of the French lands was not included in these). Given the common theme of 'traitors', it is necessary to consider whether York was in any way behind the petition. This issue will be returned to when the business of the first session is analysed, especially that which followed the arrival of the duke at the parliament on 23 November, two weeks after its opening.

It is important to remember, however, that writs of summons for the parliament had already been issued on 5 September before any of York's missives were received by the king. It is therefore extremely unlikely that the decision to call a parliament was specifically influenced by news of the duke's impending return from Ireland, or that it was already anticipated that he would be aiming to assert his position against the king's 'favourites' and against Somerset in particular. Indeed, it is more likely that York returned in full knowledge that a parliament would soon be called and that he would receive a summons to it (unlike that of November 1449 to which he was not summoned because of his duties in Ireland). In the light of his letter sent to the earl of Salisbury in June, he may already have intended to bring to the new parliament's notice concerns arising out of his lieutenancy. It may be significant here that, as York made for London from Wales in mid September, he proposed to meet with the speaker of the previous parliament, William Tresham. He had sent a letter to Tresham's home at Sywell (Northants.). The latter, we are told, set out on 22 September, the day after receiving York's letter, to meet the duke. This information, as well as the details which follow, are revealed in the petition made to the parliament of 1450 by Isabella, Tresham's widow (items 8, 9). According to the petition, a group of ill-wishers were already keen to kill Tresham, and thus pretended to be willing to join him as he rode to the duke. Lying in wait with 140 men, they ambushed the ex-speaker not far from his home at 6 am on Wednesday 23 September, also stealing his property, which included a collar of royal livery, and wounding his son. (fn. int1450-17) It is likely, however, that the murder arose from local issues and in particular from Tresham's vendetta with Edmund, lord Grey of Ruthin, whose 'people' the assassins are alleged to have been. It is not probable, therefore, that the attack on Tresham was explicitly linked to an attempt to prevent his meeting with the duke of York.

In the writs issued on 5 September 1450, (fn. int1450-18) twenty of the episcopate were summoned in person. The twenty-first see, Salisbury, was at this point vacant as a result of Aiscough's murder. Richard Beauchamp, who had received summons as bishop of Hereford, was given the temporalities of Salisbury on 1 October 1450. (fn. int1450-19) His successor at Hereford, Reginald Boulers (who had already been summoned as abbot of St Peter's, Gloucester), received the temporalities of his new see on 23 December 1450. (fn. int1450-20) Marmaduke Lumley, who had been translated from Carlisle to Lincoln in January 1450, died on 22 November 1450, although Davies considers that he was present at the opening stages of the parliament. William Gray (or Grey) II was provided to the see of Lincoln on 23 December 1450 but his appointment had not been accepted by the crown or the archbishop of Canterbury. There is no evidence that Lumley's eventual successor at Lincoln, John Chedworth, was ever summoned to, or was present at, the parliament. In terms of attendance, Davies suggests that at least eleven diocesans were at the first session, eight at the second, and six at the third, although there are several others whose whereabouts are unclear. Twenty-six abbots and priors were summoned, the same list as in the previous parliament.

Five dukes were summoned. Two were as in the previous parliament - Norfolk and Buckingham. The others were Richard, duke of York, Edmund Beaufort, duke of Somerset, and Henry, duke of Exeter. The latter was the son of John Holland, earl of Huntingdon and duke of Exeter who died on 5 August 1447. Born on 27 June 1430, he had livery of his father's lands on 23 July 1450 without proof of age whilst he was still under twenty-one. (fn. int1450-21) The duke of Suffolk had been killed on 2 May 1450.

Nine earls were summoned, one more than in the previous year. The earl of Shrewsbury was still omitted, no doubt because of his captivity in France, but to those summoned in 1449 (Northumberland, Salisbury, Westmorland, Devon, Arundel, Oxford, (fn. int1450-22) Wiltshire and Worcester) were added Richard Neville, earl of Warwick, who had received formal creation on 2 March 1450. Two viscounts, Henry Bourgchier and John Beaumont, were summoned as in the previous year. Beaumont had been made chamberlain on 6 May 1450 in place of the deceased Suffolk.

There were thirty-eight other temporal lords summoned. These included all of those summoned to the previous parliament save for Reginald West, lord de la Warre, who died on 27 August 1450, (fn. int1450-23) and George Neville, lord Latimer. The latter was already suffering from the insanity which led to the custody of his lands being granted on 11 June 1451 to his brother, Richard, earl of Salisbury, although he was summoned to the parliament of 1453 and later parliaments until his death on 30 or 31 December 1469. (fn. int1450-24) Barons receiving summons for the first time were Edward Neville, lord Abergavenny (youngest son of the earl of Westmorland and widower of Elizabeth Beauchamp, heiress to the Abergavenny lands who had died on 18 June 1448), (fn. int1450-25) Thomas Grey, lord Richemount-Grey (younger brother of Edmund, lord Grey of Ruthin, who had been created a baron on 25 June 1450), (fn. int1450-26) Thomas Percy, lord Egremont (son of the earl of Northumberland, who had been created on 20 November 1449), and John, lord Clinton (b. 1410), for whom this was the first summons. Although Clinton's father had died in 1431, he himself had served in France, being captured there in 1441 and imprisoned for at least six years. (fn. int1450-27) Wedgwood suggests that Clinton's summons at this point was as a result of the death of James Fiennes, lord Saye and Sele, who had been murdered during Cade's rebellion on 4 July 1450. This is a spurious connection since the latter's son, William Fiennes, Lord Saye and Sele (born c. 1428) was summoned to the parliament by writ on 13 April 1451. (fn. int1450-28)

The names of 268 MPs are known. The total number of seats had been increased from 278 to 280 by the addition of the borough of Gatton. (fn. int1450-29) Researches by Roger Virgoe suggest that the parliament saw a drop in the number of courtiers returned as MPs, no doubt an expression of dissatisfaction with the previous regime dominated by Suffolk and his coterie. In East Anglia this was reflected in the nomination of men associated with the dukes of York and Norfolk. (fn. int1450-30) A letter of 6 October 1450 by William Wayte, clerk to William Yelverton, justice of King's Bench, to John Paston I asks the latter to 'labour ye for be knyth of the shire [of Norfolk] and speke to my Mayster Stapulton also that he be yt', giving further advice on who the members for Norwich and Great Yarmouth should be. Wayte also enclosed with his letter a copy of York's third bill to the king. (fn. int1450-31) The duke of Norfolk wrote to John Paston on 16 October noting that he and York had agreed who should be the two knights of the shire and warning him 'that ye make no laboure contrarie to oure desire'. (fn. int1450-32) It is generally thought, therefore, that there were a substantial number in the commons who were sympathetic to York. The number of household men was lower than in previous parliaments, and there were a number of veterans of the French wars. (fn. int1450-33)

Parliament opened at Westminster on Friday 6 November with the king present. The roll begins with a simple explanation by the chancellor, Cardinal John Kemp, archbishop of York, of the reasons for the calling of parliament: there is no full sermon cited. Whether this means that none was given is impossible to know. As we have already noted, the reason for the summons concerned both foreign and domestic affairs: the defence of the realm, the safe-keeping of the sea, and the speeding up of the provision of aid to the king's subjects in Guienne; (fn. int1450-34) as well as the pacification, punishment and resistance of those who had caused disorder and rebellion. On 18 October, a few weeks before the parliament met, Richard Woodville, Lord Rivers, who had already received a summons to parliament, was appointed seneschal of the duchy. Furthermore, according to the annals commonly ascribed to William Worcester but more likely a London-based account, a group of nobles from Guienne came to the parliament in order to lobby for assistance for Bordeaux. (fn. int1450-35) York was not made a trier of petitions, but that was hardly surprising as he was not yet present at the parliament. Watts suggests that those chosen as triers were 'representative of the lords who had governed since 1449'. (fn. int1450-36) Somerset was included, however.

In the context of York's position, the choice of Sir William Oldhall as speaker was extremely significant. Sir William had developed links with York during the latter's periods of office as lieutenant in France. From at least 1444 he had served as York's chamberlain and had been with him at least for some time in Ireland. (fn. int1450-37) He had been in the duke's company on 27 September 1450 when he met with the king, and had himself had further discussions with the king himself, according to William Wayte's letter to John Paston of 6 October. (fn. int1450-38) The choice of Oldhall had an added significance in the contemporary situation for, like John Popham who had been first choice as speaker in the parliament of November 1449, Oldhall had enjoyed a long career in France dating back to 1416 and very much epitomised the English commitment to France. Indeed, this was his first parliament, so that it was all the more significant that he was chosen as speaker. His presence as speaker was thus a sharp reminder of past glories and of the possibility that questions might be asked of those deemed responsible for recent failures.

