vN.-r\nr»i'N:n
PUBLICATIONS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER
y
HISTORICAL SERIES, No. XLVIII
CHAPTERS IN THE
ADMINISTRATIVE HISTORY
OF MEDIAEVAL ENGLAND
VOLUME III
Published by the University of Manchester at
THE UNIVERSITY PRESS (H. M. McKechnie, M.A., Secretary)
23 Lime Grove, Oxford Road, MANCHESTER
LONGMANS, GREEN & CO., LTD.
London : 39 Paternoster Row, E.C.4
New York : 55 Fifth Avenue
Toronto : 210 Victoria Street
Bombay : 53 Nicol Road
Calcutta : 6 Old Court House Street
Madras: 167 Mount Road
C '-
CHAPTERS IN THE
ADMINISTRATIVE HISTORY
OF MEDIAEVAL ENGLAND
THE WARDROBE, THE CHAMBER
AND THE SMALL SEALS
^ j:,c^ BY
tYf. TOUT, LiTT.D., D.LiTT., LL.D., F.B.A.
Honorary Professor of the Uni'versity
VOLUME III
MANCHESTER
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS
LONGMANS, GREEN & CO., LTD.
1928
JN
V.3
UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER PUBLICATIONS
No. CLXXXIII.
MADE IN ENGLAND
All rights reserved.
PKEFACE
When, in 1920, I published the first two volumes of this book,
I was rash enough to express the hope that a final instalment in
another two volumes would be issued within a couple of years.
After eight years, two more volumes have at last seen the
light, but I regret that a fifth volume will still be necessary
to complete the undertaking. Without again assuming the
role of false prophet, I may venture to say that most of the
material for that volume is already assembled and that its pub-
lication ought not to be postponed more than another year. It
will include the later history of the small seals and of the
organisation necessary for their employment, and will also give
an account of some non-royal households for the study of
which sufficient material remains, notably those of queen
Phifippa, the Black Prince and the dukes of Lancaster. To
this will be added various tables of wardrobe receipts and
expenses, and lists of the chief ofiicers of the crown to 1399.
There will also be a supplementary bibhographical Hst of
abbreviations, and a painfully long fist of addenda and corri-
genda, especially to the first two volumes. Above all, the final
volume will contain a full index to the whole work. I am acutely
conscious that it was a literary crime to have issued these four
volumes without including such an indispensable necessity for
their use. My own difficulty in finding my way about them in
their indexless condition makes me very sympathetic with the
sufferings of readers who have had, perhaps, less opportunity
than the author of famiharising themselves with the contents.
vi PREFACE
But there are excuses wMcli I would fain hope are adequate.
The compilation of an index to each volume would have involved
still further delay in their publication. Moreover, mere volume
indices would have been of httle value, and would have had to
be repeated at the end of a book whose arrangement is only
partially chronological.
My readers will observe that the plan of the present volumes
is not quite the same as that of the first two. More than half of
this instalment is taken up with a general survey of the adminis-
trative and political history of the reigns of Edward III. and
Richard 11. I had hoped that, as the administration of the
Enghsh state assumed its permanent shape, it would be
increasingly easy to treat each branch of my subject in isolation
and with httle reference to the more general aspects of history.
But the explorer voyaging over an uncharted sea never knows
what coast he may reach or what aspect it may assume. As my
work went on, I gradually realised that the differentiation of the
organs of household administration from each other was only
one aspect of the march of events. There was, at the same
time, a growing consciousness of the unity of the administration.
I found it impossible to treat adequately the indi\ddual units
devoted to the household service of the crown, unless I con-
sidered them as parts of a coherent administrative imity, a single
civil service among which were divided the various functions of
the mediaeval state. Up to the death of Edward I., I had Umited
my study pretty strictly to household administration, deahng only
incidentally with chancery and exchequer. ^Yhen I approached
the reign of Edward II., I felt that some general survey of the
pohtical and administrative history of the period was necessary.
But for the fact that I had already said much of what I wanted
to say on the subject in my book on the Place of the Reign of
-Edward 11. in English History, Section II. of Chapter VIII. in
Volume II. would have been longer than it is. In the volumes
now pubhshed, I regarded it as essential to include, withm my
general survey, such an account of the non-household elements
PREFACE vii
of the administration, the chancery and the exchequer, as was
necessary to understand their proper relations to the household
ofl&ces in which I was more particularly interested. An addition
which makes the book a nearer approach to a complete adminis-
trative history of the two reigns needs no justification. But
it has meant further delay, and it accounts for the fifth volume.
I have, however, only treated of the non-household offices in
outHne, the more so since I hope a more complete examination
of the chancery and exchequer of the period will soon be given
to the world by two of my pupils, Dr. Wilkinson and Dr. Broome.
I am indebted to them for being able to express in summary
form some of the chief results of their investigations.
I have apologised for delay, yet the delay would have been
more serious but for two circumstances in my favour. My
release from academic labours, in the summer of 1925, has enabled
me to devote the whole of my time to the prosecution of my
research. Since January 1924, I have had the advantage of the
active co-operation of Dr. Dorothy M. Broome, who, with great
unselfishness, has set aside all other occupations, including the
working up for publication of her own important studies of the
Edwardian exchequer, in order to devote herself, exclusively and
whole-heartedly, to helping her old teacher to complete his task.
I cannot adequately express the obligations which I owe Miss
Broome for her zealous and intelHgent co-operation. At every
stage, from the collection of material at the PubHc Record Office,
to its arrangement and classification, to the composition and
revision of the manuscript and to the correction of the proofs,
her scholarship, her judgment, her real gift for investigation, have
been entirely at my disposal. There is not a page of the book
in which her hand cannot be seen, and some parts are more
her work than mine. Among these I may specially mention
much that concerns the exchequer. Not less important are her
contributions to the history of the chamber, and, in particular,
to the unravelling of its complicated story between 1355 and
1399. The study of the Walton ordinances is largely her work,
VIU
PREFACE
and she is entirely responsible for their text. In the volume
still to come her hand will, I hope, be equally conspicuous.
There are many other scholars whom I should wish to thank
for their help, not least those who have carried through in-
vestigations directly or indirectly bearing on my theme. Among
them I am proud to include many of my own pupils. If I do
not mention here the names of those to whom I am chiefly
indebted, it is partly because they are so many, and partly
because I have expressed my obHgations to them in the places
of the text where I have used their work. Last but not least,
I have to thank Mr. H. M. McKechnie, the secretary of the
Manchester University Press, for the help and support he has
given me at all stages of the undertaking, and especially in seeing
the book through the press.
T. F. TOUT.
Hampstead, 1st February 1928.
/ /k
CONTENTS OF VOLUME III
PAGES
PREFACE ....... v-viii
CHAPTEK IX
ADimNISTRATION AND POLITICS UNDER EDWARD III.,
1327-1377 ...... I-321
Section I. The Government of Isabella and Mortimer,
1326-1330 ...... 1-30
The first stage of the revolution of 1326, 1-2. The regency
of Edward of Windsor, 2. The second stage of the revolu-
tion, 2-3. Edward III. proclaimed king, 3. The coalition
of all parties against Edward II., 3-4. Baldock and Holden
alone faithful to him, 4-5. Few changes in administrative
staff, 5-10. Continuity in chancery, 5-6, wardrobe, the
benches, privy seal and exchequer, 6-7. Parliament of
January 1327, 7-8. Review of officers, 8-9. Significance of
official continuity, 9-10. Position of the Lancastrians, 10-11.
Despenser's experiments abandoned, 11-12. Other evidence
of reactionary policy, 12. Constitutional attitude of new
government, 12-13. Victors' spoils official rather than
material, 13. Death of Edward IL, 13-14. Breakdown of
coalition foreshadowed, 14. DifEerences between Lancas-
trians and Mortimer, 14-16. Mortimer's set-back, 16.
Henry Burghersh as treasurer and chancellor, 16-17. Ex-
chequer reforms, 17-18. Mortimer's influence over house-
hold, 18-19. Efficiency of permanent officials, especially in
the exchequer, 19-20. Isabella's control of former chamber
lands, 20-21. The earldom of the March, 21-22. Grievances
of Henry of Lancaster, 22-23. His revolt suppressed, 23-24.
Edward III.'s discontent with his position, 24. His con-
fidants, Richard Bury, 25-27, and WUUam Montague, 27.
Embassy to John XXII. and its results, 27-28. Fall of
Mortimer, 29-30. Comparison between 1326 and 1330, 30.
ix
X CONTENTS
PAGES
Section II. The Fiest Eight Years of Edwarb III.'s
Personal Rule, 1330-1338 .... 31-68
— Sympathy between Edward III. and the baronage, 31-32.
John le Bel's contrast between Edward and Philip VI.,
especially in their attitude_to theirnoJbles, 32-33. Edward's
treatment of his mother, 33-34. His leniency to Mortimer's
accomplices, 34-35. Ministerial changes in 1330, 35-36. The
Lancastrians in power, 36-37. Parliament of 1337 and the
- six new earldoms, 37-39. New hereditary offices and juris-
dictions, 39-40. Balancing of parties in office, 40. Power
of the Stratfords, 40-42. The chancellors and chancery clerks,
42-43. "Contrast of stability in chancery and changes in
exchequer, 43. The treasurers, 43-45. Deputy treasurers,
45-46. Continuity among lower exchequer officials, 46-47.
Exchequer reforms, 47-51 . Arrears of audit caught up, 47-48.
Standardisation of subsidies, 48. Local exchequers, 48-49.
Experiments with the escheators, 49-50, and the Staple, 50-
51. Local administration and justices of the peace, 51-52.
Household administration, 52-55. The chamber and the
wardrobes, 52-54. Office of the privy seal, 54-55. Relations \/
between offices of household and offices of state, 55-56.
Effects of the Scottish and French wars on administration,
56-57. York the administrative capital, 1332-1338, 57. The
chancery at York, 57-58. Removal of exchequer and com-
mon bench to York, 58-59. Accommodation at York for ,
the government offices, 59-60. Parliaments 1330-1338, 60-61. ^
Westminster not yet the normal place for parliaments, 61-62.
Impoverishment of Westminster through removal of ad-
ministration, 63-64. The French war and the return to
Westminster, 64-65. Financial troubles resulting from war,
65-66. Preparations for war and division of the administra-
tion, 66-68. The king's departure for the Continent, 68.
Section III. Administrative and Constitutional Crises,
1338-1343 69-150
The Walton ordinances of 1338, 69-79. Privy seal warrants
made compulsory on chancery and exchequer, 69-71. Enrol-
ment of warrants, 70. Special auditing committee, 70-71.
Provisions during the king's absence, 7 1 . Election of sheriffs
and local officers, 71-72. Restrictions on chancery and ex-
chequer, 72-73, but ultimate supremacy of exchequer secured,
73-74. Position of household, 74. How far did the ordinances
introduce novelties ? 74-75. The chamber, the audit com-
mittee and the unity of control, 76-77. The ordinances as
the embodiment of the curialist ideal, 77-78. How far were /
the ordinances operative ? 78-79. Edward's opportunistic
motives, 79-80. Administrative changes at the time of
Edward's departure. 80. Concentration of the administra-
CONTENTS xi
tion in the south, and the separation between the home and
foreign branches of it, 80-81. Changes in chancery, 81-82,
and in exchequer, 82-83. The regency in England, 83-84.
Share of Kilsby in the policy of the ordinances, 84. The
administration with the king abroad, 84-90. Kilsby as K
keeper of great and privy seals, 84-85. Chancery and privy
seal clerks with him, 85-87. The officers of chamber and
wardrobe beyond seas, 87. The lay advisers with the king,
88. The king's confidants, 88-90. The court party in con-
trol in the Netherlands, 90. The administration in England,
90-97. Its difficulties, 91-92. The Council of Northampton,
92-93. Attempts at local elections, 93-94. Their failure, 94-
96. Efforts to keep the two administrations in touch with
each other, 96-97. Friction between them, 97-98. Failure
of attempt to control England from abroad and Edward
forced to change his policy, 98-99. Preparations for the
campaign thus facilitated, 99-100. The inner council of four ,^
superseded by Stratford as chief councillor, 100-101. His
commanding position, 102-103. His mission to England to
raise money, 103. Reluctance of parliament to grant sup-
plies, 103-104. Edward's dependence on the financiers, 104.
His failure abroad and return home, 104-105. The parlia-l
ment of March 1340, 105. The grant of the ninth on con-/
dition of the acceptance of the four statutes, 105-107.1
Ministerial changes, 107-108. The collection of the ninth :
Edington and EUerker as its receivers, 108-110. Edward's
return to the Netherlands without supplies, 110. Stratford's
resignation, 110-111. The breach patched up. 111. The
Stratfords back in power at home, 111-112. The parliament
f of July 1340, and the grant of wool, 113-114. The admin-
! istration in Flanders ; its dependence on the home govern-
ment, 115. Personal quarrels, 115-116. Rivalry of Zouch
and Kilsby for the archbishopric of York, 116-118. Breach /
between the great mioisters and the court, 118-119. Edward's
sudden return to England, 1 19-120 ; attended by his secretarii,
120-121. Cleansweepof the administration, 121-122. Flight
of Molyns, 123. Resistance of archbishop Stratford, 123-124.
The new ministers, 124-126. The strife between Kilsby and
Stratford, 126-127. Stratford's political theory, 127. The
king's lack of wise counsel, 127. The libellus famosus, 128.
Commissions to try the incriminated ministers, and examine
the abuses of the administration, 129-130. These inquiries
not pushed far, 130-131. Easter parliament of 1341,
131-134. Stratford and other bishops refused admittance,
131. The magnates and commons support Stratford andj
compel the king to restore him, 131-132. Edward accepts '\
most of the parliamentary petitions, 132-133. Limits
of king's concessions, 133-134. Comparison between 1311
xu
PAGES
CONTENTS
and 1341, 134-135. The unity of the administration em-
phasised, 135. Practical acceptance of the baronial doctrine
of peerage, 136-137. What " peers " meant in 1341, 137-138.
An hereditary peerage a baronial not a royalist theory, 138-
139. Insincerity of Edward's submission, 139-140. He
cancels the " pretended statutes," 140. General acquiescence
in his action, 140. Neither king nor baronage wholly vic-
torious, 141. The balance between them still maintained,
141. Resultant unity of administration, 141-142.
APPENDIX TO SECTION III
The Walton OEDrNANCES of 1338, 143-150. Introduction,
143-144. Text, 144-150.
Section TV. War and Financjial Embakrassment, 1341-1360 151-230
General tendencies, 1341-1345, 151. The lay chancellors,
Bourchier, Parving and Sadington, 151-153. Their activity
in official work, 153-154. The new judicial seals, 154-
156. Difficulties of the lay chancellors, 156-157. Growth
of the office and importance of the chancery clerks, 157-
159. The younger generation of chancery clerks, 159-160.
Oflford begins a new series of clerical chancellors, 160-161.
Anti-clericalism in the exchequer, 161. Clerical treasurers
again, 161. Last stages of KUsby's career, 161-163. General
return to normal conditions, 163. Renewal of active warfare,
163-164. Division of the ministry, notably in 1346-1347,
164-167. The ministry at home, 167-168. The ministers
abroad with the king, 169-170. Agreement between the two
ministries, 170-172. Consequent success of military opera-
tions, 172-173. Failure of efforts for peace, 173-174. Admin-
istrative developments, 174-175. The chamber, the privy
seal and the exchequer, 174-177. Restriction of the house-
hold offices, 177-178. The wardrobes, 178-179. Growth of
privy wardrobe, 179-180. Increasing tendency towards
settlement of administration at Westminster, 180. Growth
of legal definition, 180-182. The establishment of the dis-
tinction between statute and ordinance, 182-183. Improve-
ments in local administration, 183. Justices of the Peace and
of Laboiurers, 183-185. The Ordinance of the Staple of 1353,
185-186. Fluctuations of the Staple system, 186-187. Cessa-
tion of political conflict and dependence of crown on the
magnates, 188-189. Royal concessions to the aristocracy,
189-190. Narrowing of the circle of the higher nobles, 190.
The Lancashire palatinate, 191-192. The appanage of the
Black Prince, 193-194. The household of Henry of Lancaster,
194-195. The administration of Edward prince of Wales,
CONTENTS xiii
PAGES
195-197. The interchange of staff between the royal and the
magnate households, 197. Centralisation of the duke's and
prince's households at Westminster, 197-198. Lesser baronial
households, 199-200. Simultaneous centrifugal and centri-
petal movements, 199-200. Further illustrations from abroad :
French monarchy, and papal court at Avignon, 200-201. New-
conditions in England, 201. Breaking down of the line ^^ '
between ministers of the state and ministers of the court,
201-202. Ministerial history continued, 202. Edington as
the typical minister of the period, 202-204. His reforms at
the exchequer, 204. Currency and chamber reform, 204-205.
Edington's successors, 205-206. The chancery in Thoresby's
time : close relations of Edington and Thoresby, 206-207.
They unite to oppose the king's attacks on ecclesiastical
privilege, 207-208. The subordinate officers of the exchequer,
208-209. The chancery still reserved for clerks, 209. The
beginnings of clerical marriage, 209. John Tamworth and
Geoffrey Martin, clerks of the crown, 209-210. Disintegration
of the household of the chancery, 210-211. The three grades
of chancery clerks, 211-212. The "suburb of London" as
the abode of lawyers, 212. Relations of chancery clerks and
the apprentices of the law, 212-213. Beginnings of law
schools, 213. The office of the rolls of chancery and the
keeper of the rolls, 213-214. The domus conversorum be-
comes the hospicium of the roUs, 214-215. Nepotism in the
chancery, 215. Illustrated by the Thoresbys, Ravensers, and
Walthams, 215-217. Chancery clerks borrowed by magnates,
217. The staff of the household offices, 217-218. Increasing
mediocrity of the wardrobe clerks — dissociation of the office \/'
of the privy seal from the household, 219. Its increasing
importance, 219. Accessibility of high posts in church to
royal officials, 219-220. Popes begin to raise difficulties to
their promotion, 220-221. Unimportance of parUamentary
and importance of diplomatic history in these years, 221.
Failure of the two treaties of London, 221. Renewal of
mihtary operations in 1359, 221. Arrangements for dividing
the administration, 222. The ministry of the regent in
England, 223-224. The administration with the king in
France, 224-225. Winwick as " chancellor " beyond seas,
225-226. His diplomacy, 226-227. The treaty of Bretigni,
227-228. The treaty of Calais, 228-230. The " definitive
peace," 230.
Section. V. Peace, Retrenchment and Reform, 1360-1371 231-265
A period of internal repose, 231. Edington's chancellorship,
231-232. Langham, Barnet and Wykeham in office, 233.
Stability of officials, notably in the household offices, 233-235. '^
Wykeham the typical minister of the period, 235. His
PAGES
xiv CONTENTS
organisation of building operations, 236-237. His member-
ship of the " inner household," 237. His pluralism, 238.
His position as keeper of the privy seal, 238-239. Financial
troubles, 239. Attempts to balance income and expenditure
and draw up estimates, 240-243. Reliance on the " ransoms "
to balance income with expenditure, 243-246. Irregularities
in the exchequer, 245. Diversion of king John's ransom to
other purposes, 245-246. Barnet's investigations, 246-248.
Trouble between the chamberlains of the exchequer and
the treasurer's clerk, 248-249. Investigation by the Council,
249-250. The chamberlains driven from office, 250-251.
Necessity to appeal to parliament for money, 251-252. Pro-
vision for the king's children, 252-253. Relations between
the king's administration and those of his family and mag-
nates, 253-254. Difficulty in obtaining provisions to bishoprics
for the king's ministers, 254-256. Parliamentary opposition,
256-257. Official scandals, 257-258. Judicial scandals, 259.
Wykeham as chancellor, 259-260. Brantingham as treasurer,
261-262. Parliament of 1369 and renewal of the French
war, 262-263. Military disasters and the return of the
Black Prince, 263. The significance of the years 1360-1371,
263-264. Who were the reformers ? 264-265.
Section VI. The Last Years of Edward III., 1371-1377 266-321 ^
The parliament of 1371, 266-268. The Great Council, or
Parliament, of Winchester, 268-270. Significance of the de- -
bates, 270. Was the war party anti-clerical ? 271. Sig-
nificance of the ministerial changes, 272. Lay ministers
replace clerks, 273. Comparison of the crises of 1341 and
1371, 274-275. Pembroke and the Scropes, 276-277. Con-
tinuance of lay chancellors and treasurers, 277-278. The
new household officers, Ypres and Carew, 279. Efficiency
of lay ministers, 280. No clear issue between clerks and
laymen, 281. The lawyer as the alternative to the clerk, 281-
282. Parliament of 1372 attacks lawyers, 282. Failures in
France, 283. Parliament of 1373, 284-286. Decline in
king's health and change in his habits, 286-287. John of
Gaunt increasingly important but generally abroad, 287-288.
Growth of new court party, 288. Latimer and Lyons, 288-
289. Administrative scandals and hard times, 290. The
Good Parliament, 290-307. Its constitution, 291-292. Its
debates, 292-293. Debates of the commons, 293-294. Con-
stitution of advisory committee of magnates, 294-296. Pro-
gramme of reform, 297. Impeachment of Latimer and
Lyons, 297-298. Permanent council constituted, 298-300. "
Condemnation of the courtiers, 300-302. Death of the Black
Prince, 302-303. Petitions of Good Parliament, 303-304.
Triumph of Peter de la Mare, 304-305. Importance of the
CONTENTS XV
PAGES
Good Parliament, 305-307. Change in position of John of
Gaunt, 307-308. Desperate illness of king, 308. The October
great council and the reversal of the acts of the Good Parlia-
ment, 309-310. Impeachment of William of Wykeham, 310-
312. Alliance of Lancaster and the princess of Wales, 312-
313. Changes in the ministry, 313-314. Parliament of 1377,
314-318. The commons support Lancaster, but the mag-
nates less complaisant, 315-317. Petitions of the commons,
316-318. John of Gaunt and Wycliffe, 318-319. Quarrel of
John and the Londoners, 319-320. Humiliation of Lancaster,
320. Death of Edward III., 321.
CHAPTER X
ADMINISTRATION AND POLITICS UNDER RICHARD II.,
1377-1399 ...... 323-495
Section I. The Minority and the Peasants' Revolt, 1377-
1382 323-384
Few changes at Richard's accession, 323-324. Position of
Lancaster, 324. His reconciliation with Wykeham and the
Londoners, 324-325. New earls at coronation, 325. The
standing Council of Twelve, 326-328. The new ministers,
329-330. Important posts given to old servants of Black
Prince, 330-332. Parliament of October 1377, 332-338.
New Resident Council of Nine, 333-335. Petitions of Sir
Peter de la Mare and the commons, 335-336. Great Councils
and their importance, 336-338. Break down of the Con-
tinual Council, 338-339. The sacrilege at Westminster, 339-
340. Parliament at Gloucester, 1378, 340-342. Clerical
opposition, 341. Nomination of ministers and new con-
tinual council demanded, 342 . New council fiUed up, 342 - 343 .
Comparison of the three councils, 1377-1379, 344-345. Work
of the councils, 345-346. ParUament of 1379, 347-350. The
Poll Tax of 1379, 348-349. Parliament of January 1380,
350-354. The parliamentary commission of enquiry, 351-
352. Changes in the ministry, 352-354. Its failure, 354.
Parliament of Northampton, 354-356. The Poll Tax of
1380-1381, 355. Harmony between parliament and adminis-
tration, 355-356. Ministerial changes, 1380-1381, 356-358.
Assessment and collection of the new Poll Tax, 359-360.
Machinery oi collection, 360-362. The inspectoral com-
missions, 362-364. Causes of the Great Revolt, 365-366.
Risings in Essex and Kent, 366-369. The rebels in London,
369-373. Richard at Mile End and Smithfield, 371-372.
</
xvi CONTENTS
PAGES
Failure of London rising, 372-373. The trouble in the
Eastern Counties, 373-376. Punishment of the rebels, 375-
377. The Council of Reading; appointment of new ministers,
377-378. Return of Lancaster to politics, 378-379. Parlia-
ment of November 1381, 379-384. Scrope as chancellor,
380. The committee of reform, 380-382. The king's marriage,
382-383. Second session of parliament, 383. Its futile policy,
383-384.
Section II. The Court Party and the Lords Appellant,
1382-1389 ...... 385-453
Slight effect of Peasants' Revolt on adininistration, 385.
Parliamentary history, 1381-1386, 385-398. Instability of
parliament, 386-387. Proposals for conduct of French war,
387. Parliaments of May and October 1382, 387-388. Chan-
cellor Braybrook's proposals, 388. Parliament of January
1383, 389. Adoption of bishop Despenser's crusading proffer,
389-390. Its failure, 390. Salisbury parliament of 1384,
391-393. The murder of John Latimer, 392-393. Fruitless-
ness of autumn parliament of 1384, 393-394. Strife of Lan-
caster and the courtiers ; failure of Scots campaign of 1385,
394-395. Death of princess of Wales, 395. John of Gaunt's
Spanish schemes, 395-397. New titles conferred in parlia-
ment, 396-397. John of Gaunt in Spain, 397-398. Ministerial
history, 1381-1386, 398-402. Michael de la Pole as chan-
cellor, 402-404. The king's friends : Burley and the chamber
knights, 404-405. Robert Vere, earl of Oxford, 406-407.
Organisation of the court party, 407-408. Vere's position in
Ireland, 408. The aristocratic opposition, 408-409. Thomas
of Woodstock and the Arundels, 409-410. The parliament
of 1386, 411-418. Impeachment of Suffolk, 413-414.' The
parhamentary commission of 1386, 414-417. New appoint-
ments and dismissals, 417-418. Richard's withdrawal from
London to avoid the commission, 418. His wanderings in
1387, 418-420. He organises opposition to the commission,
420-422. Councils of Shrewsbury and Nottingham, 422-423. '
The judges declare the commission illegal, 423-424. War
between Richard and the commission, 424-426. Richard's
return to London ; flight of the courtiers and battle of
Radcot Bridge, 426-427. Surrender of Richard and dis-
missal of his ministers, 427-429. The new ministers, 429-
430. The Merciless Parliament and the Lords Appellant,
, 430-438. Parliament claims supremacy, 431-432. Parallel
growth of constitutional and monarchical theory, 432-433.
The victims of the appellants, 433-434. Disputes as to the
fate of Simon Burley, 434-435. The punishment of the con-
demned prelates, 436-437. Grants of parliament to appellants,
437. Richard renews his coronation oath, 437-438. The
CONTENTS xvii
PAGES
rule of the appellants, 439-440. The Cambridge parliament
of 1388 and its legislation, 440-441. Reforms brought about
by the appellants, 441-443. The chancery ordinances of
12 Richard II., 443-446. The household of the chancery,
446-447. Influence of chancery clerks on parliament, 447-
449. Continuity of the public services, 449-450 — illustrated
from the chancery, 450, the two benches, and the exchequer,
450-452. Quiet times, 452-453.
Section III. The Period of Compromise, 1389-1395 . 454-495
Richard changes the ministry and claims to exercise power
himself, 454-455.- The new ministers and judges, 455-456.
The change greater in appearance than reality, 456-457.
Gradual return of the favourites to power, 457-458. Little
rancour shown by king to the appellants, 458. Return of
John of Gaunt to England, 458-459. Little real change in -
policy, 459. Resignation of ministers in parliament of 1390
and their restoration to office, 460-461. Resignation of
Wykeham and Gilbert, 461. John Waltham, 461-462.
Edmund Stafford, 462-463. Other ministerial changes, 463-
464. John of Gaunt, duke of Guienne, 464. Ordinances for
the council, 464-466. Administration by the council, 467-
469. The council's resistance to the crown, 469-470. The
two types of council, 470-471. The Great Council, 471-473.
The standing council, 473. Growth of government by council,
__423- Parliaments between 1388 and 1395 become shorter
and less frequent, 473-474. The increasing importance of
parliamentary legislation, 475-476>^ Ecclesiastical and eco-
nomic legislation, 476-477. Fluctuations of the Staple, 477-
479. Richard's quarrel with London in 1392, 479-480.
Administration transferred to York, 480, restored to London,
481. Reconciliation of king and Londoners, 481-482. Dis-
turbed condition of the country, 482-483. Troubles in the
north, 483-484. Attitude of Lancaster, Arundel and Glou-
cester, 484-485. Quarrel of Richard and Arundel at queen's
funeral, 486. Richard's first Irish expedition, 486-495. His
journey to Haverfordwest, 487. Thence to Ireland, 488.
His doings in Ireland, 488-490. The ministers with him, 490-
492. The government of England by the regent York, 492-
494. The custody of the great seal, 492-493. The parliament
held by the regent, 494. Richard's return, 494-495.
xviii CONTENTS
LIST OF LONGER NOTES IN VOLUME III
PAGES
The location of the chancery ...... 57-58, n. 2.
Parliaments at Westminster and elsewhere . . . 61, n. 2.
The " High Court of Parliament " . . . . . 62-63, n. 3.
Appointment of ministers in parliament .... 133-134, n. 4.
The meaning of " peer " 138-139, n. 2.
The families of Thoresby, Waltham and Ravenser . . 215-216, n. 4.
Date of Wykeham's appointment to privy seal . . . 238, n. 3.
Exchange rates of English and foreign moneys, 1360-1370 . 243-244, n. 3.
" Parliament " and " Council "..... 268, n. 4.
Sources for history of Good Parliament, 1376 . . . 290-291, n. 4.
Attendance of borough and city members at parliaments . 291-293, n. 1.
Bannerets in parHament and council .... 296, n. 1.
346-347, n. 2.
Great Councils of 1377-1382 336-338, n. 5.
The " Continual Councils " of 1377, 1378 and 1379 compared . 343-344, n. 2.
John Latimer's story of a conspiracy against Richard II. . 392-393, n. 1.
Receivers and supervisors of war tax of 1386 . . . 396, n. 2.
Richard II.'s itinerary, February-November, 1387 . . 419-420, n. 3.
Sources for history of Merciless Parliament, 1388 • . . 430-431, n. 5.
Councils in 1392 471-472, n. 2.
Richard II.'s itinerary on his way to Ireland, 1394 . . 487, n. 1.
DOCUMENTS PUBLISHED IN VOLUME III
The Walton Ordinances, July 12, 1338 .... 144-150.
Memorandum concerning the great seal, September-October, 1394 492-493, n. 2.
CHAPTER IX
ADMINISTRATION AND POLITICS UNDER EDWARD III.
1327-1377
SECTION I
The Government of Isabella and Mortimer, 1326-13301
The little band of refugees and mercenaries, wliich landed on
September 24, 1326, on the Suffolk coast, soon received such
general support that it proved able to overturn the existing
government and put a new administration into its place. On
October 2 Edward II., accompanied only by a few faithful
followers, left Westminster. Within a fortnight he had taken
refuge in the March of Wales, where he strove to maintain him-
self in the younger Despenser's lordship of Glamorgan. The last
attempt at resistance in England was made by the elder Despenser
at Bristol, but he paid with his life for his futile effort.
Each stage in the revolution which put Edward III. on his
father's throne, was conducted with scrupulous regard for legal
forms. After the faU of Bristol, the assembled magnates held a
sort of "parliament" within its walls. On October 28 this meet-
ing declared that the king's withdrawal had left the realm without
rule. Accordingly it invited the young duke of Aquitaine to
assume the government as keeper. By that title, Edward of
Windsor conducted the daily business from October 26 to Nov-
ember 20, issuing writs in his father's name, witnessing and
warranting them himself alone, or in conjimction with his mother. ^
^ In revising this section I must acknowledge my obligations to the M.A.
thesis of my former pupil, Mr. S. T. Gibson, on " The jVIinority of Edward III."
^ The formula was '" teste Edwardo, filio nostro primogenito, custode regni,"
and the writs were issued "per ipsum custodem et reginam." See for instance the
last writs issued in this form, dated Hereford, Nov. 20, in M.R.K.R. 103/23. The
chroniclers noted this procedure. See for instance Chron. de Melsa, ii. 353 :
" Interim nullum breve missum fuit nisi nomine reginae et Edwardi filii sui."
VOL. Ill 1 B
2 ISABELLA AND MORTIMER ch. ix
Nothing more valid was possible since the chancellor had accom-
panied the king on his flight, and had taken the great seal with
him. The regent's writs had therefore to be sealed by his privy-
seal as earl of Chester and duke of Aquitaine, " because he had
no other seal at that time." ^ The custody of this was in the
hands of Robert Wyvill, queen Isabella's favourite clerk, trans-
ferred, apparently for this purpose, from her service to that of
her son.^
In opposition to the mandates of the usurpers, more formal
writs were issued by Edward II. 's chancellor, at least up to
November lO.^ Official sense of continuity caused both the writs
of the king and those of the keeper to be duly enrolled on the
appropriate roll of chancery. This double government came to an
end on November 16, when Edward was captured at Llantrisant,
and with him the chancellor and the seal. About November
20, Edward II. surrendered the seal to the new government at
Monmouth.
From this act the second stage of the revolution began. The
compulsory return of the king to England destroyed the legal
pretext that the young duke had taken up the regency by reason
of his father's absence. That being so, the regency was regarded
as at an end, and from this date the government was carried on
under writs of great seal which were supposed to be attested by
the captive king.* Thus the gross pretence was naade that
1 Foedera, ii. 646 ; C.P.B., 1327-30, p. 241 ; " eo quod alium sigillum pro
dicto regimine extunc non habuit." ^ See above, ii. 309-310.
' A rough itinerary of the chancery, and probably of Edward II., can
perhaps be traced from the places where chancery writs were issued during the
flight westwards. The places and dates were as follows : Tower of London, up
to Oct. 1 ; Westminster on Oct. 2 ; Sheen, Oct. 3 ; Acton, Oct. 3-4 ; Walling-
ford, Oct. 6-7 ; Faringdon, Oct. 6 ; Gloucester, Oct. 10-12 ; Westbury on
Severn, Oct. 6-13; Tintern, Oct. 14-16 j Chepstow, Oct. 15-21; Cardiff, Oct.
26-28 ; Caerphilly, Oct. 29-Nov. 2 ; Margam, Nov. 3-4 ; Neath Nov. 5-10.
Such chancery rolls as had followed the court had been taken to Swansea, where
they were captured and handed over, on Nov. 22, to Henry CHff, their keeper,
at Hereford. They filled four bags ; C.F.R. iii. 422. The issuing of writs on
Oct. 6 at Wallingford and at Faringdon, 22 miles from each other, shows that
there were, as was not imusual, two sets of clerks issuing writs at different
places on the same day. Chepstow and Tintern are so close together that the
simultaneous issue of writs from these places needs no explanation. All these
dates come from the relevant calendars of patent, close and fine roUs. See also
later n. 1, page 3.
* The official view was that no charters, letters patent or close, were sealed
in chancery between Oct. 28, the day when the chancellor was proclaimed
§ I THE INTERREGNUM 3
Edward personally resumed the government and himself issued
the writs which consummated his ruin. Bishop Airmyn of
Norwich became temporary keeper of the great seal on November
30, and round him rallied the old staff of chancery clerks. ^ When
the nominal co-operation of the captive king involved delay, a
shorter cut to business was found in direct mandates in the
names of Isabella and the king's first-born.^
On January 24, 1327, the proclamation of the duke as king
followed naturally from the proceedings of the Westminster
parliament and the virtual abdication of his father at Kenil-
worth. The new king's reign was reckoned as beginning on the
next day, January 25. It was easier in mediaeval England to
win a crown than to keep it, and the normal difficulties of a new
ruler were heightened by the special troubles with which Edward
III. was beset.
The deposition of Edward's father, and his own easy estab-
lishment as king, had been effected by means of a combination
against Edward II. of all the great interests. In this coalition
we must distinguish various elements. There was the personal
following of Isabella and Mortimer, which included not only
Mortimer's own kinsfolk and dependents, but the remnants of
the " middle party " of 1318, and a large proportion of the
marcher barons, who looked upon Mortimer as their saviour
forfeit, and Dec. 2, 1326 ; C.C.R., 1333-37, p. 62. Yet five years later the
exchequer distrained the keeper of the hanaper, Thomas Sibthorp, to account
for the issues of the seal during that period. The new government dismissed
this outrageous claim on June 26, 1333.
^ Foedera, ii. 646, gives in full the close roll entry as to the position of the seal
between Nov. 20 and the formal end of the reign. The seal was surrendered on
or immediately after Nov. 20. On Nov. 26 William le Blunt took it to Isabella
and young Edward at Hartley, a few miles N.W. of Worcester. On Nov. 30
Bishop Airmyn was made keeper at Cirencester, and elaborate precautions were
taken for the safe keeping of the seal while Airmyn travelled to Woodstock.
On Dec. 17 Henry CUff joined him, apparently at Woodstock, and the chancery
must soon have gone to Westminster, where it was on Jan. 14, 1327 ; C.C.R.,
1323-27, p. 656. The dating of writs during this period is curious. Though no
writs, according to the close roll, were sealed till Nov. 30, we have writs dated
Nov. 10 (? a slip for Nov. 30) at Cirencester; Nov. 29, Gloucester; Nov. 28,
Dec. 4, Westbury ; and Dec. 3-4, Ledbury. But from Dec. 6 onwards all
chancery writs are dated at Kenilworth, though we know the chancellor was at
Woodstock and Westminster. The place was in fact as much a matter of form
as was the " teste me ipso " of Edward of Carnarvon. To the formal royal
witness was now added, " per ipsam reginam et filium regis primogenitum."
2 Some such writs are enrolled in M.R.K.R. 103/27.
4 ISABELLA AND MORTIMER ch. ix
from the Despensers and the Fitzalans. It is difficult to believe
that Isabella had many supporters, and the small troop of mer-
cenaries from Hainault, under the uncle of the new ruler's
betrothed wife, Philippa of Hainault, was nothing but an em-
barrassment to the wirming side. Such forces were not in
themselves strong enough to secure victory. The rapid
decision in favour of the invaders was brought about by two
more important factors. The first was the wholesale desertion
of Edward II. by every section of the official class, the household,
the local administration, the chancery and the exchequer. This
general defection was made the more effective by the second of
the two factors, the singular unanimity with which the baronage
threw over >the cause of Edward II. There was indeed even
more unanimity among politicians in 1326-27, than there had
been in 1312, 1318, or 1321-22. The oppressed " contrariants "
made common cause with the enemies of their old persecutors.
The baronial opposition, headed by Henry of Lancaster, at once
welcomed the revolutionaries. Even the king's brothers, Thomas
of Norfolk and Edmund of Kent, threw in their lot with them.
The mass of the episcopate followed in their wake. No king
could oppose a united baronage. Still less could successful
resistance be made to a coalition in which that baronage was at
one with such representative townsfolk as the Londoners and the
barons of the Cinque Ports, the majority of the officials, a large
proportion of the courtiers, and the royal family.
The action of the barons explains itself. It was simply the
rebound against the depression to which they had been sub-
jected since 1322. The attitude of the episcopate was partly
determined by the same motives, and partly by the desperate
self-seeking of many of the leading prelates. But the desertion
of the king by his own officers was the fatal and unexpecfted
blow. When Edward fled westwards, few of his ministers, high
or low, went with him. The only officials of any importance who
clave to him were Robert Baldock, the chancellor, and Robert
Holden, the controller of both the wardrobe and the chamber.
As long as the king showed fight, the only salvation from
administrative anarchy had been to allow all who were willing
to serve new masters to remain at their posts. The accept-
ance of the revolution by the official class simplified the
§ I CONTINUITY IN CHANCERY 5
task of the new government. All that was immediately neces-
sary was the filling up of one or two gaps. A curiously
small number of ministerial changes heralded the reign of
Edward III., and a rule beginning with a revolution was
conducted by almost the same oflS.cials as had administered
the fallen tyranny.
We have already seen that William Airmyn had been given
the custody of the great seal.^ Few chancery clerks followed
Baldock's lead, and any who did soon made their peace with
the new government. Thus we find Henry Cliff, keeper of the
rolls of chancery and virtual head of the office, already estab-
lished in lodgings at the queen's headquarters in Hereford by
November 22. ^ Cliff was soon high in the confidence of Isabella,
and retained the rolls until his death in 1333.^ His example was
generally followed by his subordinates. Men like William
Harleston, Michael Wath, Thomas Bamburgh, and Adam Brome *
remained at their old posts until death or retirement. Even
with the wardrobe it was the same, for although Holden
^ So late as January 1327, the great seal of the new king was still regarded
as, by the king's orders, in the custody of queen Isabella ; Thomas, Cal. Plea
and Mem. Rolls, Lond., 1323-64, p. 17.
" See Foedera, ii. 646, C.P.R., 1324-27, p. 337. Had he come from London,
or was he a deserter from the March of Wales ? The former seems more likely
despite his earlier record, and despite the fact that William Chff, his kinsman,
had to receive pardon and restoration to favour on Mar. 3, 1327, as suspected of
adherence to the Despensers and Baldock. Edmund, earl of Kent, testified to
his innocence ; C.P.R., 1327-30, p. 25. WilUam Cliff had been Despenser's
clerk before entering the royal service ; Place of Edward II., pp. 136-137. He
died before Oct. 20, 1328, when Richard Bury succeeded him as prebendary of
Hastings ; C.P.R., 1327-30, p. 324. Their name suggests their origin was from
Despenser's manor of Cliff in the parish of Hemingburgh, near Selby, Yorks.,
which came into the king's hands by the rebeUion of Hugh Despenser the j'ounger,
whereon it was re-granted to the Lancastrian, John Ros, on Mar. 30, 1327 ; C.P.R.,
1327-30, p. 105.
^ For instance CUff was Isabella's go-between when Robert of Mold sur-
rendered his estates to Cliff, conditionally on a re-grant to himself and his heirs
male, with reversion to queen Isabella ; C.P.R., 1327-30, p. 96. He died before
Jan. 20, 1334, when his successor, Michael Wath, was appointed, and CUff's
executors were ordered to deHver the chancery records to him ; C.C.R., 1333-37,
p. 295.
* Adam Brome was " at the king's command always attendant at the
chancery " ; C.P.R., 1327-30, p. 1 ; though he was now " of the house of St.
Mary, Oxford," his own foundation of Oriel. lb. p. 1, c/. p. 61, which suggests
residence at Oxford, and p. 448, which shows he was still " staying continually
in the king's service " in 1329. He was dead before June 26, 1332 ; ib. 1330-34,
p. 311.
6 ISABELLA AND MORTIMER ch. ix
was faithful to the last and permanently deprived of his
- office,^ his chief, Robert Wodehouse, accepted the new situation.
As early as December 2 we find Wodehouse working in the west as
keeper of the " wardrobe of the queen and of the king's eldest
son," 2 with the help of a new controller chosen from duke
Edward's household. Wodehouse was then made keeper of the
new king's wardrobe, a post which he held untU August 1328. The
only new men in the wardrobe were those who had been conspicuous
in the service of Edward when he was earl and duke. Naturally
enough there was a certain infusion of men who had served
Edward of Windsor before his accession. The most important
of these were Nicholas Huggate, the controller after November 1,
1326, and Richard Bury, of whom we shall soon have much more
to say. It was the same with the two benches, though the chief
justice of the common bench, Hervey Staunton, was not re-
appointed, apparently because he was averse to the revolution.