The roll notes Oldhall's presentation to the king on Monday 9 November (item 6). Johnson claims that on the first day of the parliament the commons were invited to 'present a speaker on the morrow' (i.e. Saturday), and implies that they deliberately delayed their choice until the Monday. This can only be supposition since the roll omits the usually standard item inviting the commons to elect their speaker. (fn. int1450-39) On 11 November John Damme and James Gresham wrote to John Paston telling him of Oldhall's election as speaker and his acceptance by the king. (fn. int1450-40) Their letter also added that those who wished to sue any petition in the parliament must do so by St Edmund's Day. If the saint intended was Edmund king and martyr, then his day was 20 November, if Bishop Edmund, then 16 November. Whatever the case, neither date tallies with the calendar date given in the roll for the submission of petitions - 13 November (item 2).

At the time the parliament opened, York was in Ludlow, whilst his main ally, the duke of Norfolk, with whom he had spent some time in mid October, was in East Anglia. Both were gathering supporters in order to arrive at the parliament in force. Writing from Framlingham on 22 October, Norfolk ordered John Paston to 'make you redy to awayte upon us at Yppiswich toward the parlement the vii day of Novembre in youre best array with as many clenly people as ye may gete for oure worship at this tyme'. (fn. int1450-41) The dukes of Buckingham and Somerset were likely present at the parliament from the outset as they were appointed triers of petitions, but the earl of Oxford was also delayed in arriving by having to attend the sessions of oyer et terminer in Norwich. (fn. int1450-42) York set off from Ludlow on 13 November to London, entering the capital on 23 November. Norfolk entered London on the following day. (fn. int1450-43) According to Bale's Chronicle, York went to the parliament and the king on the day he arrived in the capital. (fn. int1450-44)

Johnson suggests that 'having elected a speaker, Parliament awaited the duke's arrival'. (fn. int1450-45) He bases this conclusion on the letter of 11 November sent by John Damme, member of Norwich, and John Gresham to John Paston. This letter noted rumours that York and Norfolk 'shulln not come here this vii nyght'. More significantly, no sheriffs had been chosen, 'and as men suppose non shall be chosen til my lord of Yorkes comyng'. (fn. int1450-46) Watts takes this as indicating that the government was effectively paralysed until York arrived. (fn. int1450-47) However, there had been a similar delay in appointing sheriffs during the 1429 parliament, with appointments due in November not made until February 1430, so perhaps one ought not to read too much 'political intrigue' into the delay in 1450. (fn. int1450-48) On the other hand, there is a further reference that implies a hiatus in parliamentary business: amongst the indictments in King's Bench in the Easter Term of 1452 against Sir William Oldhall was the charge that he had plotted with others at Fotheringhay on 11 November 1450 to depose the king by force. If this date is correct, it might suggest that a recess had been called after Oldhall's election as speaker. Griffiths suggests that this could have been during a short parliamentary recess, although he does not link this with the awaiting of the arrival of York and Norfolk. (fn. int1450-49) A letter sent by Hans Winter to the Grand Master of the Teutonic Order on 8 November also raises an interesting point (Parliament of 1450, Appendix item 10). It speaks of York's audience with the king but dates it to 'two weeks after Michaelmas' rather than to 27 September. It claims that on the day after the audience, 'the king gave him [ie York] all power in parliament', adding that 'and now on Monday shall begin parliament'. Presumably this was Monday 9 November, the day on which the speaker was presented. But the reference to York being given all power in the parliament remains unsubstantiated: the duke is not known to have been in London after 9 October. Winter's own admitted sympathies for the duke of Gloucester, and the hope that York would redeem the latter's reputation, no doubt coloured his viewpoint to the extent that he reported that York had been invited back to England by the commons (here meaning presumably the rebels of the summer of 1450 rather than the parliamentary commons).

It is possible that some business was transacted in parliament before York's arrival on 23 November. Two external sources make interesting suggestions about what this might have been. The first is the Register of the university of Oxford which notes that the latter wrote to the lords and commons on 10 and 16 November in alarm at rumours that resumption would be extended to all grants made by the king (Parliament of 1450, Appendix item 1). This may suggest that the question of resumption, perhaps even the common petition on the matter (item 17) was before the parliament early in its meeting, although we cannot be certain of when the letters of the University were actually received by or dealt with in the parliament.

The second source is Bale's Chronicle which claims that on 8 November the commons 'presented unto the king a bill desiring the seid duke of gloucestre might be proclaimed a trewe knight'. (fn. int1450-50) There is no such petition enrolled on the parliament roll. However, a stray bill survives in the chancery records which not the same as that agreed in the parliament of 1455, when a Yorkist-dominated assembly saw a common petition to exonerate Duke Humphrey, claiming that he had been 'openly named and diffamed of treson' 'by untrewe and evell disposed plans'. (fn. int1450-51) Watts suggested that this stray bill might belong to the parliament of 1450 and be that referred to by Bale. (fn. int1450-52) The existence of the bill also gives some credibility to Abbot Whethamstead's claims that at every parliament between 1447 and 1455 efforts were made to clear Gloucester's name, but that they were constantly frustrated by the king and his council. (fn. int1450-53) The text of the bill makes clear that it was presented to the commons by the late duke's servants. It recited the latetr's war service as well as his good governance as protector, and how he had kept 'the kinges livelode unto his owne [i.e.] the king's] use and prouffit', an interesting comment at a time of pressure for resumption (Parliament of 1450, Appendix item 9). A letter of Hans Winter to the Grand Master of the Teutonic order on 8 November does mention hopes that 'we my blessed lord Gloucester's servants may now come out of hiding again, now that my lord of York has returned to England' (Parliament of 1450, Appendix item 10). A futher letter by Winter on 15 November mentions that a schedule had been entered 'by the commons of England and the servants of the noble prince of York and also by the servants and faithful of the noble prince of Gloucester (this last expression is close to that of the surviving petition) desiring justice for the traitors who killed him so shamefully and were of counsel thereto (Parliament of 1450, Appendix item 11). Winter adds that 'this has been delayed until the noble prince of York comes', thereby confirming that the petition was presented before York's arrival at the parliament. Whilst Winter's letters imply that Gloucester's supporters were heartened by the prospect of York's return, there is no suggestion that the duke himself was behind the bid to restore Gloucester's reputation.

Gloucester's name also crops up in an unenrolled common petition which Wedgwood ascribed to the second session of the parliament, (fn. int1450-54) but which may also belong to the first (Parliament of 1450, Appendix item 6). This petition requested that the duke of Suffolk be deemed a traitor and his heirs declared incapable of succeeding. Although Suffolk had been sent into exile, he had not been attainted in the parliament of November 1449 and therefore his son, John (b. 1442), was entitled to inherit the estates and title, and his wife, Alice, was at liberty to enjoy her dower. (fn. int1450-56) This unenrolled petition explicitly referred to the fact that Suffolk had been the cause of the destruction of Humphrey, duke of Gloucester, thereby following the line already advanced by the rebels in Cade's revolt. We cannot be certain whether it pre- or post-dates York's arrival, (fn. int1450-55) but in the light of Winter's comments, it would fit with the newly boosted hopes of Gloucester's supporters in anticipation of York's return. Indeed, it can be argued that all three potential pieces of early business in the parliament - resumption, the petition of Gloucester's servants, and the petition against Suffolk's heirs - were lodged because it was believed that York would, once present, give his backing to such desires. In the case of the petition against Suffolk's heirs, however, we can see from the endorsement that it was sent by the commons to the lords but was refused by the king. Likewise, there is no evidence that the bill concerning Gloucester's good name was ever approved (it has no endorsements on it). Success was achieved on resumption, as will be discussed later.

As we shall see, Duchess Alice was also mentioned in an enrolled petition of the November 1450 parliament (item 16) aimed at removing unsuitable persons from the royal presence, which was also unsuccessful. The lack of success of these petitions against Suffolk's kin may explain the comment made the 'Worcester annals' that this parliament saw the acquittal of the duchess of Suffolk, although it has been suggested, as will also be discussed later, that there was some attempt to put the duchess on trial during the second session. (fn. int1450-57) Gloucester's name came again to the notice of the parliament thanks to the university of Oxford which wrote letters to the king, lords and commons concerning books donated by the duke in his will which had not yet passed to the University's possession (Parliament of 1450 Appendix item 1). Some of these letters were written on 16 January and thus must date to the second session.