But he was already moribund, and easily obtained the pardon
which enabled him to devote the last months of his life to his
Cambridge foundation of Michaelhouse.^ If the privy seal was
taken with the king to Wales, and on his surrender put into the
hands of Isabella's clerk, Robert Wyvill,'* its former keeper,
Robert Harleston, was retained in the service of the new ruler,
for he was transferred at once to his old clerkship in the chan-
cery. The history of the exchequer demands special attention,
because it brings out most clearly the continuity of the
government service.
The Michaelmas session of the exchequer had just begun
when Edward II. fled from London. One of the last orders
issued by him before he left his capital, was an instruction to
the treasurer to pay the troops, who, he still hoped, -^ould flock
^ Nevertheless he was pardoned on April 22, 1327, at the request of the earl
of Lancaster ; C.P.R., 1327-30, p. 97. At the same date his lands and goods
were restored ; C.C.R., 1327-30, p. 125.
2 He was already acting on Dec. 2 at Ledbury ; C.P.R., 1324-27, p. 338.
* Michaelhouse was founded in 1324. Staunton died on Nov. 2, 1327.
There is a good account of his career and foundation in A. E. Stamp's Michael-
house, privately printed in 1924 to commemorate the 600th anniversary of its
foimdation. Staunton's hostility to the revolution is shown by the fact that
Isabella seized his treasure at Bury soon after her arrival ; Ann. Paul., p. 314.
His first " protection " was on Jan. 30, 1327 ; C.P.R., 1327-30, p. 1.
* See above, ii. 309-310, and iii. 2.
§ I CONTINUITY IN EXCHEQUER 7
to his banner.i The treasurer, archbishop Melton, had made
obedience to the master whom he had served from his early
youth, the habit of a lifetime. But, notwithstanding the new
session, Melton was away in his diocese, so that he had no oppor-
tunity of impressing his personal loyalty upon the staff of his
ofi&ce. Thus abandoned by king and treasurer, Sir Walter
Norwich, the chief baron, and his colleagues took things into
their own hands. Amidst the disturbances in London, which
attended the revolution, they continued the Michaelmas session
as if nothing untoward had happened. Inevitably this session
was sparsely attended. Not many sheriffs or other accounting
officers appeared in person, and a considerable proportion did
not even send proxies. Most of those who did come brought
very small sums, or " nothing at all " or " nothing save writs," 2
although six escheators, out of eight, came by self or proxy, and
each brought some money. Exchequer writs were issued as
usual, Walter Norwich attesting them in place of the absent
treasurer.^ This waiting on events continued for more than a
month. Then, on November 6, a writ of the keeper of the realm
was issued from Hereford, declaring that, as Melton was engaged
in the north, he could not attend to his duties as treasurer, and
therefore nominating bishop Stratford of Winchester as his
lieutenant.* Stratford, after a show of hesitation, was now a
declared partisan of the revolution. He accepted office, and on
November 15, as keeper of the treasury, swore at the Guildhall
to maintain the liberties of the city of London.^ The bold effort
of Melton to stand up for Edward II. in the January parliament
showed the wisdom of depriving him of power ; and Stratford's
short period of office was marked by the beginnings of a systematic
reversal of the Despensers' policy.
When the parliament, which met on January 7 at Westminster,
^ This was a writ of privy seal issued at Westminster on Oct. 2, the very day
of the king's departure ; M.R.K.R. 103/24. To the enrolment is appended this
note : " Et memorandum quod hoc breue remansit ad scaccarium recepte."
As there were no soldiers, the execution of the order was clearly impossible.
2 See the " aduentus vicecomitum " in M.R.K.R. 103/1-2 ; "nihil tulit "
and " nihil tulit nisi breuia " are normal formulae.
* lb. L.T.R. 99/195 d. gives such writs, dated between Oct. 5 and 13.
* lb. K.R. 103/24. The writ is dated at Hereford, Nov. 15.
^ Ann. Paul., p. 318. For the important part played by the Londoners in
the revolution see Thomas, Cal. P. and M. Rolls, London, 1323-64, pp. 11-17.
8 ISABELLA AND MORTIMER ch. ix
ended the revolution by recognising Edward III. as king, it was
only a matter of form that ministers who were to continue in
office should take out new commissions. On this occasion such
a precaution was doubly necessary, for it was advisable that the
irregular nominations of the interregnum should be superseded
by legal appointments under the great seal. A natural result of
the revival of the Lancastrian tradition was that all offices were
scrutinised in parliament. The numerous petitions of the com-
mons showed extreme consciousness of this point of view. Along
with petitions that the ordinances should be observed, and that
the honours of canonisation should be sought for Thomas of
Lancaster and archbishop Winchelsea, the commons asked that
wise and suitable councillors, elected by the magnates, should be
secured for the new king. They also petitioned that no officer
who was in arrears with his accounts should be restored to office
until he had tendered his accounts and answered all complaints
against him. The former petition was accepted ; the latter was
rejected by the advice of the council.^
The review of the officers of the crown and the consequent
removals show that some attempt was made to carry out the
commons' wishes. Both a new treasurer and a new chancellor
were appointed. Melton and Stratford giving way to bishop
Orleton, and Airmyn being replaced by John Hotham, bishop of
Ely. New commissions were issued for the barons of the
exchequer, the judges, and various other officers appointed by
patent ; but some of the old king's servants were continued
without any formaHty, as, for example, the clerks of chancery;
Walter Norwich's share in the condemnation of Mortimer in
1322 had been atoned for by his services since October, and he
remained chief baron till his death in 1329.2 The one change
among the subordinate barons was the substitution, for a recent
* Rot. Pari. ii. 9-10, § 33. " Item, la commune prie, qe oin mette convenables
gentz et sages entur le roi, qe lui bien cunsailer, et qe ceux soient eUutz par les
grauntz." § 18, " Item, prient la commune, qe nul qe ad este en office le roy
qe deit acunt, ne soit mes remys en office taunt q'il eit final acunte fait, et
qu'il eit respoundre a chescuny pleinte."
^ Norwich was reappointed on Feb. 2, 1327 ; C.P.R., 1327-30, p. 2. His
successor, John Stonor, was appointed on Feb. 23, 1329 ; ib. p. 365. Norwich
probably died just before this, as the writ ordering his post-mortem inquest was
dated Feb. 25 ; Cal. Inq. P.M. vii. No. 235. For Norwich's descendants see
above, ii. 221, and later, iii. 38, n. 1.
§ I MINISTERIAL CHANGES 9
nominee, of the veteran William Boudon, who had long been
treasurer of Isabella's household.^ The only other important
change in the exchequer was that John Langton, the king's
chamberlain of the receipt who had served under Edward II.,
was superseded by Robert Swalechff, another royal clerk.^
Geoffrey Scrope, chief justice coram rege since 1324, was retained
in office, but a successor to Staunton in the headship of the
common bench was found in one of his former junior colleagues,
WiUiam Herle.^ The eight district escheators were reappointed,*
and the almost immediate reversion to the old plan of the two
escheators indicated not so much dissatisfaction with persons as
a change in pohcy.^ On the other hand, the sheriffs and keepers
of castles were nearly all replaced.*^ It may be significant that,
contrary to the express wishes of parhament, the household
appointments were still kept outside its control. The shght
reconstruction necessitated, when the new king gathered his
household round him, we have already noticed.
The importance of this continuity of personnel must not
be overstressed. The majority of officials were in no wise
1 C.P.R., 1327-30, p. 9. On Oct. 15, 1327, Boudon was replaced by Robert
of Nottingham, king's clerk ; ib. p. 182. His predecessor was John of Redeswell,
who had been made baron on Sept. 1 and admitted the same day ; C.P.R.,
1324-27, p. 313; M.R.K.R. 103/19, 115. Though deprived of this office, we
find Redeswell active in the service of the new government.
^ Langton drew his salary up to Feb. 5, though SwalechiJ had been appointed
on Jan. 29.
3 C.P.R., 1327-30, p. 2.
* C.F.R. iv. 6-7. To the reappointments this note was added : " Be it
remembered that it is not written to any one to deliver the writs, rolls, and other
things, etc., because all the escheators were in the said office in the time of
Edward II."
* Of the two escheators one, Simon Grimsby, had been one of the escheators
since 1324, but the other, Wilham Trussell, was a Lancastrian exile who had
returned with Isabella, and was prominent at every stage of the revolution,
notably in the trial of Despenser and in the renunciation of homage to Edward
II. See later, p. 35, for him. The fluctuations between the policy of two
or three escheators, and the eight escheators of 1323-27, are carefully worked out
by Mr, S. T. Gibson in his Note on " The Escheatries, 1327-1341," in E.H.R.
xxxvi. 218-224 (1921). One result of the reversion in 1327 to the old policy was
that the new escheators had notliing to pay to the exchequer. Thus Trussell,
"escheator citra Trentam non venit, sed Laurencius de Rustiton pro eo," but
" nichil tuht, quia tarde recepit officium suum." Similarly the proxy of Simon
Grimsby, the northern escheator, " nichil tulit ob causam predictam " ;
M.R.K.R. 103/12 d.
« C.F.R. iv, 15-17 records that between Dec. 3, 1326, and Feb. 24, 1327,
nineteen sheriiidoms changed hands. There were further changes in March.
10 ISABELLA AND MORTIMER ch. ix
politicians, but were professional servants of the state or house-
hold. Their business was to execute the orders of their superiors.
They had, therefore, no scruple in carrying on the routine of
administration under any form of government. A modest
revolution scarcely disturbed the official class, whose permanence
was as strongly marked in the fourteenth century as is that of the
civil service of our own day.
If we would appreciate the measure of change which the new
reign brought about, we must go beyond the minor officials to
the heads of the great offices. At once we are struck by the short
tenure of office of all the great officials during the minority of
Edward III. There w^ere, for instance, five treasurers between
the accession of Edward III. and the fall of Mortimer.^ These
and similar fluctuations in the tenancy of the chief posts in the
king's household illustrate the^instabihty of the ruling coahtion.
Indeed, this coahtion began to split up into its constituent
elements as soon as its triumph was assured. The main cause
was, undoubtedly, the jealousy between the followers of the
Lancastrian tradition and the new court party, which strove to
give effect to the wishes of queen Isabella and Mortimer. The
evidence of change of pohcy which the acts of the new administra-
tion afford is even more illuminating.
A large share of the spoils of office was won by the representa-
tives of the baronial opposition. As the new king was a boy of
fifteen, a standing council of regency seemed necessary. Here the
Lancastrians mustered strongly, the way for this being prepared
by the reversal in parhament of the sentences against the chief
contrariants, a reversal soon followed by their substantial
restoration ta their ancient estates.^ Henry of Lancaster held
the first place in the council, having already received the custody
of the deposed Edward of Carnarvon, and of Kenilworth castle,
in which he was confined.^ Henry's supporters on the council
included bishops hke John Stratford, his chief clerical friend, and
such temporal adherents as Thomas Wake of Liddell, his son-in-
law, constable of the Tower and justice of the forest south of
^ See below, p. 17, n. 4.
^ The restoration was not always quite complete, as is shown in the cases of
Lancaster and Badlesmere.
3 Rot. Pari. ii. 10-12.
§ I THE LANCASTRIAN MAGNATES 11
Trent,^ and the northern barons, Henry Percy and John
Ros,2 the last being also steward of the new king's house-
hold. Under the active leadership of Henry of Lancaster
and bishop Stratford, the baronial opposition which Thomas
of Lancaster had once led, reformed its ranks and exerted
overwhelming influence.
The clearest proof of the influence of the Lancastrian magnates
is found in the repudiation by the new rulers of the novel ex-
periments of the Despensers, and the resumption of the good old
ways which appealed to their conservative instincts. Thus, for
instance, the Despenser system of home staples in certain fixed
towns was first undermined and, after fifteen months, definitely
aboHshed.3 Within a few weeks of the revolution the eight
regional escheators of 1323-24 were replaced by the older
system of one escheator north and one escheator south of Trent.*
The suppression of the chamber lands, carried out before the end
of 1326, was undoubtedly popular with the tenants of chamber
^ Ann. Paul., p. 340, says that Wake was made chamberlain in the North-
ampton parhament of April 1328 ; but C.C.R., 1327-30, pp. 371, 387, show that
Gilbert Talbot was so acting on Mar. 1 and May 12, 1328, and C.P.R., 1327-30,
p. 159, on Aug. 23, 1327. The text of the chronicler is confused and full of
error, and I have noted no other evidence that Wake was chamberlain. If he
were, he would have been more likely to have been removed than appointed
in 1328. See below, p. 15, n. 3.
* Ros' first attestation of a charter as steward is dated Feb. 4, 1327
{Ch. R., 1 Edw. III. 114/89); his last is on Mar. 3, 1328 (ib. 2 Edw. III.
115/85).
^ The Kenilworth ordinance of May 1, 1326 (see Place of Edw. II. p. 261) was
re-enacted on May 1, 1327 (Foedera, ii. 705-706), but on Sept. 23 a temporary
measure of free trade was allowed till Christmas at " the staples and elsewhere "
for those who would pay an extra customs duty ; C.P.R., 1327-30, p. 169.
The merchants were in favour of the foreign staple, but the chief towns, notably
London, regarded even free trade as better than a staple abroad ; Thomas,
Cal. P. and Alem. Rolls, London, 1323-64, pp. 52-54 and 56-58. Henry CUff
held an inquiry early in 1328 at York, and found opinion much divided. Finally
the parliament of Northampton abolished the Kenilworth ordinance at Easter,
1328. Free trade remained in operation until 1332, when the English staples
were restored ; C.P.R., 1330-34, pp. 362-363. The staple towns were the same
as under Despenser's ordinance. See later, p. 50.
* The escheatorship north of Trent was restored on Feb. 4, 1327 ; C.F.R. iv.
2-3? This only involved adding to the existing escheatorship of the northern
shires, all Lancashire, and the parts of Notts., Stafford, and Derby north of the
Trent. Grimsby, acting in the smaller area since 1324, had thus his jurisdiction
enlarged by those districts. On the same day, Feb. 4, the other seven local
escheators had their offices regranted them ; ib. pp. 6-7 and 11. They were all
superseded on Feb. 26, when William Trussell was made escheator south of
Trent ; ib. p. 22.
12 ISABELLA AND MORTIMER ch. ix
manors, who had petitioned for permission to compute at the
exchequer,^
In the same spirit the bishop of Durham was given con-
firmation of his " royal liberties " in his palatinate,^ and the
archbishop of York of his " port and prises in the water
of Hull," which Edward I. had stopped.^ Again, it was sheer
reaction to abolish the chancellor's fee and allow chancellor
Hotham to make his profit from the " issues of the seal,"
after the ancient fashion.^ Though the ordinances had been
accepted generally, in one particular the reactionaries went so
far as to set aside a characteristic constitutional reform made
by the ordainers. One result of the ordinances had been that
the two chief forest officers, north and south of Trent, had
been refused their earlier title of justice of the forest, and given
instead the humbler designation of keeper, or warden.^ Never-
theless, Thomas Wake was now definitely appointed justice of
the forest south of Trent, and his three successors in office en-
joyed the like title until 1330.^ If the justiceship north of Trent
was not revived, it was probably only because of the life grant
of the keepership made in 1317.'
The constitutional attitude assumed by the new government
comes out in the frequency of representative parliaments and
the great variety of business referred to them, ranging from
appointments to offices to the peace with Scotland. So in-
significant a matter as the restoration of their lands to the alien
priories, after the conclusion of peace with France, was made
^ See later, iv. 230-231. ^ Poedera, ii. 710.
^ Foedera, ii. 697, 710 ; C.C.R., 1327-30, pp. 51-52. Melton had based his
claim on an alleged charter of Athelstan, giving the see of York " aU liberties
in the water of Hull that heart might think or eye might see." The crown pre-
ferred a more limited grant of Henry III.
* This grant was made on Jan. 26, 1327 ; C.C.R., 1327-30, p. 265.
^ See Place of Edward II., pp. 357-360.
* C.F.R. iii. 423 ; for WiUiam Zouch of Mortimer, ib. iv. 93 ; and for John
Maltravers, ib. pp. 128 and 206.
' lb. ii. 311, records the appointment of Jolm Cromwell as keeper during
pleasure on Nov. 23, 1316. He was made keeper for hfe on Sept. 25, 1317 ; ib.
p. 341. Cromwell on his return from exile resumed office on Feb. 10, 1327 ; ib.
iv. 8. He was then described as justice, but was more usually called keeper.
After 1330 both forest officers are described as keepers again. See for a
similar restoration of the forest justiceship imder Richard II. later, iv. 45.
G. J. Turner, in E.H.R. xviii. 112-116, gives a good list of the justices south
of Trent.
§ I THE MARCHER FACTION 13
" with the assent of the prelates, earls, barons, and other magnates
in the present parliament." ^ A liberal confirmation of the great
charter and the charter of the forests, and the confirmation of
the old and the grant of new privileges to the city of London,
were other concessions of the same type. Thus the ostentatious
conservatism of the baronage swept away much of the work of
the courtier radicals of the last reign.
The Lancastrian baronage was not indifierent to more material
considerations than policy, but by far the richest of the concrete
rewards of victory went to Isabella and Mortimer and their per-
sonal partisans. An immense increase was made to Isabella's
dower lands, including a large proportion of the manors formerly
assigned to Edward II. 's chamber.^ Mortimer added to his great
Welsh estates the lion's share of the spoils of the Despensers and
Fitzalans, and the justiceship of Wales for life.j He might well
have been the founder of a " royal liberty " in the west, far
transcending any other existing franchises,^ and from this point
of view his later earldom of the March has a special sig-
nificance.* Except for the justiceship of Chester, given to
Mortimer's follower Sir Oliver Ingham, the official recognition of
the Marcher faction was slight as compared with its material
aggrandisement. Mortimer had not even a seat on the standing
council set up to rule in the young king's name. Doubtless
bishop Orleton and Oliver Ingham sufficiently represented his
interests on that body, which was indeed never intended to be
properly effective. In essence it was another attempt to exploit
the name of Lancaster and the traditions of the last reign, in the
interests of the dominant party.
The land remained extremely unsettled, and until 1328 Eng-
land was at war with the French and the Scots. There were
many plots to release Edward of Carnarvon, or to restore him
to his throne. It was in vain that the deposed king was trans-
ferred from the custody of Lancaster to that of close allies of
1 M.R.K.R. 103/40-41. The writ dated Feb. 7, 1327, was " de assensu
prelatorum, comitum, baronum et alionim magnatum, in presenti parliamento
nostro existencium. Per petitionem de consilio."
^ See for this later, iv. p. 232, n. 1, and v. chap, xviii. § I.
^ Particulars of the acquisitions and alliances made by Mortimer will he
found in my article on him in the D.N.B.
* See later, pp. 21-22.
14 ISABELLA AND MOETIMER ch. ix
Mortimer.i The friends of the old ruler so nearly succeeded that
they seized Berkeley Castle and plundered it, and rescued the
captive king.^ Though he was soon recaptured, the Mortimer
faction now thought it prudent to put him secretly to death,^
Vigorous efforts were made to grapple with public confusion, but
the land still groaned under the terrorism of the young king's
household, which in its search for plunder and purveyance did
not spare even the property of the church.* Still more disorderly
than the royal household was the household of the king's uncle,
Edmund, earl of Kent.
While the country was seething with unrest, the coalition
which had brought about the revolution was gradually breaking
up. It soon became clear that the Lancastrians and the followers
of Mortimer took up different attitudes on nearly every public
question. These differences further emphasised the deep-seated
personal animosities which had been only partially glossed over
by the temporary pursuit of a common end. The last point on
which the two factions agreed was making peace with France
and Scotland, but this policy of reconciliation, though in accord-
ance with Lancastrian tradition and in the interests of Mortimer
and the queen, did not please public opinion. For this reason
parliament was saddled with the responsibility of the surrender
to the successful Scottish rebels.
The most disturbing consideration to the Lancastrians was the
increasing evidence that the queen and Mortimer were gradually
depriving them of aU effective influence. Though frequent
parliaments were held, they were persistently held away from
^ The new keepers were Thomas Berkeley, to whose castle of Berkeley
Edward was transferred, and John Maltravers. Berkeley was Mortimer's son-in-
law, and Maltravers was married to Berkeley's sister.
" A text proving this has been published by Dr. Tanquerey in E.H.R. xxxi.
119-124(1916).
' See for the circumstances attending Edward's murder my Captivity and
Death of Edward of Carnarvon. M.U.P. 1920.
* See for this the curious pamphlet called Speculum regis Edwardi (ed.
Moisant, Paris, 1891). This paper, as Prof. Tait has shown {E.H.R. xvi. 110-115),
was written between 1330 and 1333, and probably by Simon Meopham, who was
archbishop of Canterbury between 1328 and 1333. It enumerates the scandals
of the royal household, which were at their worst before the fall of Mortimer ;
Speculum, p. 99. After Mortimer's execution the goods of churches at least
were commonly spared: "adhuc tamen durant et fiunt omnia predicta mala;
hoc solummodo excepto, quod illi de curia tua non capiunt ita communiter bona
ecclesiarum ut prius facere consueverimt."