York arrived on or soon after 23 November with a large retinue. (fn. int1450-58) Norfolk arrived on the following day. (fn. int1450-59) According to Benet, all of the lords had come to parliament with large companies. This pro-Yorkist chronicler goes on to imply that the members of these retinues had become increasingly annoyed that nothing was being done about the traitors who had surrendered Normandy, and especially the duke of Somerset, with the result that on 30 November, they made three great 'exclamaciones' in Westminster Hall (presumably therefore to the parliament) that justice should be carried out and the traitors corrected. (fn. int1450-60) Johnson interprets this as implying that it was the failure of parliament in the days following York's arrival which triggered off the violence'. (fn. int1450-61) Thus, as Benet continues, on 1 December the soldiers [presumably of the lords' retinues} took the law into their own hands. They tried to seize Somerset at his lodgings at Blackfriars (i.e. the house of the Friars Preacher at Ludgate) but he was smuggled out by the earl of Devon. On the following day, there were attacks on the houses of Thomas, lord Hoo and Sir Thomas Tuddenham, erstwhile keeper of the great wardrobe but order was restored when the king rode through the city with the lords (including York) and their companies on 3 December. (fn. int1450-62)

The parliament roll contains no references to these supposed events, nor would we have expected it to. But it does contain at item 16 a common petition claiming that certain persons had been behaving improperly around the king's person, and requesting that such people should lose their offices by 1 December and be banned from the king's presence for life, never to come closer than twelve miles unless summoned. The penalty for doing so was to be loss of their lands. The second name in the list of unsuitable persons was, as we have already noted, that of Alice, duchess of Suffolk, and there were also others of the Suffolk group mentioned. The first name on the list was that of Edmund Beaufort, duke of Somerset, and others associated with him were also named. The list also included several members of the households of the king and queen as well as Reginald Boulers, abbot of Gloucester.

Historical views are divided over whether the bill was presented in the first session or at the beginning of the second, and whether it is linked to the events of 30 November-1 December and to York's coming. (fn. int1450-63) The fact that Boulers is named as abbot rather than as bishop of Hereford makes it likely to have been submitted before he received his temporalities on 23 December 1450. Furthermore, the choice of 1 December as the date from which the 'unsuitable persons' should lose office makes it very credible that this bill was introduced before this date.

The king's reply to the petition as given on the roll was that he was not sufficiently appraised of any reason why such persons should be removed from his presence, and that at his command the chancellor had several times declared the royal intention to be accompanied only by virtuous persons. None the less, it was stated that the king, of his own volition, had agreed that save for a small group who were in regular attendance on the king, the others should absent themselves from his presence and that of the court for a year, during which time cases might be presented against them. This might seem a judicious reply, although it did not specify which persons were to stay and which to go. The date of the king's reply is uncertain, however. Wolffe considers that it was not made until the end of the parliament. This might be supported by the late position of the petition and answer on the roll as the last item on membrane 5, the last membrane before the common petitions, enrolled immediately after a petition concerning the sale of alum which most certainly dates to the last session. But if the petition was lodged and answered by 30 November, it is possible that the king's vague reply was in fact the cause of the upheaval in early December since it forced the lords' retinues to take matters into their own hands. The last clause of the king's reply to the commons petition is interesting in this context. It said that if the king took the field against enemies or rebels, he would be at liberty to call upon the service of any of his liegemen. If military action was already feared, the king and his advisers had already tried to ensure that they would be in a position to respond. If the petition was answered after 1 December, then the government was skilfully ensuring that it might be difficult for any lord - such as York - to act against the king in the future.

Problems remain in assessing York's role in these attempts to remove Somerset and others from influence over the king, and also over what precisely happened in early December and into the New Year. The matter is complicated by indictments put against Speaker Oldhall in King's Bench in 1452 that he had urged men of Kent and others on 1 December 1450 to murder the king and his lords and destroy the courts and laws of the land, (fn. int1450-64) and by resulting charges of treason put against him in the parliament of 1453 (Parliament of 1453, item 64). York's involvement in Oldhall's actions remains unclear, as likewise the truth of allegations against Oldhall, made as they were at a time of the ascendancy of the king and Somerset. Chronicles and other sources are problematic.

The annals attributed to William Worcester include the rather cryptic comment: 'the duke of Norfolk came to the parliament with a great company and favoured the duke of York against the duke of Somerset. (fn. int1450-65) Winter's letter of 8 November suggests that many peers favoured York, whilst Somerset and Buckingham were 'on the other side ...with the king', although they do not indicate that York was specifically opposed to Somerset and keen to bring him to book (Parliament of 1450, Appendix items 10 and 11). Likewise Benet's chronicle does not link York to the physical attack on Somerset: rather, it is the actions of those men ( illi viri ) who came with all of the lords to parliament, and who were scandalised by the fact that nothing had been done about traitors, and in particular, about the duke of Somerset, whom they considered responsible for the loss of Normandy. That one of the men involved was the servant of the war veteran Thomas, lord Scales may be implied by a writ of 23 December which ordered his release from custody by the constable and marshal in order to observe the privileges of parliament. (fn. int1450-66) Indeed Benet goes on to say that York requested the earl of Devon to subdue those acting violently and to take the duke of Somerset to the Tower for his own safety. It also describes the duke as himself acting against those who despoiled Somerset's lodgings, although Waurin's chronicle claims that the attack was the work of York's soldiers and that York did wish to see Somerset committed to the Tower. (fn. int1450-67)

As a rabid pro-Yorkist writing with hindsight, Benet may have intentionally portrayed the duke as a conciliator. The account in Gregory's Chronicle also has York acting as peacemaker in the city in ordering proclamations against looting. It also puts it that Somerset was 'a-tachyde' on 2 December, but does not mention his going to the Tower. (fn. int1450-68) BL Vitellius A XVI does not mention York at all in conjunction with any of these events, noting simply his return from Ireland around Michaelmas, the commencement of the parliament, and the attack on Somerset on 1 December. It has it that Somerset was 'arrestid' on this day and his goods despoiled by the common people, 'for then was in the cite greate multitude of people waytyng upon the lordes'. (fn. int1450-69) This version is also found in the Great Chronicle of London. (fn. int1450-70)

The account in Bale's Chronicle has an assault made on Somerset by 'the lordes men', claiming that it was the mayor and commons of the city who gathered a force to save him. (fn. int1450-71) Again there is no mention of York's involvement, although his entry to the city on 23 November 'with his sword borne before him' is noted. It is in Bale that there is a claim that Somerset was actually committed to the Tower at royal command. This may be a confusion with events of 1453. It seems unlikely that Somerset was imprisoned in the Tower in early December, even if he stayed there briefly for his own protection in the face of mob action against him. According to Benet, he spent Christmas at the Blackfriars. (fn. int1450-72)

Only one source says that Somerset was faced with specific charges in the parliament. This is a text known as John Piggot's Memoranda, which claims that Somerset appeared in the parliament 'and was charged with the loss of Normandy; his place was spoyled and moche of his goods perloned: he was had to the tower, but anon he was delivered by the kynge and set in rule as afore'. (fn. int1450-73) What is important here is the reference to Somerset being charged with the loss of Normandy. The parliament roll itself does not include any indication of this, but there are further surviving texts which relate to the desire to bring Somerset to book for the defeat in France. The first of these, found within material compiled for Sir John Fastolf, is an undated text in French of questions which might be asked by the council of the duke of Somerset concerning various of his actions in the surrender of Maine and Anjou. (fn. int1450-74) It reads, however, as though this was written before the total loss of the duchy and before York's return. The second document is also associated with Fastolf. This 'advertiriment' is undated but certainly postdates the surrender of Normandy. (fn. int1450-75) The opening phrase is 'memorandum, saving your good correction that it is right necessarie amonges otheir of my lordes articles that there be desired to be made a steward of Englond a constable and suche other officers lordes of gret worship of good name and fame not sclaundered with the vice of covetise for the welfare and defence of this reame from the powere of our adversaires'. A later clause stresses 'item that the lordes take no partye but hol togeders for the welfare of the reame as fer as lawe and good consiens requiren'. It has been suggested that this may have been drawn up as part of an attempt to put Somerset on trial in the parliament of 1450. (fn. int1450-76) The latter had after all been appointed constable on 11 September 1450. However, the duke himself is not mentioned in the 'advertiriment' by name. Furthermore, the text includes a requirement that all of the captains who surrendered their castles in France should be called to account.