§ 1 LANCASTRIANS REMOVED FROM OFFICE 15
London, where the magnates and bishops in conjunction with
the citizens tended to overbalance the court party. The
negotiations with Scotland gave suitable excuse for removing
the exchequer and common bench from Westminster to York in
October 1327. This Mortimer and Isabella did in the face of
strong remonstrance from the city of London.^ At the same time,
the queen and Mortimer were steadily striving to replace
Lancastrian officials by men of their own. Among their nominees
were unequally yoked together Lancastrian deserters, followers
of the anti-Lancastrian tradition of Badlesmere, and clerical and
knightly adventurers anxious for a career. Afterwards Mortimer
was charged with having moved and appointed ministers, mostly
ministers of the household, to suit his caprice.^ Yet a certain
movement among officers, both in the state and in the household,
was so usual that the importance of these short-lived appointments
must not be over-estimated, and to distinguish any continuous
poHcy in the welter of self-seeking that mainly characterised
the minority of Edward III. would be rash. It can safely be
said that no strong Lancastrian partisan was now suffered to
be either chancellor or treasurer. Although the Lancastrian
Gilbert Talbot continued in office as king's chamberlain for
the whole of the period 1327-30, and beyond it,^ most of
1 C.C.R., 1327-30, pp. 160-162 ; M.R.K.R. 103/103 d. ; Cal. Plea and Mem.
Rolls. Lond., 1323-64, pp. 25, 29, 30, 31, 69. The order for the return to
Westminster was issued twelve months later, on Oct. 20, 1328, after consultation
with the Salisbury parliament ; C.C.R., 1327-30, pp. 324-325 ; M.R.K.R. 105/6,
24, 224. In " Exchequer Migrations to York in the 13th and 14th Centuries "
in Essays in Mediaeval History presented to Thomas Frederick Tout, p. 292, Miss
Broome has made a slip in describing this absence from Westminster as lasting
only for two months, Oct. to Dec. 1327, instead oi for fourteen months, Oct.
1327 to Dec. 1328.
2 Rot. Pari. ii. 52 ; C.C.R., 1327-30, p. 325.
^ C.C.R., 1327-30, p. 35, shows that Talbot had been " of the quarrel, of
Thomas, late earl of Lancaster," and therefore imprisoned and deprived of
his lands until he agreed to pay to Edward II. a heavy fine. On Feb. 13 the
fine was remitted on the petition of the council. We have already mentioned
that Ann. Paul., p. 340, says that Thomas Wake was appointed chamberlain
at the Northampton parliament of April 1328, and have indicated the im-
probability of such a step; above, p. 11, n. 1. If Wake was ever in office, it
was only for a few weeks. The chronicler at the best records an attempt to
put in Talbot's place a more thoroughgoing Lancastrian. It is clear from Cal.
Plea and Mem. Rolls, London, 1323-64, pp. 77-80, that a vigorous though
unsuccessful attempt was made at Northampton to assert Lancaster's position
as the king's chief coimsellor.
16 ISABELLA AND MORTBIEE, ch. ix
the occupants of the great offices were rather representative of
the old Pembrokian following, and leant towards the moderate
court party.
There was one small set-back to Mortimer's influence when
bishop Orleton gave up the treasury within two months of his
appointment. His motive for resignation was a mission to
Avignon, whence he came back " provided " by the pope to the
bishopric of Worcester, a richer see than that of Hereford.
Orleton's eager quest of personal advancement soon brought him
into conflict with the court, which for a time lost in him a strong
partisan.^
The next treasurer, Henry Burghersh, bishop of Lincoln, the
nephew of Badlesmere, represents most faithfully the ministerial
type of the period. He was by that time a complete convert to
the court party.^ While he was still at the exchequer, an attempt
was made to secure his appointment by papal provision to the
archbishopric of Canterbury, which had been vacated in November
1327 by the death of the discredited Walter Reynolds. This
attempt was defeated, apparently owing to the influence of
Henry of Lancaster, by the canonical election, accepted by the
pope, of Simon Meopham, a scholar and a saint, who tried, in
spite of weak will and ineffective character, to make the voice of
the church heard on behalf of order and good government.
Burghersh was compensated for this failure by transference from
the treasury to the chancery, ^ He remained chanceUor from
May 1328 to November 1330, and was the only person to hold
practicaUy continuous office during the whole of the minority of
Edward III. He received the issues of the seal in March 1329 in
^ He held office from Jan. 28 to Mar. 25 onty. By December he had
incurred the king's anger, and was refused the temporalities of Worcester ;
C.C.R., 1327-30, p. 239. The absence of Orleton from England during the
whole time of Edward II.'s captivity at Berkeley makes impossible the famous
story of Geoffrey Baker, which describes him as the chief villain in the tragedy
of Edward's murder ; Baker, pp. 31-32.
* His aimt, lady Badlesmere, despite her personal feud with queen Isabella
in 1321, was pardoned and restored to her estates.
^ Hotham resigned the chancery on Mar. 1, 1328. Henry Cliff, keeper of
the rolls, received on the same day the custody of the seal jointly with WiUiam
Harleston. At the same time Chff was ordered to keep an inn for the clerks of
chancery, and to receive the fee which other chancellors had received up to the
time when Hotham had been given the issues of the seal ; Foedera, ii. 731. This
keepership ended with the appointment of Burghersh, May 12 ; ib. p. 743.
§ I INFLUENCE OF HENEY BURGHEESH 17
accordance witli the precedent of Hothaniji His influence on
afiairs was such that, even before he became chancellor, an
aggrieved suitor complained that Burghersh could order to be
made any letters of privy seal which he would, so that a
letter of privy seal was at that time of no value as a check on
the chancery.2 Thus dominating the privy seal, Burghersh did
not hesitate to enforce his supremacy over the other offices of
state. That a chancery writ overrode an exchequer writ comes
out clearly in a letter ordering the collectors of a subsidy to
pay certain sums, which they had levied, direct to the Bardi
without waiting for exchequer writs to that effect.^
Burghersh's successors at the treasury, Roger Northburgh,
bishop of Lichfield, Thomas Charlton, bishop of Hereford, and
the inevitable Robert Wodehouse, were not the men to resist
such action. All three were officials of curialistic upbringing,
who, if they had some sympathy for a reforming policy, had a
stronger feeling for their own advancement.^ It is unlikely that
^ See C.C.R., 1330-33, p. 73. Just before Burghersh's fall, John Wodehouse,
keeper of the hanaper, resumed responsibility for the issues of the seal on
Nov. 4, 1330. lb.
^ Rot. Pari. ii. 46. The petitioner claimed " qe lettre de garante de prive scale
le roi ne peut excuser le dit evesqe . . . desicome il meismes poait commander
estre fait lettres de prive scale tides q'il vodra." See my former pupil, Dr. B.
Wilkinson, on " Authorisation of Chancery writs under Edward III.," in
B.J.R.L. vui. 110. Burghersh offended the clerks of the chancery by giving
the small Hvings, of which he had absolute disposal, to his personal clerks
rather than to the staff of his office.
^ C.C.R., 1327-30,^. Z\\. An apology for this interference with the normal
course of the exchequer was, however, thought desirable. " As the exchequer
is closed at the present season (Aug. 20, 1328), so that writs under the exchequer
seal cannot be made," the king, to avoid loss and delay, approached the collectors
directly by writ of chancery. The more regular method would have been a
mandate to the exchequer to direct the collectors under the exchequer seal to
carry out the king's wishes.
* The exact dates of the treasurers of the period are : Adam Orleton, bishop
of Hereford, Jan. 28-Mar. 18, 1327 ; Henry Burghersh, bishop of Lincoln,
Mar. 25, 1327-Mar. 2, 1328 ; Roger Northburgh, bishop of Lichfield, Mar. 2-
May 20, 1328 ; Thomas Charlton, bishop of Hereford, May 20, 1328-Sept. 16,
1329 ; Robert Wodehouse, archdeacon of Richmond, Sept. 16, 1329-Nov. 28,
1330. The early retirements of Orleton, Burghersh, and Northburgh can aU
be explained : that of Orleton by his dispatch on a mission to Avignon in Mar.
1327 ; that of Burghersh by his promotion, and that of Northburgh by his being
sent with Orleton on the embassy to France in May 1328 ; Foedera, ii. 743. It
is, however, highly probable that Northburgh never acted, in spite of the man-
date of Mar. 2, 1328, to Burghersh to deliver to him the " things appertaining
to the office." C.C.R., 1327-30, p. 277, seems to describe Burghersh as still
treasurer on Apr. 28, and R.R. 280 makes Burghersh go on as treasurer till
VOL. Ill C
18 ISABELLA AND MORTIMER oh. ix
any of these short-lived ministers exercised much personal
authority. As under Edward II., power rested mainly with the
permanent officials.
Mortimer made his influence felt most in the domestic offices
rather than in the offices of state. In particular he secured the
control over the young king's household when, after the removal
of the Lancastrian Ros, three consecutive stewards of the house-
hold, John Maltravers, John Wysham, John Maltravers again,
and Hugh TurpHngton,^ represented the inner circle of confidants.^
Wysham had Lancastrian connections, and perhaps his reversion
to them explains his short tenure of office.^ Maltravers was a
converted Lancastrian exile who had returned to England in
Mortimer's train, and, as one of the keepers of Edward of
Carnarvon, was open to the worst suspicions of complicity in his
murder.* TurpKngton died bravely in defending Mortimer in
the final crisis at Nottingham on October 19, 1330. Of the
July, when Charlton took over the office. If this were so, then Burghersh served
as both treasurer and chancellor between May and July. Ann. Paul., p. 340,
make the ministerial changes to have taken place in the Northampton parha-
ment of April 1328, but its details are thoroughly inaccurate. The discrepancy
about the dates may indicate a conflict between Lancaster and Mortimer as to
Burghersh's position. It is clear that Ann. Paul, represent what Lancastrians
wished, rather than what happened. Stubbs (C.H. ii. 389) is lacking in pre-
cision in describing the ministerial changes of this period.
^ This is the most usual form of the name in contemporary documents.
Mr. C. G. Crump has pointed out to me passages in Eyton's Shropshire,
ix. pp. 322, 325, 326-327, which suggest the name is derived from Tripple-
ton, a township in the parish of Leintwardine, hundred of Wigmore,
Herefordshire.
^ The approximate dates of the stewardship are : John de Ros (Feb. 4, 1327-
Mar. 3, 1328); John de Maltravers (Mar. 3-May 11, 1328); John de Wysham (May
12, 1328-Feb. 17, 1329) ; John de Maltravers again (Mar. 1, 1329-July 29, 1330) ;
and Hugh de Turplington (Aug. 10-Oct. 19, 1330, when he was killed). These
dates are derived from their attestations on the charter rolls, 1-4 Edw. III. See
also, later, the lists in vol. v. Ros was on Oct. 8, 1327, called " steward of
the household of queen Isabella " ; C.P.R., 1327-30, p. 179. His services to
Isabella are spoken of on ib. p. 140, and to the queen and king " beyond seas and
within seas," on ib. p. 105.
^ For Wysham I have had the advantage of reading the rough manuscript
of an account of him which its author, the Rev. R. G. Griffiths of Clifton-on-
Teme, has kindly allowed me to use. His name doubtless comes from the
hamlet of Wyesham, close to Monmouth — a Lancastrian lordship ; but his
career shows very varied connections. But his desertion of Mortimer was
complete, for a few days after the Nottingham crisis he was appointed justice of
North Wales ; G.P.R., 1330-34, p. 10.
* For Maltravers' share in the death of Edward II., see my paper on The
Captivity and Death of Edward of Carnarvon.
§ I EXCHEQUER REFORMS 19
lesser court servants, John Wyard, king's yeoman, was accused
of acting as Mortimer's spy.^
Considering the troubled times, the departmental officers did
their work well. In particular the exchequer deserves credit for
its efforts to carry out the Stapeldon-Melton reforms, and for
continuing its task of bringing up to date the audit of " foreign
accounts," still lamentably in arrears. The formal appointment
by the exchequer, in 1310, of a band of " auditors of foreign
accounts," was, as Dr. Broome has demonstrated, ^ perhaps the
first exchequer reform of Edward II. 's reign. Although towards
the end of 1316 it was felt that the need for such officials was
then so slight that they could be discharged, early in 1317 the
exchequer decided it would be advisable to retain the services of
two of the auditors. The seizure by the king of the contrariants'
lands in 1322, and their speedy transference from chamber to
exchequer control, gave an opportimity to Stapeldon, then at the
height of his reforming zeal, to double the original number of
auditors and enlarge their scope. It is not too much to say that
these officers helped to make it possible for the exchequer to
grapple with the increased responsibihty which Stapeldon and
his fellow-reformers threw upon it. When, after Roger Belers'
murder in 1326, the northern and southern branches of the
exchequer were amalgamated, the restoration of exchequer unity
did not prevent further development of the work of the foreign
auditors. Appointed by the exchequer itseK, they were not
likely to excite its jealousy, and the erection of a special house,
procured in 1326, adjacent to and connected with the exchequer,
for the hearing of foreign accounts before these auditors,^ proves
^ Rot. Pari. ii. 52. " Et mist (sc. R. Mortimer) Johan Wyard entour le roy
d'espier ses faitz et ses ditz." Mortimer made his steward, Richard of Hawk-
slow, chirographer of the common bench ; C.P.R., 1327-30, pp. 2, 229.
^ See her important paper in E.H.R. xxxvui. 63-71, with her later addendum
in ib. xxxix. 482, on " Auditors of the Foreign Accounts of the Exchequer, 1310-
1327." I gratefully accept her correction of my imfortunate guessings on this
matter: above, ii. 341. A suspicion of their inadequacy inspired me to a
corrigendum inserted at the last moment, but this was based on imperfect
knowledge and did not go nearly far enough. We owe it entirely to Miss
Broome that the whole question has been settled conclusively, by her discovery
of the relevant texts in the Memoranda and Issue Rolls.
» B.B.E. ii. 932 ; M.R.K.R. 101, 19 Ed. II. breu. dir bar., HU. t. This
writ has been printed by Dr. Broome in E.H.R. xxxviii. 68-69 : " ime bone
meison pur les acountes foreins, joignant de coste." This may have been an
indirect, and if so the only permanent, result of Belers' division of the exchequer.
20 ISABELLA AND MOETIMER ch. ix
that they were regarded as permanent members of its staff.
The department of foreign audit became a self-contained, though
not an entirely separate, branch of the exchequer. The rate of
progress in auditing the foreign accounts must have been retarded
by the exchequer's fourteen months' visit to York in 1327-28,^
but after the return to Westminster the work was pursued with
such determination that a good deal had been done before the faU
of Mortimer and Isabella.^
Administrative continuity was thus kept up under the new
regime. A number of ancient wardrobe accounts were at last
passed, and the exchequer took full advantage of the collapse of
accountabihty to the chamber to review the whole of the arrears
of the chamber accounts. By June 1330 the books of the con-
trollers of the chamber, up to 1326, were all duly delivered and
enrolled.^ Some of the magnificent enrolments of the accounts
of the keepers of contrariants' lands now received their final
form. The excellently kept exchequer records of the period
tell the same tale, the memoranda rolls in particular being of
enormous dimensions and written with great care and elabora-
tion. Nor can any fault be found with the corresponding chancery
rolls. Thanks to the permanent " civil service " — if we may
anticipate the modern phrase — routine went on equally well,
whether the heads of the departments were competent or in-
competent, long-lived or short-Hved.
The energy of the exchequer was the more creditable since,
even when the ofiicers once accountable to the chamber were
forced to bring their past accounts to Westminster for audit, the
former chamber lands, now transferred to Isabella's keeping,
seemed to have remained entirely outside exchequer control.*
Year after year we read in the memoranda roll the list of queen's
manors, but the names of the keepers of the lands are not so
1324-26. See above, ii. 211. In that same year of 1326, too, an attempt was
made, presumably by the exchequer, although it was initiated by a writ of privy
seal dealing with exchequer personnel generally, to raise the number of auditors
to twelve. The new appointments sanctioned do not, however, seem to have
taken effect ; M.R.K.R. 102, 20 Ed. II. breu. dir. bar., Trm. t. See E.H.R. xxxix.
482.
^ See above, p. 15.
^ For details, see later, chapters xi. and xui. ^ See above, ii. 348-349.
* See below, vol. iv., chap. xiii. ; and vol. v., chap, xviii. § I. The queen's
household.
§ I THE EARLDOM OF THE MARCH 21
much as mentioned, nor did they bring any accounts, cash, or
taUies to the exchequer. The administration of these lands
was now vested solely in the queen's household officers, who
were accountable to her own exchequer at Westminster. To
this body all her keepers and baihffs were instructed by royal
writ to make their profiers of their issues and ferms twice a year,
in the same way that proffers were made by the king's bailiffs at
his exchequer.^ Isabella's lands, then, were as free from ordinary
exchequer control as when they had been reserved to the king's
chamber. Unluckily, very Httle is known of the administration
of Isabella's wardrobe, chamber, or exchequer. A bare Hst of
her officers, all of her own appointment, and some suggestions of
her financial transactions might be painfully collected, but all
her accounts are lost. The queen's exemption from exchequer
control prevents much hope of our finding them among the
archives of that office. It is clear, however, that Isabella's lands
were rapidly becoming another great franchise, an imperium in
imperiQ.
In the same way Mortimer himself was securing in Wales and
the March a feudal principahty transcending that dreamt of by
the younger Despenser in the hey-day of his power. Mortimer
not only ruled over his own vast inheritance, but he procured
enormous additions to it. He built up a great family connection
by marrying his numerous children to heirs and heiresses. He
exercised to the full his prerogative as justice of both North and
West Wales. On the borders of the principahty, he was in the
south the keeper of the Despensers' marcher lands in Glamorgan,
and in the north master of the large possessions of the last earl
faithful to Edward II., Edmund Fitzalan, earl of Arundel and
lord of Oswestry and Clun. In Ireland he was building up a
similar principality on the basis of his " regahty " of Trim, and
his custody of the Beauchamp estates gave him a sure footing
in the Midlands. When he took up the dignity of an earl in
that parHament at Sahsbury where he openly broke away from
Lancaster, Roger was not content to be styled earl of this or
that county, but was called earl of the March of Wales. Such
an earldom, as an indignant chronicler remarks, was never before
1 C.C.R., 1327-30, p. 143.
22 ISABELLA AND MORTIMER ch. ix
heard of in England.^ If the younger Hugh's attempts to build
up a Marcher principality had raised all the- baronage against him
in 1321, inevitably Mortimer's ruthless destruction of the balance
of power in Wales and the March soon excited the utmost jealousy
of the watchful nobles who had united to bring him back
from exile to authority. In spite of his long pedigree and in-
herited position, his aggressions caused him to be regarded as an
upstart, a favourite, a scandalous and a greedy person. A man
pursuing personal gain with such single-mindedness was bound
to rouse the hostility of a baronage ever suspicious of an over-
mighty member of their own class.
As a counterpoise to aristocratic opposition, Mortimer had
recourse to the new capitahst class. In particular he was shrewd
enough to enhst the whole-hearted support of the rising merchant
family of the Poles of Hull. His influence made Richard de la
Pole chief butler in 1327, and the advances of that family lessened
the financial stringency of the minority.
Before the slow-witted barons had become fully conscious of
the encroachments of the earl of March, they had already con-
crete grievances of their own in other directions, and the coaHtion
which had given Edward III. his throne was soon to be shattered
upon the rock of Lancastrian irritation at exclusion from power.
It is questionable how far the withdrawal of the deposed king
from Lancaster's custody in April 1327 was due to the earl's
refusal to accept further responsibility for him,^ and how far it
resulted from Isabella and Mortimer's distrust of Lancaster.^
Plainly the change in keepership made the tragedy of Berkeley
easier, but it also definitely placed responsibihty for it on the
shoulders of Mortimer's dependents and kinsfolk. Earl Henry
must soon have seen that his nominal position as chief of the
standing council of regency had been devised with the object of
making him responsible for a policy for which he had little Mking.
The family annahst records Henry's bitter complaints that he
was neither suffered to approach the king nor to give him advice.^
^ Ari7i. Paul., p. 343. " Et talis comitatus nunquam prius fuit nominatus
in regno Angliae " ; " comitem Marchiae Walliae " ; Murimutn, p. 58. Compare
— t " comitatus inusitato nomine."
^ Knighton, i. 444. ^ Captivity and Death of Edward II., pp. 18-19.
* Knighton, i. 447, " non potuit ei appropiaquare nee quicquam consilii
dare."
§ I THE LANCASTRIAN REVOLT 23
It could not have been pleasant to see Pontefract, the scene of
his brother's martyrdom, in the hands of Isabella's bailifis ; ^
nor reassuring to have his son-in-law, Thomas Wake, removed
from the custody of the Tower of London in favour of Bar-
tholomew Burghersh, the brother of the bishop of Lincoln. His
partisan, Ros, lost his position as steward of the household, and
his chief episcopal ally, John Stratford, was carefully kept from
all office. Henry's last act in support of the Mortimer faction
was persuading the clergy to make a grant in the parliament of
Leicester of 1328.^ The men of the old middle party, notably
the Badlesmere-Burghersh clan, which had ruined his brother's
cause, were now supreme.
Despite his caution, Lancaster was slowly forced to take
action. His followers were already out of hand, and by mid-
October 1328 had murdered the traitor Robert Holland, who had
deserted earl Thomas in his hour of need, and had sent his head
as an acceptable present to their master. On October 16
parliament met at Salisbury, where Mortimer appeared with an
armed force obviously meant to overawe the assembly.^ Lan-
caster refused to attend, and gathered together a band of soldiers
at Winchester, in opposition to Mortimer. His friends, including
the two archbishops, bishop Stratford, and other bishops, with-
drew from parliament without licence.* The discredited royalists
took things into their own hands. They created three new earls,
of whom Mortimer was one, but they dared not persevere, and
before long parliament was adjourned.