What has linked this text to York is the reference to 'my lords articles'. Were these the articles which we noted that the duke seems to have presented to the king and council before the parliament began? These do mention the loss of Normandy, Maine and Anjou, but the blame is placed generally on those who have subverted the law and impoverished the crown. It is difficult to read these articles as an attack on Somerset. Furthermore, the 'advertiriment' contains a reference to the loss of Guienne, which suggests that it was drawn up after the fall of the duchy in 1451. More likely, therefore, the advertiriment is referring to articles presented by York against Somerset in 1452. There is no definitive proof, therefore, that York was directly behind the attack on Somerset on 1 December or the the inclusion of the duke and others in the common petition against persons around the king at item 16, although it is possible that he was, or that other opponents of the court party expected his support. Likewise there remains much doubt over whether charges were brought against Somerset at the parliament of 1450 for the loss of Normandy. More likely, this was a line adopted by chroniclers in the light of the overt attack by York on Somerset in the spring of 1452 when articles were presented blaming the latter for defeat in France. (fn. int1450-77)

In 1450 York was certainly willing to exploit existing popular discontent and demands for action against those who were misleading the king. This is revealed by his letter to the king where he showed his keeness to lead the campaign to remove such people. But he was not aiming at this point to target fellow peers and was anxious not to appear partisan. Here it is interesting to return to the articles which York put to the king and council before the parliament. Although no persons are named, the text makes clear that the guilty were around the king's person but were not men of rank. 'Alas the trewe lordes of the counsele and specially the lordes of the blood roiall wol suffer so shameful mischefes of so blissful a prince done bi theim broughte up of noughte'. (fn. int1450-78) This sentence makes it even more difficult to know exactly whom York was claiming to be guilty, since the duke of Somerset might be deemed to be included in the 'lordes of the blood roiall'.

There were undoubtedly criticisms of Somerset and others and attempts to remove them from the king's company during the first session. There were also efforts to redeem the reputation of the duke of Gloucester. York's return and his willingness to espouse the cause of 'reform' no doubt heartened those who wished to criticise, but the criticisms were not dependent on York's re-emergence. Significantly, twenty of the twenty-seven names of those whom the commons asked to be removed from the king's company had also named by Cade's rebels earlier in the year. (fn. int1450-79) Another, John Newport, had been the subject of a petition against his oppressive behaviour on the Isle of Wight in the previous parliament (Parliament of November 1449, Appendix item 9).

One of the persons mentioned in the list of unsuitable persons petition was Thomas Danyell (or Daniel), of Castle Rising, Norfolk, who had been a close associate of Suffolk and had come under attack in Cade's rebellion. Indictments were made against him in the Kentish sessions of August- October 1450, and also in the Norfolk sessions, whereby he was summoned to appear before King's Bench during the Michaelmas term. (fn. int1450-80) Dispute had arisen between Danyell and Henry Woodhouse over the latter's marriage to Danyell's sister, Elizabeth. A memorandum in the close rolls notes a declaration on this matter made by John Stafford, archbishop of Canterbury, to the lords, the speaker and the commons, 'when the commons attended upon the king's coming to the parliament chamber at Westminster at the dissolution of the parliament' (Parliament of 1450, Appendix item 3). As the memorandum is dated 17 February 1451, the dissolution referred to must surely be the last day of the first session of the parliament, 18 December 1450. (fn. int1450-81)

It is likely that the petition of Isabella Tresham (items 8-9) for judicial action against her husband's murderers also dates to this first session, and perhaps after the arrival of York, as it is placed on the roll before the prorogation of 18 December (item 10). The accused were ordered to appear before justices by 27 January 1451. Even if the murder of William Tresham did not have anything directly to do with attempts to undermine York's return, it was surely in the latter's interests to ensure that the murderers were brought to book since Tresham had been killed en route to meeting the duke. The case no doubt gave York, as the champion of reform, a useful example of the lawlessness which prevailed.

As for the other business of the first session, it is difficult to know whether it precedes or postdates York's arrival. There was certainly discussion during the session on the subsidy voted in the Leicester session of the previous parliament. This still remained uncollected, because, as the present parliament was told, of the lack of diligence of collectors and of sheriffs. On the last day of the session, it was announced that the king, with the authority of parliament and the consent of the lords and commons, had ordered writs to be sent to sheriffs ordering that they proclaim that commissioners be ready to examine those liable for the subsidy (item 7). (fn. int1450-82) The punishment for failure to attend for assessment was to be charged the subsidy three-fold. But, as the entry shows, the parliament had also found it wise to make substantial changes to the threshold, from 20s to 40s in land and from £2 to £3 in wages, implying that the tax as originally voted had generated opposition from the poorer groups. Some payments did come in over the next years, although it is unlikely that even by 1453 more than three-quarters of the total had been collected. (fn. int1450-83) The inhabitants of the palatinate of Chester proved particularly obstreperous, expressing their opposition to the tax in a petition to the king which was granted on 8 March 1451. This petition reminded the king of how the inhabitants of the county 'had not been chargeable or liable before this time by the authority of any parliament held in places other than within the county itself by any act save that which by their own common consent, assembled by authority within the said county they have agreed to', and reminding the king that they did not send representatives to any parliament outside the county. (fn. int1450-84)

It is extremely likely that an act of preferment for the king (item 13) also belongs to the first session. This is based on the evidence that it was to come into operation at Christmas 1450. It was agreed that the king should have exclusive right to the first £20,000 from the customs and subsidies levied at Southampton in order to make provision for the defence of the realm, given that England was beset by her enemies. The sole exception envisaged was to cover monies already earmarked by parliament in the past for Calais. Although there was no mention on the roll of the previous customary power to raise loans, there can be no doubt that the money directed from the customs was intended for this purpose, as orders in the patent rolls for repayments of the loans indicate, referring to the decisions taken in the parliament. (fn. int1450-85) Interestingly, the act of preferment was to the disadvantage of both York and Somerset since it deprived them of revenues they had previously been granted from the London customs. (fn. int1450-86) This might argue for a parliament which was more focused on the king and the problems facing the realm than one riven by factional infighting between the lords.

The parliament roll also contains a petition presented on behalf of the royal justices (item 12) asking for confirmation of the act of the parliament of 1439 (Parliament of 1439, item 27) which guaranteed them their fees out of the customs revenues. Although this item is placed before the act of preferment which granted £20,000 of customs to the king in preference (item 13), it was occasioned by the latter, and the justices were therefore granted special treatment, notwithstanding the preferment. If the act of preferment for the king belongs to this first session, then so might the judges' petition, although as it was aimed at making an exception to the act, it could date to the second session.

Parliament was prorogued for Christmas on 18 December reassembling on Wednesday 20 January 1451 (item10). The king is unlikely to have been present when it resumed since he departed for Kent on 28 January in connection with a commission of oyer et terminer issued on 27 January. (fn. int1450-87) Several of the lords, including Somerset, accompanied him. The king did not return to London until 23 February. (fn. int1450-88) Johnson argues that the king's move into Kent was partially motivated by fears of revolt in that area in favour of York, adding that 'there is no evidence of any parliamentary business being transacted in the king's absence'. (fn. int1450-89) This is difficult to argue one way or the other since it is impossible to date parliamentary meetings, debates and decisions with certainty, but it is notable that the commission of 27 January did supersede that of 14 December which had included York. (fn. int1450-90)

According to Watts, 'the absence of the king and many of the lords left York and the commons high and dry'. Yet there are two areas where their influence might still be visible: actions against the 'traitors', and pressures for resumption. It is possible that there were efforts to put on trial in the New Year some of those mentioned in the commons petition for removal of unsuitable persons (item 16). The king's reply did not permit this, but if the reply was not given until the end of the parliament, as Wolffe argues, (fn. int1450-91) then this might have been deemed feasible, and would demonstrate continuing support for action against the supposed traitors. There is a reference in annals ascribed to William Worcester to the fact that 'in this parliament the duchess of Suffolk was acquitted by her peers'. Benet's Chronicle likewise speaks of the acquittal of Lord Dudley and Reginald Boulers, bishop of Hereford by their peers, and John Say, Trevelyan and Danyell by the Londoners, although implying this was during the third session of the parliament. A letter of 13 March 1451 also refers to the duchess and Boulers being acquitted. (fn. int1450-92) On 10 February a commission of oyer et terminer was granted to the earl of Warwick and others to investigate the claims of soldiers that Lord Hoo had wrongfully detained their wages whilst chancellor of Normandy. On the same day this was extended to consider the faults of other captains. (fn. int1450-93) However, in no case was prosecution brought. Thus if York was behind these moves, or even if they were more broadly based, we can see that the king and his circle were able to avoid any effective attack on their authority. By the end of the second session, order had been restored and the king's star was in the ascendant, largely due to the willingness to grant resumption and to exile some of the detested household. It is likely that Cardinal Kemp was a major influence on these policies.

The act of resumption which is included on the parliament roll as the first of the common petitions must have been the main item of business dealt with in the second session (items 17-18) and was likely agreed towards the end of it. This is suggested by the fact that it was to affect grants made before 25 March 1451. The prorogation for Easter was likely made on 29 March although there is some debate on this date. The roll actually gives Monday 29 April but this must be an error since 29 April was a Thursday and Easter fell on 25 April. Wedgwood argues for Monday 29 March, but Harriss has put forward an alternative date of 19 April given that the prorogation speaks of Easter soon approaching. Benet gives 19 April as the prorogation date, which may add further credence to Harriss's view. A suit by one of the knights of the shire for Suffolk, Edmund Mulso, suggests, however, that the session ended on 20 April. (fn. int1450-94)

However, it is clear that the debate on resumption had begun early in the first session, even from the very opening of the parliament. As we saw, letters written by the university of Oxford on 10 and 16 November imply that rumours were already circulating then about plans to have a general resumption of all lands and donations made by the king, which would include those made to colleges (Parliament of 1450, Appendix item 1). It is possible, therefore, that the common petition on resumption was presented in the first session, being a significant part of the commons' desire for reform. Watts suggests that 'York may have been fairly directly involved in its progress'. (fn. int1450-95) This view is based on a text which gives 'the puntys that my lorde of yorke pootte to the consel ...for thys materys thys present parlement ys ordaynnyd to amend defawtes that byt in thys reeme. On ys the kynges dettes myth be payde'. (fn. int1450-96) But this text is undated and more likely belongs to a later parliament.

As Wolffe has noted, the petition for resumption (item 17) was on the whole identical to that put forward in the last session of the November 1449 parliament held at Leicester between 29 April and early June 1450 (Parliament of November 1449, item 53), but there were some important differences. (fn. int1450-97) The new petition, for instance, had a less generous attitude to the royal foundations at Eton and Cambridge, which it described as 'prejudicial to your highness and very burdensome and harmful to your liege people of this your realm', although it did envisage exceptions to the act, including the foundations and other institutions and persons, such as the queen's dower. The petition also this time included a request that exchanges of land in which the king had been involved should also be annulled. But perhaps the most important difference was the request that a committee should be appointed to oversee any future royal alienations. This was to consist of the chancellor, treasurer, keeper of the privy seal and six lords of the council, who were to write their names on any letters patent which they authorised. This was clearly an attempt to ensure implementation of the act this time. As Wolffe has shown, implementation of the act passed at Leicester had been very slow: although exemptions had started reaching the exchequer by mid August, a copy of the act itself was not received there until 15 October. (fn. int1450-98) Not surprisingly therefore the commons petitioned that the act should take effect retrospectively from 6 November 1449, the first day of the parliament at which their original petition on resumption had been received and accepted, and should also apply to grants made between 6 November 1449 and the last day of the current parliament.

The concluding section of the petition in the November 1450 parliament was also different from that presented in its predecessor. It was noted that it was widely believed in the realm that the implementation of the act of resumption was both necessary and useful to the king's subjects, and a relief to the poverty in which they have lived because of the high charges previously upon them. Even more importantly, it is remarked that 'no earlier resumption has been effective', an overt criticism of the relative ineffectiveness of the act passed at the November 1449 parliament. On this occasion, the commons petitioned that they should be informed of the application of the act whilst the parliament was still in session.

As we have already noted, there is external evidence to suggest that resumption was being talked about during the first session, and it may be that the petition was presented in that session. As Wolffe puts it, 'judging from the bold tempers of this petition, it was presented during the first session of the parliament, when the king was temporarily overawed by York's presence and prestige and in fact appears to have submitted to some form of conciliar control.' (fn. int1450-99) He argues that the king's reply to the petition was not made until after 23 February in the second session. The reply, at item 18, granted the commons' wishes as in their petition clause by clause, but with the decision that the act should take effect from 25 March 1451 rather than retrospectively as the commons had requested. The reply also ensured that the parts of the petition not specifically accepted were thereby declared rejected. This included the plan for a supervising committee over the issue of letters patent. Although the king accepted the exemptions the commons themselves had proposed, he reserved the right to make more during the course of the parliament. A number of additional exemptions - 43 in all - were made and listed at the end of the king's reply. Some of these were specific to individuals or institutions but for the most part were couched in general terms, including especially for religious and collegiate foundations as a whole, and new creations of peers (with specific mention of Viscounts Beaumont and Bourchier). However, there is evidence that moves were made to implement the act, with writs sent out under the great seal on 2 August 1451 ordering sheriffs and escheators to make inquisitions relating to the act and empowering them to take into their hands with effect from 25 March 1451 alienations made since the king's accession. (fn. int1450-100) Even the greatest in the land, such as York and Somerset, surrendered their grants. Furthermore, the act essentially invalidated the 186 exemptions made in response to the act of resumption passed at the Leicester session of the November 1449 parliament. As Wolffe has shown, it was only with this second act of resumption agreed in the parliament of November 1450 that it proved possible to implement the decision made in that Leicester session to divert over £11,000 per annum for the expenses of the royal household. (fn. int1450-101) Royal finances were distinctly improved by the act of resumption and by the act of preferment agreed in the first session (item 13), and the king's standing thereby enhanced. The attempt to implement the act of resumption in the palatinate of Chester, by means of a writ under the palatinate seal on 6 September 1451, met with considerable opposition. This was based on essentially the same grounds as had been put forward against the levy of the subsidy in the county - namely that any such royal acts needed the consent of a 'parliament' of the county itself, since it was not subject to the authority of any parliament held outside the county. Initially the government acted harshly, imprisoning local representatives and imposing fines, but then gave up the attempt of enforcement. (fn. int1450-102)

The commons' desire had been fulfilled by this act of resumption even if they had not been able to impose a committee to supervise future grants. On this, it is possible that the conciliar control they had requested in their petition had been imposed at some point before 25 January 1451. On that day the king issued a writ to the exchequer ordering that it proceed in all matters according to law and exchequer practice, 'notwithstanding any letters or warrant directed unto you from us before this time or hereafter directed to you ordering the cessation of the making of any process or the proceeding to judgment save for those passed by advice of our council'. (fn. int1450-103) This may imply that supervision had been imposed after the presentation of the petition in the first session, perhaps at a time when York and his associates were in the ascendant.

What further business was transacted at the second session is unclear. On 26 February 1451 repayments were authorised to those who had lent money to fund Woodville's army for Guienne 'by the advice and assent of the lords spiritual and temporal in the present parliament'. (fn. int1450-104) This might suggest that the expedition to Guienne was discussed during the second session. The funding of this campaign was problematic and had also required some pawning of royal jewels. (fn. int1450-105)

The parliament was prorogued for Easter either on Monday 29 March 1451 or on Monday 20 April, reassembling on Wednesday 5 May (item 11). The third session lasted until at least the end of May. Benet's Chronicle claims that few lords and commons appeared in parliament when it reopened because the king had satisfied the commons as they had been working towards the king resuming his possessions. (fn. int1450-106) This may be further indication that the act of resumption had already been agreed by the end of the second session.

Two items on the roll can be assigned with some certainty to the third and last session (items 14-15). These both relate to the trade in alum. In item 15, it is noted that the king by the authority of the present parliament has sequestrated all alum belonging to Genoese merchants in the port of Southampton to the value of £8,000. The Genoese merchants, whose names are listed, were given in compensation freedom from duty on all their transactions up to the value of £8,000 (item 14), which was therefore to be deducted from the £20,000 in preferment of customs made to the king in the first session. As item 15 goes on to explain, the crown was to have a monopoly on the sale of this sequestrated alum from 31 May 1451 until 24 June 1453. It is the date of commencement which indicates that these items belong to the third session of the parliament. It was further decided that those granted the monopoly should have their profit restricted to 2s per hundredweight. The monopoly was given to certain merchants of London, and their profit from it was still a matter of investigation in August 1453. (fn. int1450-107)

The roll ends with six common petitions. The first two, dealing with resumption, have been discussed earlier (items 17 and 18). The third (item 19) was a petition to attaint Jack Cade posthumously of treason. Although he had been caught, he had never been tried. This was a useful re-statement of royal authority as well, perhaps, as a way of bringing to mind again what Cade and his followers had been demanding. It is likely that this was dealt with in the first session of the parliament, being the first opportunity to deal with the matter since the time of the rebellion. The fourth common petition (item 20) referred back to the statute on truces and safe-conducts made in 1414 (Parliament of 1414 item 23). This statute had been suspended at the commons request in 1435 (Parliament of 1435 item 28) and 1442 (Parliament of 1442 item 37). In 1447 a bill had been put forward requesting continuation of the suspension, but had been refused at that point (Parliament of 1447, item 21). Now the statute of 1414 was confirmed with only minor changes.

The fifth common petition (item 21) opposed the granting of letters of exemption to citizens of York to avoid office as mayor, sheriff, chamberlain, collector of taxes and member of parliament. It was requested that such letters should be declared null and void and no such grants made in future. This was agreed. The final petition (item 22)was put forward on behalf of the abbot and convent of Bury St Edmunds for pardon for the failure to collect £455 as part of the clerical tenth. This petition had been lodged unsuccessfully at the parliament of November 1449 (Parliament of November 1449, item 60) but was now approved.