It looked as if proceedings reminiscent of the worst days of
earl Thomas might well lead to another civil war. The newly
made earl of March devastated Henry's Leicestershire lands and
^ The honour of Pontefract, a Lacy possession, had been ruled by the
chamber till 1326, and in 1327 was given to Isabella for life. By Edward I.'a
re-grant of the Lacy estates to Henry, earl of Lincoln, Henry of Lancaster had the
right to succeed to them on the death of his sister-in-law, the countess Alice ;
C.Ch.R., 1257-1300, p. 427, dated Dec. 28, 1292. Yet it was not until Mortimer's
fall that earl Henry could extract a recognition of his right ; C.P.R., 1330-34,
p. 19. The honour had been transferred from Isabella to queen Philippa
(G.P.R., 1327-30, p. 501) in Feb. 1330, a process which set a new and younger
life interest between Henry and his claim. It is significant that the grant was
made after the collapse of Lancaster's revolt. See later, p. 24.
* Ann. Paul., p. 348.
2 Rot. Pari. ii. 52.
* Foedera, ii. 753 ; cf. Ann. Paul., p. 342.
24 ISABELLA AND MORTIMER ch. ix
occupied Leicester itself. ^ Again earl Henry " rode " with his
followers against his enemy, but he got no further than Bedford.
He was deserted by the king's uncles, and advised by the new
archbishop, Simon Meopham, to make peace. In the result he
and his chief followers were mulcted in enormous fines,^ and
some of the more active of them, including Wake, Trussell, and
Thomas Wither, the murderer of Holland, fled from the realm,
and lost their estates.
The miserable collapse of the Lancastrians was complete by
January 1329. Only then was the Salisbury parliament allowed
to reassemble in Westminster, but the failure of Lancaster had
also rendered parliament helpless. All this made Mortimer's
position stronger than ever, though it put an end to all hope of
co-operation between him and the nobles. In March 1330 he
deliberately lured to his ruin the king's foolish uncle, Edmund of
Kent, and this was almost the last of Mortimer's triumphs. By
May 1330 his power was so precarious that it was thought wise
to strengthen the military protection of the court by contracting
with leading partisans of Mortimer, in return for grants of land,
for their continual presence at court with a specified number of
men-at-arms.3 Yet as late as August, Mortimer succeeded in
repressing an attempt of Rhys ap GrufEydd, the Welsh magnate
incriminated in the conspiracy which induced Mortimer to put
Edward II. to death, to return from exile and put himself at the
head of his kinsfolk and tenants in the principality.
Edward III., now eighteen years old, thought it time for him
to be king in fact as well as in name. He was, however, at a
disadvantage in planning any decisive step, because he had come
to the throne so young that he had not had the chance of gathering
round him a group of faithful household servants such as that
which had enabled Edward of Carnarvon, when he was prince of
^ Knighton, i. 450, describes Mortimer's host as " magnus exercitus Angli-
corum et Wallanorum."
2 C.C.R., 1327-30, pp. 528-530, gives the details. Earl Henry was fined
£30,000, Hugh of Audley and Thomas Wake each £10,000. The acknowledge-
ments were cancelled on Dec. 4, 1330, after Mortimer's fall.
3 C.P.R., 1327-30, pp. 516, 517, 529, 530, show that Bartholomew Burghersh
was to be " always with the king," with 20 men-at-arms, Edmund Bohun with
7, Maurice of Berkeley with 4, and Sir Simon Bereford with 200, while Mal-
travers was to be " with the king," and now became steward of the household
for the second time.
§ I THE KING'S CONFIDANTS 25
Wales, to attempt the destruction of Walter Langton, the
strongest of his father's ministers. On the contrary, Isabella
and Mortimer had carefully kept him in leading strings, and had
filled his household with their own personal dependents, who were
more likely to spy on his movements than to help him to realise
his wishes. Yet inevitably the wretched plight of the vigorous
and energetic young king excited the sympathy of such of his
followers as were not too intimately bound up with Mortimer's
schemes, and there were always courtiers who, as much as they
dared, would strive to win the favour of the monarch who must
sooner or later come into his own. A little inner circle of
confidants did then grow up about the king. They, while
keeping on outwardly good terms with Isabella and Mortimer,
secretly conspired with their master to overthrow them. Among
these supporters the chief lay representative was the knight,
William Montague, and the chief clerical representative was the
household clerk, Richard Bury.
Richard Bury was the only servant of Edward's youth who
played a prominent part in his reign. From the early boyhood of
the earl of Chester he had been in his service. ^ In 1319, when
Edward was still a mere child. Bury was already clerk to
the justice of Chester, and from 1320 to 1323 acted there as
chamberlain. This office, with its periodical journeys to court to
render accounts to the exchequer, or to pay in sums to the earl's
wardrobe, gave Richard regular opportunities of coming into
personal relations with his master, though his own normal
residence in Cheshire, and the complete absence of positive
evidence, refute the tradition that he was Edward's tutor.^
^ Foedera, ii. 804, speaks of " fructuosa obsequia quae nobis a pueritia
nostra impendit et in dies impendere non desistit." This was in 1330. On
March 29, 1330, pardon was granted to Richard of Bury, king's clerk, of his
arrears of accounts as chamberlain of Chester " for labours and expenses in the
service of the king, as well before he assumed the governance of the realm as
afterwards " ; C.P.R., 1327-30, p. 505.
^ This legend, first appearing with many strange tales in WUliam Chambre's
Durham Chronicle of the next generation (Wharton, Anglia Sacra, i. 765, and
Hist. Dunelm. Scriptores Tres (Surtees Soc), p. 127), may well have no other
origin than Bury's desire to be thought a great clerk. See later, p. 26, n. 2.
Edward's tutor was John Paynel, parson of Rostherne, in Cheshire. He was
one of Bury's successors as chamberlain of Chester, acting from Dec. 17, 1326,
to March 13, 1327, and afterwards intermittently up to 1335 ; Brown, p. 100 ;
G.F.R. iv. 207. He is specially mentioned as rendering good service to Edward
in his youth by superintending his education in literature, " intendendo doctrine
26 ISABELLA AND MORTIMER ch. ix
From 1323 to 1326 it is likely that Bury continued in Edward's
service, but lack of household accounts prevents us from ascer-
taining in what capacity. However, from February 19 to April
16, 1326, he held the important post of constable of Bordeaux,
when Edward was in possession of the duchy of Aquitaine.^ He
seems to have attended Edward and Isabella on their journey to
France, and to have been with them in Paris. Probably, there-
fore. Bury personally discharged his functions at Bordeaux. In
any event he came back with Edward to England, and was
transferred to the new king's wardrobe. Here he was at first
cofferer, and afterwards, from August 21, 1328, to September 23,
1329, keeper and treasurer.^ Called from this dignity to what
had hitherto been the comparatively subordinate office of keeper
litterature " ; C.C.R., 1327-30, p. 573, Nov. 13, 1329. It is not impossible that
the less known clerk was overshadowed by and confused with the reputed
author of the Philobiblon, to whom the credit of the young ruler's education
thus came to be ascribed. See later, p. 37, n. 4.
1 C.P.R., 1330-34, p. 383. Pardon, dated Dec. 30, 1332, to Mr. Richard of
Bury, of accounts due when he was constable and receiver at Bordeaux from
Feb. 19 to April 16, 19 Edward II. I have imluckily omitted him from my list
of constables of Bordeaux in Place of Edward II., p. 398. But John Travers was
acting till Easter term, 1326; I.R. 218 ; and Aubert Mege was appointed on
Mar. 12, 1326; G.R. No. 38, m. 5, 19 Edward II. It looks as if Bury, and.
after him Adam Limber, were regarded by Isabella and her friends as still in
possession, though they were, in fact, in northern France with the court.
Huggate and then Limber were successively keepers of the duke's wardrobe.
This explains the otherwise unintelligible entry on C.C.R., 1334-37, p. 20.
^ A minor problem connected with Bury is whether his proper designation
was " magister " or " dominus." In view of his literary pretentions, and of
^, Murimuth's contemptuous attitude towards them, the problem has some
^ modest importance. In the writs he is sometimes called " magister," but his
^ , normal style was certainly " dominus," as, for instance, in E.A. 383/10, where
!^ his kinsman is carefully described as Mr. Simon de Biu-y. Some light may be
\' suggested by two ■writs in ib. 383/12, where the exchequer is ordered to make two
payments " Magistro R. de Bury." In the later writ of Jan. 2, 1333, the en-
dorsement is " Magistro Ricardo de Bury," but the " magistro " is carefully
scratched out. I am incUned to hazard the guess that Bury was not a graduate,
but that he liked to be called one, and that clerks drafting writs were some-
times not unwilling to gratify his harmless vanity, though some precisians
objected to the practice. His dilettante love of learning made him an un-
wearied though unscrupulous book buyer and collector, and inspired, though
it is unlikely that he actually wrote, the Philobiblon. But, though we may
not take Murimuth's account of his illiteracy too seriously, Bury was not in all
probability a man of learning as much as a man of literary interests. So late
as 1333 he received a papal indult of non-residence that he might study at a
university for three years ; C. Pap. Reg. Let. ii. 392. However, his bishopric
put an end to any such scheme. A careful biography of Bury still needs to be
written ; Creighton's article in the D.N.B. is very unsatisfactory.
§ I RICHAKD BURY AND WILLIAM MONTAGUE 27
of the privy seal, he apparently became the special confidant of
the king. Though controlled and perhaps overborne upon
occasion by the masterful chancellor Burghersh/ he quietly
bided his time, secretly inspiring Edward to revolt,
William Montague was Richard's chief colleague in this
delicate business. His father, a Somersetshire magnate of the
same name,^ had, as steward of the household and seneschal of
Gascony, been a prominent member of the Pembrokian party.
On his death in 1320 the younger William became a ward of the
king, and was appointed a yeoman of the royal household. By
reason of his services in this office he received in 1321 seisin of
his inheritance before attaining his majority. ^ He was continu-
ally employed on household service, and was already a royal
banneret by June 1328.'* In September 1329 he went with
Bartholomew Burghersh on a mission to John XXII. at Avignon,
and was there till the following February 1330.
The ostensible business of the embassy was to negotiate for
a crusading tenth, and to pay the pope the arrears of the " tribute "
due by reason of the surrender of king John to Innocent III.
A more secret matter was entrusted to Montague. In this it is
improbable that Burghersh with his compromising connections
had any share.^ Montague was to explain to the pope the
humiliating position of the young king, compelled to put his
seals on letters which were far from representing his personal
views, and to ask for the pope's help to enable Edward to throw
off the yoke. The pope seems to have been quite sympathetic.
When Montague got back home in March or April 1330, he re-
ported to the king that John XXII. wished to have some private
sign by which he could distinguish between the requests which
the king had " tenderly tq, heart " and those which were merely
formal and official.^ So a letter was drawn up, written by
^ See above, pp. 16-17, and Rot. Pari. ii. 46.
^ For William the elder see above, ii. 241-242, and Place of Edward II., pp.
116-117, 126, 221, 354, 393, 395. He died before April 9, 1320, the date of the
writ initiating his post-mortem inquest. William the younger is there de-
scribed variously as 17 and 18 years of age ; Cal. Inq. vii. 140-144.
3 C.F.R. m. 56. * E.A. 383/10.
^ The chancellor, Henry Burghersh, bishop of Lincoln, was, of course,
Bartholomew's uncle.
^ The curia had a long memory. In 1363 Urban V. told Edward III. that
he would grant a request made, " as the pope sees by the king's signum secretum
that he has the matter much at heart " ; C. Pap. Reg. Let. iv. 3.
28 ISABELLA AND MORTIMER ch. ix
Richard of Bury's own hand, in which the pope was informed-
that all the requests sent to him under privy seal or signet, in
which the words jpater sancte, written by the king himself,
appeared, would be those which Edward was really anxious to
have executed, and a specimen of the king's own way of writing
this address was appended. The whole matter was considered
so confidential that the king thought it necessary to apologise
for not writing the whole of the letter iu autograph. He added
that knowledge of this matter was confined to Montague and Bury,
for whose discretion he pledged himself. ^
The existence of a private means of communication between
the pope and the yoimg king is evidence that Edward now in-
tended to assert himself. He may not, to begin with, have had
any wide designs, but may simply have been interested in pro-
curing ecclesiastical preferment for his clerks.^ But machinery
which could get prebends for Richard of Bury and his fellows
could easily be extended to greater uses. Perhaps it was con-
sciousness of this new weapon that kept the king quiet when his
uncle Kent was done to death, and encouraged him to wait
patiently until a new court party was quietly formed out of the
younger men of the household. In this particular Edward had
great difficulties to contend against, for the royal household was
packed with Maltravers, Turplingtons, Wyards, and other agents
of Mortimer. Bishop Burghersh, the chancellor, was entirely
friendly to Mortimer and the queen ; the very privy seal, of which
Bury was the keeper, was constantly employed by Mortimer as
^ This letter, recently discovered in the Vatican archives, is printed by Mr.
C. G. Crump in E.H.R. xxvi. 331-332, with a facsimile of the words written in
the king's rather boyish own hand. This is probably the first surviving auto-
graph of an EngUsh sovereign. It is interesting that the sign was only to be
given to letters of the privy seal and signet. Letters under the great seal were
excluded. Bviry, of course, as its keeper, controlled the privy seal. The king's
signet, that is the secret seal, was the seal of the chamber and, therefore, directly
under the king's personal control. Edward signed "E. Rex" a treaty with.
Castile in 1362 : " scriptiu-am, E. rex, manu domini regis propria factam," as
John Brancaster, king's notary, attests ; Foedera, iii. 657. This is an early
instance of the sign-manual which became common under Richard II. For the
earliest extant signature, " Richard," see Chancery Warrants, 1352, a signet
letter of July 26, 1386.
^ " Lauancement des gentz de nostre houstiel " is put with " nos busoignes
propres " and " autres " among Edward's objects. He was at this period, and
later, importuning the pope to promise to provide adequately for Richard of
Bury. Foedera, ii. 804, a request of Dec. 1330, speaks of requests " htteris
propria manu nostra scriptis " of earlier dates.
§ I THE FALL OF MORTIMER 29
the instrument of his own policy.^ Therefore the profound
secrecy emphasised in the letter was an essential condition of
success.
The fact that in February 1330 Isabella and Mortimer dis-
gorged their custodies of Pontefract and of Glamorgan to increase
the marriage portion of queen Philippa ^ may have been a sign
of incipient weakness. But their easy triumph over Kent a
month later showed that they were still powerful, though that
event swelled the discontent against their domination. In August
a weU-contrived plot was set on foot by William Montague, who
had gathered round him a band of young men,^ and had both the
good-will of the king and the support of Henry of Lancaster.
Notwithstanding the efforts to keep the secret, rumours of
the conspiracy reached Mortimer's ears, and in a stormy scene
before the great council, held at Nottingham castle, October 15-19,*
the earl of March interrogated the king and the chief suspects.
They denied all knowledge of such a development, whereupon
Mortimer declared he could place no trust on the king's word.
WiUiam Montague, the arch-schemer, alone showed courage when
brought up for examination. He haughtily declared that he had
done nothing contrary to his duty, and after the council had
dispersed, told the king that it was better that they should eat
the dog than that the dog should eat them.^ On the night of
October 19, Montague made his way with an armed force into
the castle,^ overpowered Mortimer and his adherents, and thus
made Edward III. de facto king of England.
^ Rot. Pari. ii. 52-53. See later, vol. v. oh. xvi.
2 C.P.R., 1327-30, p. 501.
' Scalacronica, ed. J. Stevenson, p. 157, " Le roy embrasa couyne oue lez
ioenes gentz entour luy a remuer cast gouernail et a destruyer le dit count."
Murimuth, pp. 61-62. Knighton, i. 453.
* C.C.R., 1330-33, p. 153. At this date the difference between a great
council and a parUament was still so smaU that this great council was summoned
'by writs of great seal addressed to all the magnates. It was to meet at
Nottingham on Oct. 15. The writs of summons were dated Sept. 6. Murimuth
(p. 61) and Avesbury (p. 285) call this meeting a " parUamentum."
* Scalacronica, p. 157, is substantially confirmed by Rot. Pari. ii. 53.
® Among Montague's fellow- worke;s-were Robert Ufford ; Edmund Bohun,
who had been one of the faithful few who had surrendered with Edward II. at
Neath (Foedera, ii. 647), but was already a prominent member of his son's court
(C.P.R., 1330-34, p. 116); John Molyns (O.P.R., 1330-34, p. 110), then one of
Montague's followers ; and John Neville of Hornby (Rot. Pari. ii. 56). We may
safely add to the Ust Thomas Garton, the keeper of the wardrobe, for, besides
30 ISABELLA AND MOETIMEE ch. ix
Thus the rule of Mortimer and Isabella ended as it had begun.
In 1326 an apparently solid government collapsed before the
invasion of a few score of adventurers. In 1330 an equally well
established administration succumbed, after a short scuffle in the
dark, before a cleverly engineered palace intrigue. Each change
was the more easily brought about because, in spite of the sullen
acquiescence of the nation in years of misgovernment, the
authority which controlled the state reposed upon so narrow a
basis that the slightest of efforts sufficed to overturn it. While
the Despensers and Mortimers showed equal greed and self-
seeking, there was a real difference between the former period,
fruitful in administrative and economic experiments, and the
dull years of conservative reaction in which the Mortimer gang
used the wrongs of the lords ordainers as the pretext for snatch-
ing a power they never would have attained on their own merits.
The years 1326-30 are singularly barren in the history of admin-
istration, and in this respect stand in strongest contrast to the
period 1322 to 1326. Yet, at its worst, there was in the reaction
some evidence that the reforming spirit had not died. If the
rasher experiments of the Despensers were abandoned, the soHder
reforms of Stapeldon and Melton were retained. Not even the
selfish struggle for place and power, and the intrigues and com-
motions which accompanied it, prevented that continuance of
administrative tradition, that carrying on of the daily work of
the government, which preserved the EngUsh state in the days
of both revolution and reaction.
his high office at court, he was a follower of Montague. Some of the conspirators
lost their way, and the plan owed its success to Montague and Neville with
twenty-four men-at-arms, who were let into the castle by the connivance of its
constable, WiUiam Eland.
§n HARMONY BETWEEN KING AND MAGNATES 31
SECTION II
The First Eight Years of Edward III.'s Personal
Rule, 1330-1338
On October 20, 1330, Edward III. made the first use of his
liberty by proclaiming to his people that he had removed from
his counsels those whose evil influence had misguided and
impoverished both himself and his realm. Henceforth he was
resolved to rule in accordance with right and reason, and intended
that public affairs should be directed by the common counsel of
the magnates. 1
This promise foreshadowed the policy of the next eight years,
and was an inevitable result of the coalition of old nobles and
young courtiers which had brought about the fall of Mortimer.
The king was to govern the land, but he was to govern it in
accordance with the wishes of the aristocracy. In substance this
was the ideal of the ordainers. It was easy to execute as long as
king and nobles remained of one mind, but would a young, able,
and energetic prince submit to have his will limited by the
desires of the barons ? Yet harmony between the king and the
nobility was the first condition of tranquillity and sound govern-
ment.
From the beginning there was little danger of discord between \
Edward and his magnates. They had suffered the same afflictions
under Mortimer, and they rejoiced together at the defeat of their
common enemy. The young king and his liberators were
absorbed in jousts and tournaments, in which the conspirators
of Nottingham bore themselves as gallant knights. Besides this
community in sport, there were the feasting and the ceremonies
of a gorgeous court. In all these relations the king was the
centre of a brilliant circle of nobles, living with them on terms
of social intimacy and almost equality, sharing with them the
1 Foedera, ii. 799, " Nous voulons gouerner nostre people selonc droiture et
reson . . . et que les bosoignes que nous touchent et I'estat de nostre roialme
soient mesnez par commune conseil des grantz de nostre roiaume e nemie en
autre manere."
32 EDWARD III.'S PERSONAL RULE oh. ix
generous ideals of the difiused aristocracy of knighthood, yet
towering over them by his superior strength and valour, and by
his more adequate representation of their common cause.
For nearly fifty years similarity of pleasures and sports, and
the same standard of life and conduct, were real and permanent
bonds between Edward IIL and his baronage. There was no
such incompatibility of temperament as that which had so early
separated Edward of Carnarvon from the aristocracy he slighted
and ignored. King and nobles respected each other because
they understood each other so well, and had so much in common.
The festivities consequent on the king's advent to power could
not last for ever, but as time went on, there came other and more
serious pursuits in which the king and magnates could equally
share. Such was the attempt to restore the English supremacy
over Scotland, which, beginning in an informal support of the
filibustering " disinherited " nobles, driven from the northern
kingdom by the triumph of Robert Bruce, soon became a frank
efiort to renew the policy of Edward I. of governing Scotland
through a puppet vassal. This had hardly had time to fail before
the great French war provided a still more congenial common
military ambition. The conquest of France appealed to the
highest and the lowest motives, the love of adventure and deeds
of daring, the growing national self-consciousness and the greed
for plunder. Because of this union in a great endeavour the
latent antagonism between the crown and the baronage had for
many years little opportunity or reason to become an active
force. All through the reign there was much to do in which
king and nobles could co-operate with a good heart, so that there
was little or nothing of the fierce and rancorous antagonism of
crown and aristocracy which had marked the reign of Edward IL
To a friendly foreign observer, Edward of Windsor, up to full
middle life, was the ideal king of chivalry. John le Bel, the
aristocratic canon of Liege, had no national sympathy with the
English cause. Yet he made the " noble king Edward " the hero
of his history, and contrasts his magnanimity and splendour with
the weakness and pusillanimity of his rival, Philip of France. In
particular the chronicler stresses the love and honour shown by
Edward to his " men," the knights and squires whom he rewarded
" each according to his estate," transacting his business in
§ n CHARACTER OF EDWARD III. 33
accordance with their wise counsel. On the other hand, king
Philip always followed the " poor counsel " of clerks and prelates,
and not that of the " lords and barons of his land, many of whom
he cruelly put to death on suspicion of treason." Therefore John
calls Edward " the noble king," for he acted like a nobleman,
keeping on good terms with his barons, unlike the timid and
reserved Philip of France. ^
At all times Edward drew a large proportion of his lay
following from the old and new nobles of the land. He never
fell into his father's fault of keeping the higher baronage at a
distance, but on the contrary showed considerable skill in his
treatment of them. He was willing to forgive and forget, and
displayed a liberality in granting favours and franchises which
was quite opposed to the traditions of centralised monarchy.