Some further business can be detected from other sources. According to Hans Winter, a schedule was presented to parliament concerning damages for loss of goods in Prussia, with the suggestion that compensation might be taken from the goods of Thomas Daniel and others - in other words from those unsuitable persons named in the common petition at item 16 (Parliament of 1450, Appendix item 11). A petition was successfully advanced by William, Lord Fauconberg, about arrears for the safekeeping of Roxburgh castle (Parliament of 1450, Appendix item 5). This money was to be paid out of the customs, in pursuance of the act of preferment in item 13. It is possible that a petition was put forward to the commons at some point in the parliament by the town of Swaffham (Parliament of 1450, Appendix item 8), or was at least drafted with this intention in mind. This fits within the context of the attacks made on Somerset and others in early December since it was against Sir Thomas Tuddenham. The latter held Swaffham as steward and farmer by royal grant. The petition noted that this had been for 16 years before the act of resumption in the 'last parliament before this', a reference to the act of the November 1449 parliament. It was likely also connected with the commission of oyer et terminer early in 1451 by which Tuddenham was to be indicted. (fn. int1450-108)

The third session of the parliament closed somewhere between 24 and 31 May. Based on entries in the patent rolls, parliament was still in session on 24 May, but not by 1 June. (fn. int1450-109) Benet's Chronicle says that it lasted until Whitsun (which this year fell on 13 June). (fn. int1450-110) Wolffe misinterprets the entry in Benet to suggest that it was at the very end of the parliament that resumption was agreed. He also makes an interesting claim that the king's reply to the removal of unsuitable persons was also made at the very end of the parliament. (fn. int1450-111) If it was at this point that the king made his reply then the petition had remained live throughout the parliament. That the king and his circle (likely led by Cardinal Kemp) had managed to circumvent the petition despite obvious popular support for action against traitors (and even perhaps - although this remains problematic - the support of the duke of York for the same) is testimony to their skillful manoeuvrings and to the newfound popularity based on the act of resumption.

Benet's chronicle also says that the parliament was ended quickly ('quasi subito finitum est'). It is believed that the parliament was dissolved abruptly as a result of the request of Thomas Young, member for Bristol, that as the king had no issue, it should be made clear, for the sake of the security of the realm, who the heir was. Young's request is also mentioned in the annals ascribed to William Worcester, with the addition that Young nominated the duke of York as heir. (fn. int1450-112) The annals note that Young was an apprentice-at-law, and that his actions led to his being put in the Tower. The incident is also mentioned a London chronicle where it is suggested that the commons agreed to Young's request but that the king and lords would not do so and therefore caused the parliament to be ended. (fn. int1450-113) The 'William Worcester annals' do not make this connection. Given the commons' concern for the protected position of MPs, as expressed in several previous parliaments, it can be argued that had the commons supported Young's bill or considered it a proper concern of the parliament, they would have expressed complaint at his arrest and imprisonment.

No original bill survives relating to Young's petition, nor is there any reference on the roll. Furthermore, as Wedgwood notes, the chronicles are vague on whether Young put forward a written petition on the matter; (fn. int1450-114) the annals use the term 'movit', which could imply an oral petition. This may be supported by the text of the petition which Young put forward to the parliament of 1455, successfully asking for compensation for his arrest (Parliament of 1455, Appendix item 14). In this petition of 1455 Young emphasised the right to freedom of speech in parliament, claiming that he had been arrested on untrue reports made about what he had 'shewed in the hous accustmed for the comyns'.

It has been argued that York was behind Young's petition, given that the latter was one of his legal counsellors. As Watts puts it, 'as the popular ferment of 1450 receded, York seems to have tried to regain his fading advantage by seeking public recognition as heir presumptive. The enterprise did not, could not, work', since the government could respond by dissolving parliament. (fn. int1450-115)

Whilst York's involvement is unproven, if such a petition was presented at the parliament, the king's refusal to agree to its request would undoubtedly have weakened the duke's position. As Johnson puts it, 'Young's petition must be considered unfortunate, in that it forced the king into a public declaration of his attitude to York', concluding therefore that 'the duke of York had lost the battle in parliament'. (fn. int1450-116) The problem remains, however, of what precise battle, if any, York had tried to fight in the parliament of 1450 or outside it. Whatever the case, his position after the parliament ended was undoubtedly weaker, as events of the next few years were to reveal. Charges against York's associate, Sir William Oldhall, who had been speaker in the parliament of November 1450, also started to escalate with the result that he took sanctuary in St Martin Le Grand in London on 23 November 1451. Indictments for treason, including those relating to Oldhall's alleged involvement in the events of 1 December 1450, followed during the Easter term of 1452, and the parliament of 1453 was to see his attainder (Parliament of 1453, item 64).

Text and translation

Appendix 1450

Westminster

6 November - 18 December 1450

20 January - 29 March 1451

5 May - 24/31 May 1451

1

Letters written by the university of Oxford to the parliament of November 1450. These derive from Registrum F, folio 89b, and are printed in full in the original languages in Epistolae Academicae Oxfordiensis , vol. 1 (1421-57), ed. H. Anstey (Oxford Historical Society, 1898). Summaries of their contents are provided here.

a. To the cardinal archbishop of York, chancellor. Letter in Latin written in the congregation house 16 November[1450}. The letter notes that it has been reported that the present parliament has determined to resume all the lands recently granted for pious uses by the king. The university points out that if this were done without exception, the consequences would be disastrous. The colleges would lose their rents and thus the University, which currently benefits from this bounteous stream, would become dry and barren, for these foundations are the chief attraction to students. ( Epistolae , pp. 287-8)

b. Letter in Latin of 10 November to the commons in the parliament ('to the venerable and circumspect men who are present and the commons of the noble parliament') on the same matter. It is noted that the university is the mother of the clergy and the source of their learning. The University knows that their learning is dear to the commons for not only are students from foreign lands educated but also their own children and kin, who from their studies here derive the training which qualifies them for exalted positions in the state. If the plan to resume lands is carried out the colleges will have to reduce the number of their fellow and the University would lose one of its chief attractions to students. The University trusts, therefore, that nothing in the present parliament will be done to cause damage to the colleges. ( Epistolae , pp. 288-90)

c. Similar letter in Latin to the duke of York, 10 November though without any mention of parliament. ( Epistolae , pp. 290-2)

d. Letter in Latin of 10 November to the lords spiritual and temporal of the present parliament on the same matter, which refers to rumours that there will be a general resumption of lands and possessions and donations given by king. It also stresses the significance of the university. The wisest men of old considered the pursuit of virtue and learning the highest aim of statesmen as being the source of security and good government. Hence the foundation of universities, and among them Oxford conspicuous for its virtue, learning and the faith unalloyed, and a an attraction to students of every degree, noble, gentle or simple. To remove the chief support of students would therefore be ruination to learning, for the lands in question maintain a number of fellows by are also a potent attraction to those who hope for promotion as a reward. The history of Lacedaemon, Athens and Rome proves that the decay of education means the decline of empire. ( Epistolae , pp. 292-3)

e. Letter in English to the commons in the present parliament, by the chancellor of the University of Oxford and the whole assembly of masters in the same, on the resumption, the arguments rehearsed as in the letter in Latin. ( Epistolae , pp. 293-4)

f. Letter to the same (although without the address clause) concerning books given by the duke of Gloucester. Undated. ( Epistolae , pp. 294-5). There follow several similar undated letters in Latin without address, or addressed to reputed executors of Gloucester.

g. letter on the same in Latin of 16 January to the lords spiritual and temporal of this parliament on the same matter entreating that they give effect to the last will of the late duke in which he gave the University books to assist in their warfare against the devil, pointing out the value of books as teaching the lessons of the past and informing present conduct. ( Epistolae , pp. 300-1)

h. similar letters in Latin to king dated 16 January. ( Epistolae , pp. 301-2), and to bishop of Ely 17 January ( Epistolae , pp. 302-3)

2

Grant by the advice and assent of lords spiritual and temporal in present parliament to Thomas, bishop of Bath and Wells of £100 at Annunciation from moiety of a tenth granted by clergy of province of Canterbury in the last convocation held in London November 1449 to July next in payment of the money he lent for sending Sir Richard Woodville to Gascony. Dated 26 February 1451.

Source : CPR 1446-52 , 456-7. Other repayments are also to be found in this volume.

3

Memorandum of acknowledgement - declaration of John, archbishop of Canterbury, that when he was chancellor, Thomas Danyell, being esquire, in his present, Henry Woodhouse esquire confessed before him in his chancery at Lambeth that he should have Elizabeth, sister of Danyell to wife, and Thomas said not nay, that the confession was made long before the archbishop made and sealed any deeds at the prayer of Henry of any lands that Thomas had or claims of trust, in so much that the archbishop at the prayer of Henry gave him licence that he and Elizabeth should be married secretly to avoid his costs if they married openly. And that he has reported all the premises said and done as before rehearsed to and before the lords spiritual and temporal and the speaker and the commons in the parliament at Westminster 29 Henry VI (1 September 1450 - 31 August 1451), John, cardinal and archbishop of York then being chancellor, when the lords and commons attended upon the king's coming to the parliament chamber at Westminster at the dissolution of the parliament. Given at his manor of Lambeth 17 February 1451. English.

Source : CCR 1447-54 , 354-5.

4

Recognizance of Walter Devereux and others to king for £200 on condition that Robert Poynings should appear before the king and the lords spiritual and temporal in the parliament chamber on 7 December next. Dated 29 November 1450.

Source : CCR 1447-54 , 238. Four of the six men who stood surety were knights of the shire in the parliament, and Devereux himself was sitting for Sussex. I am grateful to Dr Linda Clark for this information.

5

Grant to William Neville, lord Fauconberg, keeper of Roxburgh and one of king's ambassadors in France and Normandy, who was captured in this service, and also because his wages had been unpaid of £4108 18 s 10 d which he is owed in arrears as appears by a petition in the last parliament presented on his behalf and examined and granted by king by advice and assent of the lords spiritual and temporal therein from customs etc. Dated 25 September 1451.

Source : CPR 1446-52 , 496. See also CCR 1447-54 , 291. 20 Oct 1451, order to collectors of customs at Hull to pay £1,600 to William, lord Fauconberg, which refers to the petition present in the last parliament on his behalf. See also Parliament of November 1449, Appendix item 9).

6

Petition in English by the commons to the king concerning the impeachment of William de la Pole, duke of Suffolk, at the parliament last held at Westminster and requesting that the duke be deemed a traitor and his heirs also declared unable to succeed, noting also that he was the cause of the arrest, imprisonment and final destruction of Humphrey, duke of Gloucester.

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

Source : printed in full in RP , v.226. The original has not been discovered.

7

Petition of the London cordwainers that aliens should be excluded from exercising this craft in London, on the grounds that their undercutting of prices would limit employment opportunities for young English cordwainers.

Source : PRO SC 8/345/E1323. This petition is not endorsed. It is similar to the petition put by the cordwainers to the mayor and aldermen in 1451 ( Calendar of London Letter Books, K , 335-7), and may therefore have been prepared for the parliament of October 1450. See C. Barron, 'London and parliament in the Lancastrian period', Parliamentary History , 9 part 2 (1990), 359.

8

Petition by the town of Swaffham, 1451

To the rightwise noble and discreet commons of this present parliament.

Meekly beseech, bewail and show the poor and simple inhabitants in the town of Swaffham in the county of Norfolk that whereas Sir Thomas Tuddenham of Oxburgh, knight, for 16 years past before the day of the Act of Resumption in the last parliament before this has occupied and governed the lordship and manor of Swaffham with appurtenances as steward and farmer of the same; in which occupation and governance Sir Thomas and his servants and adherents, who are named in a roll attached to this petition, have piteously and sinfully done and committed the trespasses, offences, wrongs, extortions, acts of maintenance, embracings, oppressions and perjuries listed in the said roll. And of diverse and many articles on this, and of many other wrongs, and that the said Sir Thomas is a common extortioner. So the same SirThomas and his other servants and adherents are indicted before the right noble, true and very lord, our good and gracious lord the earl of Oxford and others of the king's commissioners of oyer et terminer within the same shire.

Please your noble wisdoms to remember that it has been the common law of this land for a long time that if a common thief was so often indicted or accused as committing so many offences in any country he would not be by the law of the land put to bail or mainprise but rather be kept in prison until he was put to answer for the crimes of which he had been accused. And so please your great wisdoms to remember that all the judges of King's Bench who have sat in that capacity in the past, have been accustomed to commit to prison without bail or mainprise for a period all persons who have been accused before them for committing any riot or major violent offence against the peace, which offence might be a subversion of the law in any way, and advertising the great mischiefs that this noble realm has often stood in as a result of the great extortions and oppressions that have been committed and how great a subversion of the law and of the politic government of this land such extortion is; and of your prudent and sage wisdoms to agree to make request to the king our sovereign lord and to the lords spiritual and temporal assembled in the present parliament that by the consideration that the said Sir Thomas would never appear in person or by his attorney at any sessions of oyer et terminer held in the said county to answer to any of the bills or indictments, that it might please the king and lords to commit Sir Thomas Tuddenham to prison, there to remain until the time that he ahs answered the indictments and the bills and complaints of the said inhabitants according to due form of the law.

And moreover, where the said Sir Thomas Tuddeenham has, amongst many other great wrongs, sinfully caused a writ of assize of nouvel disseisin to be brought against John Aleyn and 23 others of the said town in the name of the abbot of Sawtry and caused that assize to be agreed by perjury, as is more fully explained in the first article in the roll attached to this petition, please your great wisdoms, for the reverence of God, that considering the jury of the said assize dare not for fear of the horrible menaces of Sir Thomas do other than to give this verdict in the assize, so that the inhabitants, because of pity and remorse for their consciences, were loathe to pursue a writ of attaint, to pry the king and lords to ordain by authority of this present parliament that the said writ of assize, verdict, recovery and judgement connected with it, along with every circumstance surrounding it, be declared void, revoked and annulled, for the love of God.

Source : British Library Add MS 27,444 f. 6, printed in Paston Letters and Papers of the Fifteenth Century , ed. N. Davis, vol. 2, 528-30. Note also the mention in a letter from William Yelverton to John Bokkyng, dated to November 1450 (ibid., 524, from Add MS 27443, f. 117) which includes the following:

'At Walsingham and in other places in the duchy of Lancaster men shall be ready to search Heydon at home in his own house if he comes home, and in like wise stands Sir Thomas Tuddenham's neighbours towards him, as the majority of people say in the county. His men have told there the falsest tales of Sir William Oldhall and of me that ever I heard spoken. It were very necessary and profitable to the king and to his people for to have other officers in his duchy. Assess how you can set them to action ( sett hem awerk ) in the parliament for if this matter be sped as it is desired they are likely to be set to action here well enough, by the grace of God which have you in holy keeping.

9

Petition concerning the late duke of Gloucester.

To the right high, wise and discreet commons in [...] beseech the true loyal servants and officers late of the [...] and famous prince of noble memory, Humphrey [...] and being [...] of royal blood, being son, brother and uncle of kings [...] that [...] whom God pardon in the realm of France and duchy of Normandy [...] and of the town [...] and after that at the battle of Agincourt there grievously wounded unto the point of death. And after his campaign there [...] with siege and assaults worthily gained the city of Bayeux and the city of Saint-Lo, Coutances, Avranches, Tombelaine [...] Valognes [...] city and castle of Cherbourg, the area of Coutances with [...] Lower Normandy and many other castles, towns and strong fortresses. After all of this so by [...] worthily capture, resorted to the king his brother at his siege of Rouen and dwelt with him to [...] thereof and after was continually with him at all his enterprises [...] time it pleased the said king to send him into this noble realm of England making him [...] thereof [...] whereupon with prince continually [...] peace and quiet until the time of the said victorious king's death.

Furthermore of your great wisdoms to remember the true and notable service done by the said duke unto our sovereign lord the king that is now in all of his tender age then being proector and defender of the said realm in executing of justice, punishment of traitors, those who rose up, felons, rebels, heretics and other offenders resisting all of the cruel and furious malice of the king's adversaries at the siege of Calais and putting them to flight victoriously both to the king's honour and profit and to the great confusion and discomfort of the said adversaries by his great policy and wisdom in all the abovesaid being personally present, the king's livelihood unto his wise use and profit [...] and also the estate of the said stewardship fully kept in household and elsewhere. All manner of strangers and aliens receiving [...] realm always having and bearing unto our said sovereign lord entire faith, fervent love, high dread, due obedience, true allegiance and [...] unto his life's end.

Please it therefore unto your discreet wisdoms of your blessed disposition calling to your wise remembrance the abovesaid and [...] by the said late duke of Gloucester to the king our sovereign lord and his realms to the intent that it anything had befallen [...] otherwise [...] should [...] to his worship and truth to beseech our said sovereign lord the king that by the advice of the lords spiritual and temporal [...] and by the authority of the same order and establish that the said noble prince Humphrey late duke of Gloucester be reputed, declared in all the days of his life was faithful, dread-full and obedient liegeman and also loving uncle unto the said sovereign lord the king and served him, his crown and realms of England and France in all things. And that it be reported and generally declared that by the name hereof the said [...] and famous prince Humphrey, late duke of Gloucester shall now [...] obedient and true liegeman [...] loving, willing, desiring and preferring the worship and commonweal of this said crown and realms [...] that the blood royal was never corrupt in him nor by him. And this to be enacted in this present parliament for the love of God and by way of charity.

Endorsed : Let it be sent to the lords.