Even the house of Mortimer was not eclipsed for long. To the
traitor's son were soon restored Wigmore and other portions of
the family estate, and his grandson was ultimately allowed to
resume the earldom. The king always maintained friendly re-
lations with his kinsmen of the house of Lancaster, and the house
of Bohun recovered from the depression into which the policy of
Edward I. and Edward II. had thrown it. Some Bohuns took a
share in the Nottingham adventure, and a few years later William
Bohun, the ablest of his house, stood out as one of the most loyal
and resourceful of Edward III.'s generals. Never since the
intimacy between Edward I. and Henry Lacy had there been
such cordiality or co-operation between the reigning king and
the leaders of the great families. The sullen aloofness of such
families was a thing of the past, even before foreign war became
an all engrossing occupation.
No doubt Edward's policy, strongly recommended to him by
John XXII., of covering up his mother's shame, did much to make
relations pleasant and easy.^ Isabella came out well from her
failure. Although she renounced the greater part of her swollen
dower, she kept possession of an ample revenue of £3000 a year.
Henceforth somewhat apart from politics, she yet retained the
dignified position of queen mother,^ upheld her estates as a sort of
1 Jean le Bel, Chronique, ii. 65-67, ed. Viard et Deprez, Soc. de I'hist. de
Prance.
2 See for instance Cal. Pap. Reg. Let. ii. 498-499.
^ " Regina mater," she is sometimes called, for instance in E.A. 392/4.
VOL. Ill I>
34 EDWARD III.'S PERSONAL RULE ch. ix
franchise and employed a large household stafi to govern them,
kept great state at her castle of Hertford, which seems to have
been the centre of her administration, and was treated with
scrupulous respect by her son, who constantly exchanged letters
and visits wdth her.
It was probably in Isabella's interest that Edward showed
an extreme remissness in deahng ^vith the reputed murderers of
his father. Of these Maurice of Berkeley soon obtained favour
and restitution ; and Maltravers was allowed to escape to the
continent, whence he came back fifteen years later with full
pardon and some measure of royal patronage. The subordinate
agents alone remained unforgiven, but death or exile soon ended
their careers. Mortimer himself had not been altogether im-
placable, but the generosity or prudence which left Lancaster
free to act, even after the humihation at Bedford, was bettered
by the king's lenient treatment of the less conspicuous and less
guilty supporters of the earl of March. So close an ally of the
traitor as Oliver Ingham was at once forgiven and restored to
his estates.^ The two bishops, apprehended on October 19 at
Nottingham in Isabella's company, were both lightly punished.
One was WyviU, her favourite clerk and " secretary," ^ for whom
the queen's favour had recently procured a provision to the
bishopric of Sahsbury,^ and the other was the chancellor, Henry
Burghersh of Lincoln. Wy\all was permitted to retire to his
bishopric, and Burghersh, though removed from the chancery
five weeks later.* was within a very few years restored to a
^ The reason assigned was his good service in Aqiiitaine ; C.P.B., 1330-34,
p. 22.
^ Secretary may be used ia the official sense with regard to Wyvill, for under
Edward II. Isabella had already a " secretarius." E.A. 375 9 records in 1313-14
payments to J. de Giffard, " clericus pro Hteris regine." In ib. 376/7 f.92d
(8 Ed. II.) he is called " secretarius domine regine."
^ He was keeper of the privy seal of Edward as duke ; see above, p. 2.
He is still called queen Isabella's secretary on July 14, 1327 ; C Pap. Reg. Let.
ii. 261. Another papal letter of the same date caUs Wodehouse the king's
secretary (ib. p. 201), when we know that he was keeper of the wardrobe. Muri-
muth, p. 60, describes Wyvill in 1330 as "qui scripsit speciales htteras reginae,"
when he was appointed bishop of Salisbury, though he thinks that, had the
pope seen him, he would never have been given a bishopric, " viro utique iUiterato
et minime personato."
* On Oct. 29 Burghersh had new grants in his favour ; C.P.R., 1330-34, p.
16. On Nov. 16 John XXII. earnestly besought John Stratford to " interpose
in the whirlwind excited in the realm touching the bishop of Lincoln, and to
§ n MINISTERIAL CHANGES IN 1330 35
considerable measure of favour. His nephew, Bartholomew
Burghersh, remained in office as warden of the Cinque Ports for
nearly two months after the Nottingham incident. Even Orleton
was forgiven/ though fresh excesses in his greedy pursuit of
promotion made it hard for his offences to be forgotten.
We find more changes resulting from the fall of Mortimer
than from that of Edward II. As in 1327, special pains were
taken to secure " suitable " sheriffs, and the king and council
agreed " that all the sheriff's of England should be changed
and none of them put back to office." ^ There were many
alterations also in the custody of castles and franchises. Some
changes, however, had no great poHtical significance, as for
instance the curious transferences of the judges of the
two benches.^ Bishop Burghersh remained at the chancery
for more than a month after his patron's fall, but this gave
him the unpleasant position of accepting responsibihty for
the mock trial and cruel execution of the traitor. The
selection, on November 28, of John Stratford as Burghersh's
successor gave to the Lancastrians the highest position in the
state, and was the most significant of the new appointments.
Room was found in the lesser offices for other Lancastrians,
such as, for example, Wilham Trussell. He had remained
faithful to Lancaster until after the Bedford riding, when he
was reconciled to Mortimer in the Winchester parhament and
pardoned at its request.* Within three months of the fall of
check those who are sharpening their tongues against him " ; C. Pap. Reg. Let.
ii. 499. Edward clearly took the pope's advice. Burghersh was treasurer from
1334 to 1337, and pre-eminent till his death in 1340 as a director of Edward's
diplomatic pohcy in the Netherlands.
^ Orleton was sent on an embassy to France on Jan. 16, 1331 ; Foedera, ii.
805.
^ Eot. Pari. ii. 60. Mr. Gibson has shown that this provision was carried out.
On Dec. 5, 17 new sheriffs were appointed to 25 shires, while only one old sheriff,
Roger Chandos of Hereford, was confirmed in his old post ; C.F.R. iv. 199-200.
Moreover, on Jan. 15, 1331, two more new sheriffs were assigned to three more
shires ; ib. p. 200.
^ The civUian king's clerk, John of Shoreditch, was appointed chirographer
of the common bench in place of Mortimer's old steward, Richard of Hawkslow,
removed by parhament ; C.P.R., 1330-34, p. 36, but Hawkslow was again
employed on certain affairs of the king's in April 1331 ; C.C.R., 1330-33, p. 301.
Shoreditch soon renounced his clergy and was knighted at the king's command.
He was allowed to continue chirographer ; ib. p. 398.
* C.P.R., 1327-30, p. 500. The pardon was " by king and council in
parliament." But it is annotated : " vacatur quia non habuit cartam."
36 EDWARD III.'S PERSONAL RULE ch. ix
Mortimer, however, Trussell was back at his old post of escheator
south of Trent. ^ The Lancastrian note was sounded in the
solemn declaration that his reappointment was " by the king
with the assent of the prelates, earls, barons and others of the
king's council in parliament and by privy seal."
On the day Stratford was made chancellor, archbishop Melton;
of York became treasurer for the second time, but a tenure of
no more than two months' duration gave him little opportunity
of doing much work at the exchequer. Probably Melton came
back as one of the last partisans of Edward II. rather than as
the completer of Stapeldon's policy of exchequer reform, and it
is likely that, as in 1326, he soon made his spiritual cares an
excuse for abandoning his office. Anyhow his influence was not
so much political as it was personal, for this prelate, whom not
even a court could corrupt, still stood for the best traditions of
administration and efficiency. As the secret organiser of the
second revolution, Richard Bury naturally retained his keeper-
ship of the privy seal. He remained in such high favour that
within five years he became bishop of Durham, treasurer of the
exchequer, and chancellor. The unimportant wardrobe officials
went on as before. After Turplington's violent death at Notting-
ham there had to be a new steward. Not unnaturally he was
found among Edward's personal helpers in Ralph Neville of
Raby, one of whose kinsfolk had been a leader in the attack on
Nottingham castle. ^
The group of young courtiers andNQobles who had personally
worked for the emancipation of the king, obtained the larger
share of royal favours. The three most conspicuous of them were,
within seven years, rewarded with earldoms. Edward's habit
of balancing forbade him to take this decisive step without
compensating the older aristocracy. Thus, side by side with the
three courtiers, three members of ancient famihes were raised to|
the same dignity. Other kings had called upon the lesser aris
tocracy for help against the magnates. The subtler policy of
Edward III. almost fused into unity the court and the baronial
^ C.F.R. iv. 222. This was on Jan. 17, 1331.
" Scalacronica, ed. J. Stevenson, p. 157, makes John Neville run Turplingtor
through the body and slay him. Ralph Neville was also made, on July 18, 1331
keeper of the forest north of Trent ; C.F.R. iv. 268, and he was already acting
as steward of the household on Oct. 25, 1330 ; Ch. R., 4 Edw. III., No. 32.
§ n THE NEW EARLS OF 1337 37
parties. The glory of the reigning house was also further enhanced
by the importation into England for the first time of the foreign
title of duke, the king's eldest son, Edward earl of Chester, being
made duke of Cornwall. These seven creations were made with
great ceremony at the Westminster parliament of March 1337.^
First among the courtier-earls came William Montague. " For
a long time," wrote a northern chronicler, " the king acted on
the advice of William of Montague, who always encouraged him
to excellence, honour and love of arms : and so they led their
young lives in pleasant fashion, until there came a more serious
time with more serious matters." ^ Montague received enormous
grants from Mortimer's forfeited lands, the ancient Lacy lordship
of Denbigh, and large estates in Somerset and Dorset. He was
the king's companion, not only in tournaments and other
sports, but in such romantic enterprises as the hurried journey
beyond sea in 1331, when the king and his friend, disguised as
merchants, and with a very meagre following, visited France to
perform homage.^ Montague's clerk, Thomas Garton, became
controller and then keeper of the king's wardrobe, and his brother
Simon became bishop of SaHsbury. Finally in 1337 the king
revived the earldom' of Salisbury in Montague's favour.
One of Montague's chief associates was William Clinton. He
succeeded Ingham as justice of Chester,* and Bartholomew
Burghersh as constable of Dover and warden of the Cinque
ports. ^ Robert Ufford, another of them, was made keeper of
the forest south of Trent in succession to John Maltravers.^ He
also held the stewardship of the household from March 1336 to
March 1337.' Now Clinton was made earl of Huntingdon and
1 See later, pp. 62-63. ^ Scalacronica, p. 158 ; tr. Maxwell, pp. 87-88.
^ The journey was not so secret as chroniclers, for instance Miirimuth, p. 63,
suggest. Edward appointed John of Eltham keeper of the realm, and left the
great seal with Robert Stratford, the chancellor's brother, taking the chancellor
and privy seal with him. See Deprez, pp. 74-75, and Foedera, ii. 814-815.
* He was already acting on Oct. 23, 1330 ; C.F.R. iv. 193. His chamberlain
after Dec. 26 was John Paynel ; ib. p. 207. Paynel had previously served in
this office. See above, p. 25, n. 2.
5 Appointed on Dec. 14 ; C.F.R. iv. 204.
^ Appointed on Dec. 16 ; ib. p. 206.
' He first attested a charter as steward on Mar. 5, 1336 {Ch. R. 10 Edw. III.,
No. 41), and continued to do so until Mar. 24, 1337 ; ib. 2 Edw. III., Nos. 56 and
61. He was made earl of Suffolk on Mar. 16, so that there was an apparent
overlap of a few days. But the attestations to charters must not be pressed too
far foT exact dates, though approximately they are of real value. Cases in which
38 EDWARD III.'S PERSONAL RULE ch. ix
Ufford earl of Suffolk.^ Such promotion raised them above the
position of mere courtiers into the still rigidly guarded higher
grade of nobility. When a courtier baron became an earl, there
was even greater danger of his drifting into the normal attitude
of his class of distrust to the crown, than there was of the house-
hold clerk, promoted to a bishopric, becoming a supporter of the
constitutional tradition. One very practical step taken by
Edward to strengthen the chain of gratitude binding the new
earls to their benefactor's throne, was his endowment of them in
a measure exceeding that usual on such promotions. Montague's
grants have already been mentioned. To Ufford and Clinton an
annual revenue of 1000 marks, or its landed equivalent, was given
" for their better support in the dignity of an earl." ^ As the
earldoms had been conferred in parliament, so were the patents
of gift warranted by king and council in full parliament.^
The most important of the new appointments made from the
old baronage, was in favour of the house of Lancaster. The
Lancastrians had been so essential an element in Edward's
triumph that of necessity they had to have a fair share of power
a charter before sealing was read before the witnesses occurred, but were prob-
ably exceptional ; see Sir H. Maxwell Lyte's Notes on the Use of the Great Seal,
pp. 235-237. The date of a charter depended at this period on the time when
the engrossment, based on an undated draft, was drawn up. The engrossment
is dated, but the draft is not. Mr. C. G. Crump, to whom I am indebted for
this information, believes that the date and witnesses were on a shp attached
to the draft. There was normally, however, no reason why the witnesses should
have been with the king when he issued his formal instructions to chancery for
the preparation of the charter. Accordingly, the evidence of attestation is not
conclusive as to the precise dates of the entry into office of a steward or any
other minister. Yet without the help of the attestations by stewards it would
be hard to make a good hst of those officials. This is one reason why it is
regrettable that the published calendar of charter rolls has suppressed the
witnesses. I have, however, to express my thanks to the authorities of the
PubHc Record Office for being allowed to use a manuscript calendar of witnesses
to charters of the reign of Edward III. In drawing up the list of stewards, it
has saved me the weary labour of personally consulting the original charter
rolls.
^ Ufford's wife was Margaret, daughter of Sir Walter Norwich. Through
her Norwich's estates passed ultimately into the hands of the earls of Suffolk.
See above, p. 8, n. 2.
2 C.P.R., 1334-38, pp. 415, 418, 426-427.
* lb. pp. 415, 418. On the other hand, the grant to the court noble,
Henry Ferrars, for " continually dweUing by the king's side," though made
" with the assent of parhament," is simply warranted " per regem " ; ib. pp.
418-419. The earls were more clearly public officers than were the king's
bannerets.
§ n THE NEW EARLS OF 1337 39
and reward. Earl Henry of Lancaster's career was over. He had
gradually grown blind, and his whole-hearted rejoicing in the fall
of Mortimer was his last participation in active politics. But his
son, Henry of Grosmont, stepped energetically into his father's
place, and his position was now recognised by his being made earl
of Derby. William Bohun, now made earl of Northampton, owed
his new honour to his position as virtual head of his house. ^ His
influence became the greater by reason of his exceptional ability
as a general. The friendliness of these two earls with the king
stood in strong contrast to the traditional relation of their houses
to the monarchy. Edward had his reward for his broadminded-
ness, not only in the cessation of baronial opposition, but in the
ultimate incorporation of the estates and dignities of both
Lancaster and Hereford with those of the crown. The sixth
earldom fell to Hugh Audley, the husband of Gaveston's widow,
Margaret of Clare. Audley, after escaping the many perils of a
Lancastrian contrariant, ended his life in the enjoyment of the
dignity of earl of Gloucester, refused to his brother-in-law, Hugh
Despenser, in the plenitude of his power. To the baronial as to
the courtier earls, the royal bounty bestowed equally concrete
rewards. Derby was to have 1000 marks a year from the customs
so long as his father remained alive ; Northampton received
£1000 a year, to be reduced to £500 if he should succeed to the
hereditary Bohun earldom of Hereford. Gloucester was better
endowed than these two younger sons, but he also received
additional grants, including his wife's hereditary sheriffdom of
Rutland for his life as well as hers.^
Similar marks of royal favour were extended in every direction.
I Hereditary offices and jurisdictions were scattered in a way hardly
'compatible either with the interests of the crown, or with sound
finance. 3 Thus Richard Fitzalan, earl of Arundel, son of the
1 Of the large family of the earl Humphrey slain at Boroughbridge, the two
eldest sons, earl John (d. 1335) and earl Humphrey (d. 1361), had bad health
and httle influence. Edward, the next son, one of the leaders at Nottingham on
Oct. 19, was drowned in the Scottish March in 1334. These misfortunes gave
William, a younger son, his chance. His son Humphrey succeeded his child-
less uncle in 1361, and was the last Bohun earl of Hereford.
= C.P.R., 1334-38, pp. 400, 414, 416-417.
^ In 1340, after Edward's quarrel with archbishop Stratford, the king
reproached the primate with having advised him to adopt this policy of largesse,
which had resulted in the serious impoverishment of the crown. See in the
40 EDWARD III.'S PEESONAL RULE ch. ix
martyr to Edward II. 's cause, and justice of north Wales since
1334, was made justice for life in March 1337, at the very moment
of the grants to the six new earls. ^ The grant of the life sheriffdom
of Merioneth to Walter Manny in 1332, of that of Anglesey to
William Trussell in 1334, and of that of Carnarvon, first to Thomas
Ace in 1329 and then to Arundel himself in 1339, are other
instances of the levity shown in the erection of new self-sufficing
jurisdictions.^ In 1341 Manny was further granted all the king's
lands within his shire, with almost regal powers, no minister of
the king other than Manny and his deputies being allowed to
meddle with anything within the shire. ^ Nor were such grants
limited to one district. In England itself similar concessions were
lavished. For instance, Arundel received in 1337 the sheriff's
tourn and liberties so extensive in his rapes of Arundel and
Chichester, that he set up a new court, called the " shire court,"
at Arundel, a withdrawal of the western rapes from Sussex
which provoked the remonstrances of the Good Parliament forty
years later.* Again, in 1344, Thomas Beauchamp, earl of War-
wick, hereditary sheriff of Worcestershire, was made sherifi for
life of Warwickshire and Leicestershire.^
The policy of balancing parties was pursued in the official
appointments of the first few years of Edward III.'s personal rule.
Since in the fourteenth century earls were too dignified to be
ministers, the Lancastrian element in the country made its
influence felt through the authority given to Lancastrian prelates.
John Stratford, the Lancastrian leader, had now fully come
into his own. Whether in or out of high office, he was for the
"libellus famosus " the charge "nempe eius improuido consilio et suasu, in
minore etate constituti, tot donationes prodigas et ahenationes prohibitas, ac
gratias fecimus excessiuas, quod per eas aerarium nostrum totaliter est ex-
haustum et fiscales redditus sunt enormiter diminuti " ; Foedera, ii. 1148. There
is no doubt of the bad effect of this poUcy, but the charge of the angry king
must not make us assign to Stratford and his friends the chief responsibihty.
For another contemporary criticism of Edward's poUcy, see Scalaconica, ed.
J. Stevenson, p. 167 : "As queux countis et autres ses bon gentz le roy departy sy
largement de sez possessions qe apain reteint il rien deuers ly de terres apurte-
nauntz a sa coroune, mais ly couenoit viure de sureuenous et subsides a graunt
charge du poeple."
1 C.P.R., 1334-38, p. 415, cf. p. 406.
2 C.F.E. iv. 148, 232, 340, 420 ; v. 59, 140. Ace was a " king's yeoman."
* C.P.R., 1340-43, p. 304.
* C.Ch.R. iv. 402 ; Rol. Pari. ii. 348.
^ C.F.R. V. 378. See below, p. 188.
§ n POWER OF THE STRATFORDS 41
next ten years the dominating personality of the state, and for
the greater part of the time almost without a rival. Though he
was a lawyer and a politician, and had won his bishopric by
despicable trickery, he was nearly as powerful in the ecclesiastical
as in the political world. When Meopham died in 1333, pope,
king and chapter agreed that Stratford was the only possible
archbishop of Canterbury. A tribe of kinsmen soon strengthened
his position. The son of a leading burgess of Stratford-on-Avon,
whose benefactions to that town were already considerable, John
found in the service of church and state positions for brothers,
nephews and cousins. Four Stratfords, at least, followed closely
on his footsteps by becoming, after successful academic careers,
i king's clerks. His brother Robert was the most eminent of
these. A distinguished Oxford doctor, he was brought into
the chancery by his brother. He was constantly keeper
of the great seal during his brother's frequent absences, and
fraternal favour made him archdeacon of Canterbury. He
was chancellor of the exchequer from 1331 to 1334.1 ^he most
interesting event in Robert's progress is that the university of
Oxford made him its chancellor when he had long ceased to be
resident, and obtained the king's permission to retain him in
office, even after he had been made, in 1337, bishop of
Chichester.2 He was thus the first non-resident magnate
chancellor of an English university, while in the adminis-
trative sphere he was in turn chancellor of the exchequer
and chancellor of England. Ralph Stratford, probably their
nephew,^ rose, early in 1340, to be bishop of London, while
1 C.P.R., 1330-34, p. 184. He was appointed on Oct. 16.
^ Robert was acting as chancellor of Oxford on June 6 and 8, 1335 ; Col-
lectanea, i. 14 (Ox. Hist. Soc), C.P.R., 1334-38, p. 119. As May was the usual
time for the chancellor's election at Oxford (Munimenta Academica, i. 106,
R.S.), we may assume that he entered office at that date. He was still chan-
ceUor of Oxford on July 28, 1338 ; C.P.R., 1338-40, p. 118. WiUiam Skelton
had succeeded him before Oct. 28, 1340 ; Salter, Med. Archives of Univ. Oxford,
i. 286 (Ox. Hist. Soc). See for Robert's acts as chancellor, Collectanea, i. 14-16
and 31-35. His chief feat was to put down through royal pressure the " studium
adulterinum " at Stamford. In 1333 the chancellor was ordered to vacate his
office if absent for a month in term time ; Mun. Acad. i. 127.
^ " Consanguineus archiepiscopi " is as far as Ann, Paul., p. 369, go. He is
3aid in William Dene's Hist. Roffensis to have been the archbishop's nephew ;
Anglia Sacra, i. 374. He is also described as the son of the sister of John and
Robert, and called Ralph Hatton of Stratford. He was M.A. and B.C.L. before
1336 ; C. Pap. Reg. Let. ii. 534.
42 EDWARD III.'S PERSONAL RULE ch. ix
Henry Stratford, their cousin/ was by that date one of the more
important clerks of chancery. Another John Stratford, controller
of the great roll of the exchequer in 1331, ^ may well have belonged
to the same family. Working well together, both in politics and
in benefactions to their native town, the Stratfords formed a
solid backing for the primate.
In examining the ministerial history of Edw^ard III.'s early
rule, it will be well to avoid repetition later by carrying on the
story for a couple of years further than is properly covered in
this section. If in administration and politics the best dividing
line is 1338, the natural break in the personal history of the
reign is rather to be foimd in the crisis of November 1340.
Assuming this point of view, we must note that between 1330
and 1340 John Stratford was chancellor three times, covering in
all nearly six years, while Robert twice succeeded him for a
period of office amounting to more than a year and a half,^
besides often acting as his substitute when he was unable per-
sonally to do his work. With the Stratford family in possession
of chancery, Lancastrian or baronial influence prevailed for
^ " Cosyn I'erchevesqe " ; French Chron. London, pp. 84, 85 (Camd. Soc).
He was one of the " clerici cancellariae majores " ; Murimuth, p. 117.
^ John Stratford entered this office on Sept. 29, 1331, but his successor was
appointed on AprU 28, 1332. Another kinsman may well have been Robert of
Stratford, chaplain of the " house of converts," who was granted sustenance for
his dechning years in 1346 ; C.P.R., 1345-48, p. 68. He died before May 14,
1347 ; C.P.R., 1345-48, p. 539. We must withstand the temptation to suggest
that another " master " John Stratford, king's yeoman, whose office was that
of the king's cook, was of this clan. He received pensions from various monas-
teries in 1342-43, and died before May 14, 1347 ; C.P.R., 1345-48, p. 539. To
the confusion of historians, John Stratfords superabounded at this period, and
the great John Stratford's connections with Worcester priory, the cathedral of
his native diocese, make it difficult for the local historian to resist identifying
him with a Worcester monk of the same names who flourished between 1300
and 1320, and, hke the other John, represented the convent on various occasions.
This John may have been a member of the same family, but all people called
Stratford were not necessarily related, nor aU John Stratfords the same person.
See for him, J. M. Wilson, Liber Albus oj Worcester Priory, especially pp. Ixxii.-
Ixxiii. (Worcest. Hist., Soc. 1919). Of course the archbishop could not possibly
have been a monk.
* The exact dates of John Stratford's period as chancellor are (i.) Nov. 28,
1330 to Sept. 28, 1334, when he resigned soon after becoming enthroned as
archbishop ; (ii.) June 6, 1335 to March 24, 1337, when he was succeeded by
Robert Stratford ; and (ui.) April 28, to June 20, 1340. Robert was chancellor
(i.) March 24, 1337 to July 6, 1338; (ii.) June 20 to Dec. 14, 1340. The situation
was further complicated by the special arrangements for sealing during the
king's absences abroad. See later. Appendix of Officers in vol. v.
§ n THE CHANCERY 43
practically ten years in the highest administrative office. The
only real breaks in the Stratford ascendency were the short
chancellorships of the two curialists , Bury and Bentworth . Richard
Bury, now bishop of Durham, served for eight months only,^
and Richard Bentworth, bishop of London, acted during 1338
and 1339,^ when the war had immensely strengthened the forces
of the court party, and Lancastrian power was seriously, though
for the moment misuccessfully, assailed. The Stratfords' long
control of chancery enabled them to establish their friends and
kinsfolk in the chief posts of the office. Among these we must
include Henry CHfE, keeper of the rolls, although he was nearly
at the end of his career. Lifirm in 1332, and unable to travel,
he died within a year.^ His successors, Michael Wath, Henry
Edwinstow, Thomas Bamburgh and John Saint-Pol, were, with
'Henry Stratford, some of the most conspicuous chancery clerks.
Another such was Mr. John Thoresby, already in 1333 " con-
stantly attendant on the king's business," * and in 1336 praised
for his services in chancery and in the office of notary.^ Of
Thoresby we shall hear more later.
In contrast to the stability of the chancery are the changes
in the control of the exchequer during the same ten years. Nine
different individuals served as treasurers, compared with four
serving as chancellors.^ The longest tenures were those of bishop
Burghersh, for two years and eight months, and of Robert
Ayleston, for one year and ten months. Both men were members
of the court party. Burghersh was indeed its leader, but Ayleston
was an official of no great personal distinction. The other
treasurers belonged more or less to the same party. Archbishop
Melton inclined only moderately to it ; bishops Airmyn and Bury
^ Chancellor in succession to John Stratford, from Sept. 28, 1334, to June 6,
1335.
2 Chancellor from July 6, 1338, to his death on Dec. 8, 1339.
^ C.C.R., 1330-33, p. 551, shows that he was, in April 1332, lodging in the
domus conversorum and seahng writs in the chapel. He was able to get to
York before the end of the year ; ib. p. 619. He died in office before Jan. 20,
1334, when Michael Wath was appointed keeper of the chancery rolls ; C.C.R.,
1333-37, p. 295. On Feb. 3, 1334, Cliff's executors were ordered to dehver the
rolls to Wath ; ib. p. 143. By April 1337 Wath had been succeeded by John
of Saint-Pol; ib., 1337-39, p. 130.
* C.P.E., 1330-34, p. 471. ' ' lb., 1334-38. p. 329.
* For the precise dates of these treasurers, see the appropriate list in the
Appendix of Officers in vol. v.
44 EDWARD IIL'S PERSONAL RULE ch. ix
mucli more decidedly ; and Zoucli, at this stage, as clearly,
though later he modified his standpoint into conformity with
that of the baronial class into which he had been born. With
that change of opinion, Zouch's experience in the exchequer in
his two periods of service there, may have had something to do.
The veteran Wodehouse, a permanent official in a very literal
sense, had been sufiiciently compromised by holding the treasury
under the Mortimer regime to make it advisable for him, in
1330, to accept the comparatively humble post of chancellor of
the exchequer. From this, after ten months, he was removed in
favour of Robert Stratford. There then followed for him a
cessation of all official work for seven years, a break without
precedent in a career going back to the reign of Edward L^ His
second treasurership witnessed the outbreak of active hostilities
with France. This, with its inevitable financial strain, and the
immediate recrudescence of party feeling which followed, accounts
for the fact that he now served for ten months only. It also
explains the seventeen months of Zouch, his successor, the less
than two months of Sadington who replaced Zouch, and the six
months of Roger Northburgh who followed Sadington. The
brief tenure of the lay treasurer Sadington is interesting, because
it in some sort prepared the way for the anti-clerical movement
of the end of the year. Northburgh's " ahnost continuous labours
since Michaelmas 1339 for the benefit of the king and the quiet
of his realm," were strongly dwelt upon by his master,^ but
Northburgh could not rule the storm, and his political career came
to an end soon after the crisis of November 1340. It is note-
worthy too, that while between 1328 and 1337, appointments to
the treasury had been invariably warranted " by the king," that is
to say, by a personal act of prerogative, the appointments between
1337 and 1340 were all warranted " by king and council." ^
Yet the terms of office of these " constitutional " ministers were,
as we have seen, among the shortest of all.
^ See above, ii. 271-272, for Wodehouse's uninterrupted record as an official
from 1306 to 1327; and above, pp. 6, 17, for his equally continuous service,
1327 to 1330. His life, besides illustrating the permanency of the fourteenth
century civil service, shows how subordinate posts in it were a natural avenue to
the highest offices of state.
2 C.C.J?., 1339-41, p. 428. An order of July 6, 1340, to the exchequer to
pay him £200 in recognition of these services.
^ Northburgh's appointment on June 21, 1340, is the only one warranted
" per regem " before the crisis of 1340.
§ II THE TREASUREES 45
Under normal conditions the treasurer was supposed to be
constantly at the exchequer. A deputy treasurer was called into
being because of Zouch's many absences from Westminster in
1337 and 1338. Such a deputy was chosen neither from barons
of the exchequer nor exclusively from exchequer clerks. John
Charnels, king's clerk, does not seem to have had anything at
all to do with the exchequer until he began to serve there as
deputy for Zouch, though he had in 1337 been given the im-
portant post of receiver of moneys arising from export of wool
to Flanders.^ His colleague as deputy, John Thorp, previously
a subordinate clerk in the great wardrobe, obtained exchequer
office when he became treasurer's clerk in the receipt, at Easter
1337.2 These two also acted for Wodehouse until at least
April 1340. The appointment of Sadington as deputy to Zouch,
who was beyond seas, on June 25, 1339, by patent issued in
Brabant, suggests an attempt on the part of the king and his
advisers abroad, to check the presumption of the officials in
England.^ Sadington was at the time chief baron of the
exchequer, and his deputy-treasurership recalls the custom of
Edward II.'s reign, which made the chief baron the normal
hcum tenens of a treasurer imable to fulfil his duty in person.
It may be signfficant that the same patent appointed Richard
Ferriby, a wardrobe clerk since Edward II.'s reign, as a second
:deputy to act with Sadington.
The class of official appointed to the deputy treasurership
and the frequent changes in the treasurership itseK, must not
be ascribed entirely to an unseen political conflict, though it is
difficult to resist the conclusion that after 1337 there was some-
thing of this kind underlying the vicissitudes of office. Some of
the short-lived treasurers, however, were called away naturally
;o other posts, especially to diplomatic work abroad. The fact
1 For John Charnels see C.C.R., 1337-39, pp. 60, 79, 80-81, 90, 95-99, 190 ;
7.P.i?., 1334-38, pp. 498, 521, 542. He was " late receiver " in Jan. 1340 ;
b., 1338-40, p. 407. Though king's clerk on July 30, 1337, he was, so late as
Tan. 1338, called clerk to bishop Burghersh ; C.C.R., 1337-39, pp. 95, 228. In
1344 he became keeper of the great wardrobe. See later, p. 67, n. 1.
^ Thorp was a subordinate of the various keepers or clerks of the great
vardrobe from 1334 to 1338, with special charge of providing carriage for goods
bought by the great wardrobe ; O.P.R., 1334-38, pp. 1, 76, 116, 191, 244, 320,
1:25, 559 ; ib., 1338-40, p. 48. On Aug. 28, 1339, he was made writer of the
aUies, ib. p. 392. » c.P.R., 1338-40, p. 387. See also above, p. 44.
46 EDWAKD III.'S PERSONAL RULE ch. ix
that they were nearly all men of courtier antecedents suggests
that importance was laid upon keeping the exchequer in safe
hands, though the individual servants of the crown were not
strong enough to maintain themselves in office for long. Yet,
however often appointments were made, new men were seldom
introduced. It was rather a ringing of the changes on a few well-
tuned official bells, and in such circumstances sweeping general-
isations must be made with caution.
Counter-balancing the coming and going of the chiefs is the
continuity of service of the other exchequer officials, whose
tenure of office was only determined by retirement, death or
promotion. This continuity is quite as remarkable as that in
the chancery. Perhaps it was an indication of the rising tide ol
lay officials that the chief barons of the exchequer were now
'almost invariably knights. When Sir Walter Norwich's long
connection with the treasury ceased with his death in 1329,
his three successors, John Stonor, Henry Scrope, and Robert
Sadington, were knights like himself. Indeed the only clerk who
rose to be chief baron in the reign of Edward III. was Gervase
Wilford, who first became a baron in 1341, after serving in the
exchequer in a humbler capacity from at least as early as 1327.
But whether clerk or layman, there was no question here of
politics ; the significance is rather social. The official's concern
was then as now to do what his superior told him to do. His
ultimate superior was, of course, the king, but it made all the
difference in the world whether king meant a monarch inspired
by a council of barons, or a monarch acting through the agency
of his household knights and clerks.
The great problem for Edward III. was how to make himself
a real king. His superabundant energy inclined him to take
short cuts to this as to any other goal at which he aimed, and
it has never been properly recognised how astutely his intimate
advisers dealt with the situation. They cleverly managed to
reconstitute the court party of Edward II. 's reign without any
visible breach with the stubborn bishops and barons whom tradi-
tion regarded as the natural counsellors of the crown. Before
the French war became serious, there had been a discreet revival
of the machinery which had been thrown aside by the men of
1326 and 1330. The details of these processes must be considered
§ u EXCHEQUER REFORMS 47
later. Our business here is to suggest only the general out-
lines of the policy and its broad results on administration
and pohtics.
The aim of Edward III. quickly became the full restoration
to the crown of the power which his father had claimed between
1322 and 1326. The difficulty was that any step in that direction
would bring Edward into conflict with the Lancastrian tradition
of the ordainers. Accordingly he had to walk warily, feeling his
way as he went. Though wholesale adoption of Despenserian
reforms would have meant a breach with the Stratfords and their
following, it is remarkable how little by little the tendency
towards such a consummation became more pronounced, and
what trifling opposition was shown. Administrative efficiency
and a straightening out of past confusion involved a certain
amount of active reform to which no one could object, and after
1330 the work of clearing up the disorders, brought about by the
pretentious anarchy of Edward II. 's later years, was continued
with energy and success.
The tenacity of the exchequer in upholding its established
order was a guarantee against radical reform from within. Yet
the completion of long-deferred tasks, and the quiet initiation of
some changes, suggest that the worst defects of the exchequer
system were remedied. Miss Mills tells me that the Stapeldon-
Melton reforms in the pipe rolls were adopted by 1340, and
ancient debts were removed from the estreat roll and were
enrolled separately. By the end of 1334 the exchequer had
finished the process, begun before 1330, of auditing the arrears of
wardrobe, chamber and other " foreign accounts." ^ This work
was facilitated by the fact that the special department for the
audit of foreign accounts now occupied independent premises,
adjacent to the other exchequer buildings.^ The number of
auditors of these accounts, raised in 1323 to eight and again
augmented in 1326,^ was in 1334 reduced to the original number
of four.* Up to about the same date the ordaining tradition that
1 Above, ii. 128, 278-281 ; and below, iv. 90-94, 232-235 ; and Place of Edw.
II., p. 203. ^ See above, pp. 19-20 and n. 3.
3 E.H.R. xxxviii. 65, 67-68 ; xxxix. 482.
* This is Dr. Broome's conclusion in her unpubUshed Ph.D. thesis. She
shows that, after this, there were, for the rest of Edward's III.'s reign, rarely
more than four or five such auditors in ofi&ce at the same time.
48 EDWARD III.'S PERSONAL RULE ch. ix
household supplies should come directly from the exchequer had
also been respected,^ but foreign wars then compelled extra-
ordinary measures. About the same time the assignment of
lands to the chamber was revived.^ The standardisation of the
subsidies was, as Professor Willard has demonstrated, also
completed by 1334.^ The sum each borough, township or other
unit of taxation was assigned to pay, henceforth remained rigidly
at the figure at which each community was assessed in that year.
Accordingly the subsidies were no longer expansible, but rather,
by reason of exemptions inevitably made as matters of favour,
tended, if anything, to yield a smaller instead of a larger gross
amount. Thus, one possible source of increased revenue was cut
off, just before another war made fresh calls upon the nation.
Somewhat earlier there had developed a curious tendency to
set up local " exchequers " in the north of England. These may
have been a natural evolution from the organisation over which
the sheriff presided, to meet the special needs of the district, or
they may have been planted deliberately where abnormal
conditions prevailed. By 1321 there was an " exchequer of
Newcastle-upon-Tyne," with recognised quarters in the castle,
of which the sheriff of Northumberland was the normal keeper,
and this was still functioning in 1362.* Before 1327 an " ex-
chequer of Carlisle," controlled by the sheriff of Cumberland, had
come into being, and it continued in a state of modest activity
to the end of the century. ^ In March 1332 there is evidence that
certain lands were held by the obligation, among others, " of
rendering 2s. 6d. a year at the exchequer of York at the next
county-court there after Michaelmas." ^ The chief occupation
of such " exchequers " seems to have been the receipt of small
rents and dues, "cornage " and other similar local services, which
were more easily paid on the spot than to the central exchequer.'
1 See later, iv. 83-86, 97-99. ^ See later, iv. 239-251.
^ See J. F. Willard, " The taxes upon moveables of the reign of Edward
III.," in E.H.R. XXX. 69-74, especiaUy p. 69.
* C.C.R., 1318-23, p. 302 ; ib., 1333-37, pp. 159, 226, 228 ; ib., 1341-43,
p. 417 ; C.F.R. iv. 41, 44, 85, 358 ; vii. 230.
5 C.F.B. iv. 69, 77, 164, 374, 444, 451 ; ib. v. 210, 260, 422, 432 ; ib. viii.
7, 50, 65, 81 ; C.C.R., 1333-37, p. 396 ; ib., 1337-39, p. 547 , et passim. See also
subsequent Calendars passim, down to C.P.R., 1391-96, p. 724,
« C.F.R. iv. 306 ; C.C.R., 1374-77, p. 121.
^ Their early history, exact scope, relation to the county court, and con-
nection with the exchequer at Westminster, might well be worth further in-
§ n LOCAL EXCHEQUERS— ESCHEATRIES 49
The exchequer of Berwick was not on the same plane as these,
because it was the English exchequer for Scotland, though its
sphere was soon to be limited by Scottish successes, to the one
Scottish town left in English hands. While, therefore, in origin
analogous to the exchequer of Dublin, which was the financial
office of a land brought under the domination of the English king,
the exchequer of Berwick became ultimately an exchequer of the
type of those of palatinates lapsed to the crown, such as Chester,
Carmarthen and Carnarvon. ^
Other more disputable reforms were not shirked. For reasons
somewhat obscure to us, the problem of the escheatries and the
problem of the staples had become party questions in the reign
of Edward II. Under Edward III. the incoherence of the
various efforts made to solve them, show that men's opinions
were still divided.
The question of the escheatries continued to be a vexed one,
and the experimental period went on beyond our present limits.^
It was a distinct harking back to Despenserian tradition when the
eight local escheatries of 1323 to 1327 were revived in 1332. The
recognition at an earlier time of the mayor of London as escheator
within his city ^ was now made a precedent for a similar grant to
the mayor of Newcastle-upon-Tyne.^ Escheatries of franchises
had long been permitted,^ and were now extended, as for instance.
vestigation. No confusion need arise between such local exchequers and the
central office, because the former are always " scaccarium regis (or nostrum)
Noui Castri super Tynam," or " Karlioh," or " Eboraci," while the latter is
"scaccarium regis (or nostrum) apud Westmonasterium," or "aptid Eboracum."
See C.E. 138/6; 154/7; 155/25 (CCB., 1318-23, p. 302; 1333-37, pp.
159, 226-228). F.B. 127/3 ; 128/16 ; 130/25 ; 132/17 {C.F.R. iv. 69, 77, 164,
306, 451). C.R. 138/11 ; 152/22d; 156 /9d; 157/28d (C.C.R., 1330-33, p. 573;
1333-37, pp. 525, 677). i G.F.E. iv. 502.
2 See for details, S. T. Gibson, "The Escheatries, 1327-1341," in Eng. Hist.
Rev. xxxvi. 218-225.
^ This was granted by Edward III.'s charter, March 26, 1327 (Hist. Charters,
London, p. 52). But in 1319 the citizens successfully resisted the attempt of the
king's escheator to hold an inquest ; Letter Books, London, E. 87-88.
* C.F.R. iv. 330, records a grant to the mayor of Newcastle of the office of
escheatry in that town and liberty, as a result of a petition of the burgesses,
and by reason of their great expenses in saving the town against the Scots
(Sept. 14, 1332). Mrs. Sharp informs me that the mayor of Chester was recog-
nised by the earl as escheator of that city at least as early as 1354-55 ; Brown,
p. 221.
^ For instance, the escheatry of Englefield (Flintshire), answering to the
exchequer at Chester ; C.F.R. iv. 253.
VOL. Ill E
50 EDWAED III.'S PERSONAL EULE ch. ix
in 1334 to Holderness, again brought under chamber control in
1333.1 In practice, then, the eight escheators did not make an
exhaustive list of those officers. But in 1335 there was once
more a conservative change, and a near approach to the two
great escheatries was made, when those offices, south and north
of Trent, were restored, though the southern sphere was limited
by a third escheatry being set up for the south-western shires of
Cornwall, Devon, Somerset and Dorset.^ This modification may
indicate the need of appeasing the opposition as the foreign
outlook grew more gloomy, but more likely it meant a change of
baronial policy in the matter, which I am tempted to attribute
to the growing influence of the lesser aristocracy in parliament. ^
We shall see that the eight groups of counties were again revived
by the triumphant barons in 1340, and with that disappeared for
ever the two dignified escheatries which the ordainers had
willingly accepted. The barons of 1341, still more powerful than
in 1340, showed no desire to go back to them.
There was similar vacillation in dealing with the staples . ^Tien
the Despenser staples were abolished, a "free trade" experiment
was made in 1328. It had not been particularly successful,
and certain merchants had striven to set up a foreign staple at
Bruges. To remedy this, parliament in September 1332 restored
the home staples very much on the Despenser lines.* But in
1334 another reversal of policy abolished staples altogether, and
that at the request of parliament.^ This state of things remained
until the threat of war involved for political reasons the renewal
of foreign staples, first at Antwerp then at Bruges, in accord-
ance with the preponderating Netherlandish ally of the
^ See for this below, iv. 272-276.