Source : PRO C 49/30/19. Although the condition of this document is imperfect, its level of ornamentation in blue and red ink is distinctive, not least in the address clause, on the ascender of the H of the first mention of Humphrey (where one of the duke's mottoes is cited), and in first letters of 'present', 'parliament' and 'God' in the last sentence of the petition. The petition carries no date and there is no reference to it on the roll, but are there are strong grounds to dating it to early in the parliament of 1450. Bale's Chronicle claims that on 8 November the commons 'presented unto the king a bill desiring the seid duke of gloucestre might be proclaime a trewe knight' (R. Flenley, Six Town Chronicles (Oxford, 1911), 137). A letter sent from London on 15 November 1450 to the Grand Master of the Teutonic Order refers to a schedule being entered in the parliament 'by the commons of England and the servants of the noble prince of York and also by the servants and faithful of the noble prince of Gloucester desiring justice for the traitors who killed him so shamefully and were of counsel thereto' (below, Appendix item 11). Whilst this does not explicitly echo Bale's comment, the presentation by the late duke's servants is significant.

John Watts in Henry VI and the Politics of Kingship (Cambridge, 1996), 274, has already suggests that this petition may indeed belong to the parliament of 1450, and be that referred to by Bale. A further interesting point about the point is that it mentioned Gloucester's keeping of 'the kinges livelode unto his owne [i.e.Henry's] use and prouffit', which relates closely to the arguments being put forward at the parliament of 1450 on resumption. The petition is different in content from, and therefore to be distinguished from, that agreed in the parliament of 1455 when a Yorkist-dominated assembly saw a common petition to exonerate Duke Humphrey (parliament of 1455, appendix, printed in RP , V.335 ), claiming that he had been 'openly named and diffamed of treson' 'by untrewe and evell disposed plans'.

10

Letter of Hans Winter to the Grandmaster of the Teutonic Order, Ludwig von Erlingshausen, London, 8 November 1450.

[...] the messengers the king has sent to your lands to make peace [...] with your fellows and lands, when they will acknowledge that great injustice was done to your subjects by Robert Kayn and by Daniel and Tresilian who were beginners and counsellors [ begynner und rotir ] in taking the ships of your subjects. If they were captured surely they would die for this, as did others who also made many a pious lord lifeless and also prevented many a man from getting his right, to whom injustice and damage had been done in times past by the Lord King's subjects, who now have partly received their reward for their work, i.e. Suffolk, Say and the Sheriff of Kent, and of the bishops Master Adam, the bishop of Chichester and the one of Salisbury [...]

So, gracious lord, I have heard from the worshipful pious lord cardinal of York, [...] that the king has seized all the evildoers goods and of these he will pay the injured their damages; and I have also heard that the messengers were instructed that where possible your subjects have had their damages paid and in addition everything taken of the Hanse. [...] And although we were here attached in body and goods, nevertheless noone came to hurt in even so much as a penny, and we have been set free, even though the towns of the Hanse did not aid us. [...]

Most gracious lord, as I also wrote to your honorable grace, when the Commons had written and sent to the noble prince lord duke of York, who was banished by Suffolk etc. from England for 7 years, who sailed across and would have landed in England, the lord Dudley and the abbot of Gloucester, who is also one of the bishops, and Polfort [?] who killed my lord of Gloucester of blessed memory would not let him land. So he landed in Wales instead and captured them all three and many of their company and placed them in a tower and wrote this to the city of London and to all the land so that all the land rejoiced in his coming, and the land wrote to him he should come and be welcome, and if anyone should seek to harm him they would all be with him and stand by him.

So he came to London with many earls and barons a fortnight after Michaelmas and he had with him around 15000 men, when he rose in four hours through Cheap in London, and I have never in my life seen as many lively people gathered, not even at the coronation of the king of Poland. And he rode straight to Westminster, where the lord king was, where he was received by two bannerets, viz. the lord Scales and Bodiwil [Woodville] who married the duke of Bedford's wife, on their knees after the custom of the land, so that he entered with his retinue into the palace and came before the king, where he fell on his knee, and the king advanced towards him and received him in a friendly manner. And the next day the king gave him all power in Parliament, and everything he does has the Lord King's agreement. And my lord of York's grandfather was king Richard's brother who was deposed by the king's grandfather, King Henry IV. And now on Monday shall begin Parliament, may God grant it to be good. And London has fortified all the lanes with iron chains for the lords are not yet in agreement and the city is worried about a riot. And they say here that the lord of York will come to London with more than 40,000 men and the duke of Norfolk will join him with more than 20,000 men, and the earl of Devon will join them with more than 20,000 men. So is the prince of Exeter, his grandmother was the sister of Henry IV, the king's grandfather, but he has the prince of York's daughter; and also the old earl of Salisbury will come with great retinue, and the earl of Arundel with great retinue, and the earl of Salisbury's son who has married the pious prince of Warwick's sister and is therefore earl of Warwick, and also the earl of Northumberland will come with great retinue and they all favour the prince of York, and all the commons with them. On the other side are dukes of Buckingham and Somerset and others with the king.

I dare not write more, may God give that all be well, I am worried, they are not yet agreed, there will be bloody heads yet. I will work here for a while and write to your honorable grace how it shall be. We, my blessed lord Gloucester's servants, may now come out of hiding again, now that my lord of York has returned to England, I hope that now in this Parliament by the faithful prince of York the thistles may be pulled up from the good corn, for of the council four princes have died in four years, namely my lord King's father's brother the prince of Gloucester, the pious prince of Somerset, the prince of Exeter, the young lord's father, and the faithful pious prince of Warwick, whom I hope God will avenge and has therefore plagued the land badly. Therefore gracious lord your grace need not wonder that your fellow subjects and other travelling people come to harm here in England, if even such pious lords and even such as are of the King's blood die through such false counsellors. And the King cannot be blamed, for he is a young and inexperienced lord, and he is kept sheltered like a Carthusian, I hope that in the negotiations everything shall be set right again, as it is I shall write to your grace.

Item, gracious lord, yesterday the king's ambassadors have sent a messenger with letters to the king to say that some of the king's people are still imprisoned in the tower at Lubeck and they had to promise not to leave unless with the towns' agreement. [...]I hope they have sent to your grace the letter. if it has not come to your grace and you desire a copy, and your grace will write to me for it, I will send it to you, if my lord Chancellor is my gracious lord; I am well loved among the clerks of the Chancery, but they may not issue any letter or copy but with the Lord Chancellor's knowledge and will. Dear gracious Lord, what you desire I shall always be ready to do as your grace's faithful obedient servant. I will shortly write to you everything as it goes in Parliament etc.[...]

Source : Hanserecesse von 1431-1476 , ed. G. von der Ropp vol. 3 (Leipzig 1881), 506-9.

11

Letter of Hans Winter to the Grand Master the of the Teutonic Order, Ludwig von Erlingshausen, London, London 15 November 1450.

[...] Also, gracious lord, the lords and also the Commons of England say they want friendship with your grace's lands and they don't care about the Hanse and they only trade with the Hanse in your grace's lands in Prussia, and most of the goods which they need in this land come from Prussia; and now that those of the old council have been set aside etc., now these pious lords can attend to the matter, whereas they previously could not, else they would have been killed. And they are sorry about the damages done to your subjects, and the English have given a schedule into Parliament and desire of the King and the lords that they might have the goods of Robert a Kaym and Daniel and Trifilion [Tresilian] so that they might take these for their damages for those who lost their goods in Prussia who drafted the schedule, and if the goods do not suffice that they might be exempt from the subsidy until full payment. Whether this will be granted by the King and the lords, I don't know, I shall write to your grace what the outcome shall be.

Also, gracious lord, yesterday two ships came from Bordeaux in Gascony and brought news that the king of France has invaded Gascony with more than 60,000 men and has taken three towns. Mylion is one of them, and two others, item he has also in Gascony laid siege to Bruch [Bourg] and Bloya [Blaye] and Franchoch [?]. And they do themselves evil, for in their discord they run danger of losing this winter all Gascony and Guyenne, as they lost earlier in the year with great disgrace the beautiful land of Normandy. And the French and the Bretons are always lying in wait of the coast of England and rob who they can get, Germans and English etc., with a fleet of 30 ships, great and small.

Dear gracious lord, I also want your grace to know how Parliament began, in that also was entered a schedule by the Commons of England and the servants of the noble prince of York and also by servants and faithful of the noble prince of Gloucester desiring justice for the traitors who killed him so shamefully and were of counsel thereto. This has now been delayed until the noble prince of York comes with him of Norfolk and with Arundel and Northumberland and Devon; they have not arrived yet. When they come, may God give that they make all things well. And what I hear then, I shall write to your grace.

Source : Hanserecesse von 1431-1476 , ed. G. von der Ropp vol. 3 (Leipzig 1881), 511. I am grateful to Dr Hannes Kleineke for this reference and for translation from the German.