^ The southern escheatry was restored on Dec. 6, 1335 (C.F.R. iv. 465), and
the northern on Jan. 20, 1336 ; ib. p. 469. With regard to the south-western
group, Middleney, the escheator, was ordered to surrender with the others in
Dec. 1335, but was again acting in March 1336, and so on to 1341. In effect,
then, his charge was the survival of one of the eight county groups.
^ " It is clear," says Mr. Gibson (u.s. p. 220), " that the two parties had
exchanged policies before 1340."
* It was, however, resolved that there should be no staple held save in
towns of which the king was lord. Cardiff, which was included in the staple
towns mentioned in the act, was accordingly removed from the list by the
York parliament in 1333, as it was the town of the lord of Glamorgan and
not of the king ; C.P.R., 1330-34, pp. 362-363, cf. C.C.E., 1333-37, pp. 13-14,.
^ Foedera, ii. 87.
§ n STAPLES— JUSTICES OF THE PEACE 51
moment. 1 The general favour now shown to foreign staples was
doubtless due to purely fiscal considerations. It was hoped
that thereby the king would receive more money from customs
and war taxes, and that this might be easily collected.
More important than these rearrangements of administrative
ipiachinery was the great movement for improvements in the
local administration of justice and the preservation of order.
This period witnessed a series of strenuous efforts to give effect
to the statute of Northampton of 1328, and the statute of West-
minster of 1331, for the preservation and maintenance of order
by the appointment of special commissioners and keepers of the
peace. From these functionaries slowly grew the office of justice
of the peace, which had profound influence in securing a higher
standard of political tranquillity and a more complete execution
of the law than earlier times had enjoyed. On the importance of
the office of justice in both administrative and judicial history no
stress need be laid here. Such an office not only secured better
execution of the law, but based its execution on commissions from
the royal authority, so that the prerogative was glorified while the
object of government was more nearly attained. There was,
however, a substantial difference between the Edwardian justices
of the peace and their Tudor successors. While the latter
represent the country gentry, willingly making themselves the
agents of the crown for the preservation of order and the enhancing
of royal authority, the fourteenth century justices were selected
from a more Umited class, and were comparatively few in number.
In the restricted commissions of the peace of Edward III.'s reign
there was an official element of crown servants and lawyers, but
there was also an aristocratic element, the chief of the commission
being normally a local grandee of the first importance. In this
we may perceive not only administrative progress of a notable
sort, but another indication of that persistent effort of Edward III.
to take the greater nobles into partnership with him, thus
diminishing the strain of that normal conflict between aristo-
cracy and crown which had almost wrecked the machine of state
^ The Antwerp staple was being negotiated in Feb. 1337 (ib. ii. 959), and was
declared before Aug. 14, 1338, by Edward at Antwerp ; C.C.R., 1337-39, p. 527 :
the Bruges staple was proclaimed on Aug. 8, 1341, with H. Ulceby as its mayor;
Foedera, ii. 1172-73.
52 EDWAED III.'S PEKSONAL RULE ch. ix
under his father, and was to threaten to do the same under his
grandson, llichard II. There were analogous efforts in other
directions, especially in the employment of abbots of leading
monasteries as collectors of subsidies. In this way use was
made of an inconspicuous class of the community which had
become increasingly diverted from the service of the state.
There is a real contrast between such far reaching measures
and the efforts made by Edward III. to repair the machine of
household administration which had been broken up by the fall
of the Despensers. The most important of these was the revival
of the chamber.! Jt began in 1332, when the system of reserving
lands to the chamber was again adopted. This was followed by
a development of the chamber personnel, clerical and lay,
particularly through the increasing prominence of chamber clerks,
which first manifested itself in the high-handed energy of WilUam
Kilsby, receiver of the chamber between 1335 and 1338, and
through the even more masterful activity of chamber knights
like Sir John Molyns. Parallel with this went a growth of the
chamber secretariat and the chamber seals. There was the secret
seal or signet, whose custodian was soon to be called the king's
secretary, from whom the modern secretaries of state were
ultimately to develop. This ancient chamber seal once more, as
under Edward II., threatened to replace the privy seal as the
voucher of the king's personal wishes. Besides the secret seal
for general use, a special seal for the internal business of the
chamber, notably the management of chamber lands, arose about
1335 in the griffin seal, more fully described as " the secret seal
called the griffin." By that time the chamber had become aU
and more than it had been in the days of the Despensers. In the
earher years of the war it became an important instrument of
prerogative, and was a favourite executant of special business
which a state of war involved.
Under Edward II. the chamber had tended to supersede the
wardrobe, and the legislation of 1323-24 seemed hkely to reduce
the wardrobe to a household office rather than raise it to a
definite political position. In the new reign the early activities
of the wardrobe were on so restricted a scale that it appeared to
be setthng down to direction of the king's domestic concerns only.
^ For the details of this process, see later, iv. 238-311.
I
§ n THE CHAMBER— THE WARDROBES 53
Yet its limited operations between 1327 and 1336 were not in
themselves evidence of the abandonment of ancient duties, for in
quiet times household administration was naturally its main task.
The descriptive title of it, wardrobe of the household, became now
quite usual, but it retained its characteristic expansibihty, and
when war became serious, at once resumed the functions it had
performed under Edward I. The wardrobe was still the office
which could be most rapidly and effectively adapted to meet the
obligations which war conditions imposed on the administrative
machinery. 1 The possibihties of wardrobe expansion are
appreciated when we see that in these very years the wardrobe
was strongly manifesting a capacity for developing offshoots.
These acquired a certain independence, and their activity gave
even more scope for the energies of the central organisation.
Since 1324 the great wardrobe had been a more or less
independent office accounting directly to the exchequer. The
business of maintaining the magnificence of Edward III.'s court
now threw special responsibilities upon it, and the large share it
took in clothing, arming and equipping the forces in Scotland
and France widened still further its scope and opportunities.
From an early period of the reign, men of abihty and promise
were put at the head of the great wardrobe, and their rapid
promotion to leading posts in the central wardrobe organisation
kept the two bodies from drifting entirely apart, by assuring
for them some unity of pohcy and control. ^
A more novel development, and one more characteristic of
this period, was the king's privy wardrobe in the Tower of London.^
Arising gradually as a locaUsed storehouse of great wardrobe and
chamber goods, it came to possess an organisation of its own, and
a position virtually independent of the two institutions of which
it was an offshoot. Its detachment from politics and court
intrigue is shown by its respective keepers' long tenure of
^ For all this see vol. iv. chaps, xi., xii.
^ Three keepers of the great wardrobe in succession were promoted directly
to the controllership of the wardrobe, and two of the three were further raised
to its keepership. These were William de la Zouch, keeper of the great ward-
obe, 1324-34 ; controller of the wardrobe, 1334-35 ; Edmund de la Beche,
eeper of the great wardrobe, 1334-35 ; controller, 1335-37 ; keeper of the
rardrobe, 1337-38 ; WiUiam Norwell, keeper of great wardrobe, 1335-37 ;
ontroller, 1337-38 ; keeper of wardrobe, 1338-40. For the great wardrobe'
3ee vol. iv. chap. xiv. ^ ggg f^j, details, vol. iv. chap xv.
54 EDWARD III.'S PERSONAL RULE ch. ix
office, for there were only five of them for the half-century of
Edward IIL's reign. The great war gave it immense responsi-
bihties, and a unique position, mainly as the storehouse, partly as
the factory, of the king's arms, armour and artillery. The long
keepership of John Fleet, lasting from 1323 to 1343, saw the
privy wardrobe assume its permanent constitution and authority.
The uninterrupted absence of the exchequer from Westminster
between 1333 and 1339, and the constant absence of the wardrobe,
itinerating with the king mainly in the north, increased the need
for a fixed depository in London.
Another government department was rapidly constituting
itself during these same fruitful years of administrative develop-
ment. This was the office of the privy seal, which had already
in 1318 assumed a semi-independent position as an authority
both in state and household afiairs.^ In the early part of
Edward IIL's reign it gradually dissociated itself from wardrobe
and household, and became a restricted office of state. It still
itinerated a good deal, sometimes with the king, sometimes be-
hind him or on more or less parallel lines with him, but it was
tending to become more sedentary. Like the chancery, its head-
quarters and the hospicmm of its clerks showed a disposition
towards settlement at Westminster. But it lost its original
character only by slow degrees. Notwithstanding the constant
invention of new seals, the secret seal, the signet, the griffin seal,
and the mysterious personal seal called the signum,^ the writ of
privy seal was still looked upon as evidence of the king's personal
will, and care was taken that its keepers should be men in whom
the monarch reposed his confidence. At the same time the pains
taken by the last generation to claim for it an official, rather
than a domestic, position had resulted in it being generally
accepted as part of the public machine of state. Thus for two
apparently contradictory reasons the privy seal continued to
grow in power and dignity. This is best seen just before
Edward III. emancipated himself from tutelage, when it was
thought promotion to raise Richard of Bury from the keeper-
ship of the wardrobe to the keepership of the privy seal. Less
than twenty years earlier the custody of that seal had been
^ See for details, vol. v. chap. xvi.
* For the other " small seals," see vol. v. chap. xvii.
§ u OFFICE OF THE PRIVY SEAL 55
but one function of the secondary clerk of the wardrobe, the
controller. Even after the ordainers insisted on making the
privy seal a separate charge, its keeper had no' higher
status, pay or dignity than the controller of the wardrobe.
Administrative progress was now so swift that within eleven years
of the ordinance of 1318, the keeper of the wardrobe gained
authority and prestige by exchanging that keepership for the
keepership of the privy seal. Nor was this an isolated case.
Within four years Robert Tawton was promoted, like Bury, from
the custody of the wardrobe to that of the privy seal, and Tawton's
successor at the privy seal, William de la Zouch, went from the
controllership of the wardrobe to that office. The separation
between the wardrobe and the privy seal was further emphasised
by a succession of keepers of the privy seal who had never served
in the office of the wardrobe.
About the same time the keeper of the privy seal was be-
ginning to be associated with the chancellor and treasurer as an
intimate committee of three, to which the king and council
delegated many of their perplexities. In short, the process had
gone on apace by which the privy seal went " out of court "
altogether, and its keeper became a third minister of state,
ranking immediately after the chancellor and treasurer.^
Such were the administrative offices in the fourth decade of
the fourteenth century. The interconnection established in these
years between the various household departments is most im-
portant. In the developments which took place, chamber, ward-
robe and office of privy seal all worked together with a common
purpose. They were so interdependent that it is difficult and
misleading to study any one of them out of relation to its fellows.
They were parts of a great household system through whose
expansion the king hoped to win back his own. The chancery
and exchequer represent the national offices of state : the cham-
ber, the wardrobe of the household, the great wardrobe, and the
privy wardrobe of the Tower, stand for the mainly domestic
administration. The office of the privy seal in these days of
transition became the bridge between the two groups, though it
1 Statutes of Realm, i. 283. I see no evidence that the statute of 1340
gave to either the keeper of the privy seal or to his colleagues, any " rank in the
council." Cf. Baldwin, The King's Council, p. 74.
56 EDWARD III.'S PERSONAL RULE ch. ix
was still closely related to the household system from which it had
originated. At that stage the administrative machine was sub-
jected to two potent and interrelated influences. These were
the new difierentiation of parties and the outbreak of the Hundred
Years' War. The year 1338 saw the appearance of both.
Underlying the special arrangements, operative from 1333, for
the attempted reconquest of Scotland, we may see the gradual
development of the forces which were to assert themselves more
clamorously when Edward had definitely entered upon con-
tinental warfare. Particularly we shall have to notice some of
the effects of the Scottish campaigns on administrative history.
The exceptional measures required for financing, levying and
directing the armies employed there, anticipated to a certain
extent the measures afterwards adopted for the conduct of the
French war. But between the conduct of an intermittent war,
waged on a small scale in Britain, and that of a more determined
and sustained struggle mainly fought beyond the seas, lay an
important difference. Throughout the Scottish campaigns, unity
of administration could substantially be maLntaiaed even when
the king was in Scotland, though it was secured only at the cost
of transporting the chief ofiices of state to the north. But the
wars against France demanded two separate administrations, one
at home and the other overseas, whenever the king accompanied
his armies. This made necessary some attempt to establish an
effective control over both.
The summer of 1332 saw the battle of Dupplin Moor, and the
consequent conquest of Scotland by Edward Balliol. This placed
an overwhelming temptation before Edward III. to revive his
grandfather's policy in Scotland. The September parliament at
Westminster advised him to go north to prepare for eventualities.
Accordingly Edward made his way to York, taking with him
chancery, wardrobe, king's bench and the other offices in the
habit of following the court. The failure of Balliol to maintain
himself soon showed that the subjugation of Scotland could only
be made permanent after a long and difficult struggle. To facili-
tate the direction of England's part in this struggle, York was
made, and for more than five years remained, the administrative
centre of the monarchy. York had already enjoyed a similar
distinction on several occasions under both Edward IL and the
§ n THE CHANCERY AT YORK 57
Mortimer government, but the visit now embarked upon had for
its only precedent in length the equally long sojourn there of
the offices of state between 1298 and 1303.
The continuous presence at York, during these years, of at
least a branch of the chancery, showed most clearly the admin-
istrative importance of that city. For the chancery, though no
longer regularly itinerating with the court, was still often on the
move, sometimes following the court at a distance, as when the
king made his hasty and dangerous visits to the remoter parts
of Scotland, and sometimes travelling parallel to the sovereign.
It had, however, as we have seen, a fixed base in London, where
it not only stayed more often than anywhere else, but also
normally kept its records. Even when the king and chancellor
went abroad, the great seal and the chancery staff remained
behind, usually at Westminster, the use of the seal being con-
trolled by writs of privy seal, issued by the king from abroad. ^
But in October 1339 the chancery settled down in York, and
made that city its real headquarters, until the end of 1336. There
were, it is true, occasional flights to London and to the Midlands,
mainly for the purpose of holding parliaments and great councils.
There was one short excursion northwards to Newcastle, to meet
the king, and some sustained sessions in London or Westminster
other than in parliament time. With these exceptions, the record
of persons acknowledging deeds and recognisances in the " chan-
cery at York " is almost uninterrupted for this space of four
years and a quarter.^ So much was York the home of chancery,
^ Foedera, ii. 814, shows how in April 1331 the king took the chancellor,
Stratford, with him to Pont Sainte-Maxence, but left the great seal in England.
He took the privy seal and Bury, its keeper, to France, and directed the keepers
of the great seal to date their writs as to day and place, according to the dates
and places of the privy seals warranting them. See for detaUs, Deprez,
Preliminaires de la guerre de Cent Ans (1328-1342), pp. 74-76. Good instances
of such predated writs are in C.P.R., 1330-34, pp. 103, 110 and 122; the
corresponding privy seals are in C.W. 181 passim.
^ The problem where " chancery " was at any given time is a difficult one,
the more so as, upon occasion, the chancery could be divided and sit in different
places. In trying to solve this problem httle rehance can be placed on the
dates and places of the issue of writs. They are almost as unsafe a guide in
determining the place of the chancery as they notoriously are in estabUshing the
royal itinerary. The date may be that of the issue of the warrant for the writ :
the place at the most suggests the possibUity of the apparatus for seaUng being
there for the moment. But writs were often sealed at different places on the
same days, and sometimes at places too remote to make it possible for the se^l
58 EDWARD III.'S PERSONAL RULE ch. ix
that when, on August 10, 1333, chancellor Stratford went south
to visit his diocese, he transferred the seal to archbishop Melton,
and only resumed it, also at York, when he came back on
February 17, 1334, as archbishop-elect of Canterbury.^
The sedentary office of state, the exchequer, and the sedentary
law court, the common bench, came to the north a little later than
the chancery, and remained there nearly two years longer. The
exchequer was the first of the two to leave Westminster, Its
removal was effected between May 19 and 28, and it was
established at York, with all its records, from Trinity Monday
1333, to Michaelmas 1338. ^ All debtors to the exchequer after
April 1 were required to pay moneys due to it before May 31
to the abbot of St. Mary's, York, whose receipt was to be a
sufficient warranty for tallies to be made when the office had been
to have been removed from the one place to the other. Moreover, chancery
writs very often reproduce the date of the privy seal or other document of
warranty, when it is certain that there must have been a considerable time
before the writ of warranty could reach the chancery. Since this note was
drafted, the problems indicated in it have been examined with great learning
by Sir Henry MaxweU Lyte in his Notes on the Uses of the Great Seal, especially
pp. 241-265. He neglects, however, the valuable information as to the place
where the main office of the chancery was at any time, contained in the memoranda
on the dorse of the close rolls that such and such a person came " into chancery "
at such and such a place, and " recognised " some obligation. A study of such
recognisances as are recorded in C.C.R., 1330-33, and ib., 1333-37, estabhshes the
general results laid down in the text. They may here be more precisely
particularised. York : Oct. 20, 1332 to Mar. 1334. Oxford : Apr. 6, and
London, Apr. 20. York : May to Jime. Nottingham : July 16. North-
ampton : July 23. Westminster and London : Aug. 6 to Oct. 14 (parUament).
York : Oct. 1334 to Feb. 1335. Nottingham and Lenton : Apr. 1 to 6 (great
council). York : May to July. Newcastle : Nov. 28 (with king). York :
Jan. to Feb. 1336. (This is the end of the almost continuous sessions at York.)
London : March to May (parUament). Studley, Yorkshire : Aug. 4 (an un-
intelligible entry). Stratford-on-Avon : Aug. 6. Northampton : Aug. 24 to
Sept. 1. Nottingham : Sept. 27. York : Oct. 30 to Christmas 1336. For the
rest of our period the chancery remained in the south, never getting further
north than Northampton and Ipswich. The wanderings of the great seal were,
however, much greater than those of the chancery. Two points are clear : one
is that the chancery was at York much more often than the king himself. The
other is that the great seal did not accompany the king on the Hahdon Hill
campaign. In the contract for the surrender of Berwick, the king promised to
seal the instrument within eight days of the surrender of the town. He could
not do so earher, because the great seal was not with him at the siege ; Foedera,
ii. 866.
1 C.C.R., 1333-37, pp. 129-130, 296.
" See for this. Dr. Broome's " Exchequer Migrations," u.s. p. 292. See
below, pp. 82-83.
§ n EXCHEQUER AND BENCH AT YOEK 59
transf erred. 1 The common bench reached York on the octave of
Michaelmas 1333, and stayed there until the octave of Hilary
1339." Queen Philippa's exchequer followed in the wake of the
king's exchequer.
As usual, exchequer and common bench were housed in York
castle, where the " hall of the king's exchequer," and the other
rooms required, had already been repaired and fitted up for the
visitors,^ though some additional renovation was carried out after
the exchequer had arrived. For queen Philippa's " receipt," the
sherifi of Yorkshire was ordered in June to have repaired, and if
necessary rebuilt, a timber house on the north side of the castle,
" with exchequers and all things necessary therefor." * Im-
mediately to the north of the castle was the great Franciscan
convent where the king established his household. ^ There was
almost as much concentration of public and household administra-
tion on the little tongue of land between the Ouse and the Fosse,
as there had long been at Westminster. But the space was not
ample, and other offices of household and state were scattered
about the city. The treasurer seems to have lived in a house
there, and to have kept in his immediate custody the treasure
and certain archives of the exchequer.^ The wardrobe also
apparently had the use of similar houses.'^ The chancery was
quartered by Stratford in the church of St. Mary's abbey, the
chancellor and his clerks taking up residence in the abbey itself.^
When archbishop Melton took charge of the seal during Stratford's
absence from York in 1333-4, he kept it at his own house at Bishops-
thorpe, and sealed writs with it in the chapter house of St. Peter's
1 C.C.R., 1333-37, pp. 28-29. This was on April 1. The abbot was ordered
to keep the money till further orders. He was already receiver of the clerical
subsidies in the north, and largely supplied the king's household, then also in the
north, with money.
2 C.P.E., 1330-34, p. 412 ; C.C.R., 1333-37, pp. 501-502.
* " Exchequer Migrations," pp. 293, 298 ; C'.C.R., 1333-37, pp. 19, 154.
* C.C.R., 1333-37, pp. 50, 154. The rudeness of the accommodation can be
guessed from the fact that the order was only given in June, and that timber
was the chief material used. The calendar rendering on p. 50, of the phrase
" pro recepta Phihppe Regine AngUe " as " for receiving queen Philippa," ia
obviously incorrect ; cf. p. 154.
^ C.C.R., 1333-37, p. 493. « lb. p. 294.
' lb. The place is not mentioned, but in 1328 the " domus garderobe,"
■was St. Leonard's hospital, at the Minster — St. Mary's end of the city ; E.A.
383/19. But as this is a great wardrobe account, " garderoba " may mean here
" great wardrobe." « C.C.R., 1333-37, pp. 129-130.
60 EDWAED III.'S PERSONAL EULE ch. rx
minster, where presumably the chancery clerks then held their
sittings.^ On Stratford's return, the chancery resumed its
sessions at St. Mary's, and the sealing was again done in the abbey
church. 2 As a large number of the chancery records went north
with the office, considerable space must have been needed.^
Although York derived a certain temporary prosperity, it also
sufiered some inconvenience, from the increased activity within
its walls. As in 1328, the unique opportunities for creating
disturbance made an irresistible appeal to the north country
folk. Men in unlawful possession of arms collected in York and
its suburbs. The king's ministers and other loyal subjects were
waylaid, beaten and robbed. Some bands went so far as to break
by night into the houses of the treasurer and of the wardrobe,
insulting the treasurer and the king's servants, and carrying
away as many jewels and secret documents as they were able. In
January 1334 the mayor and bailiffs were ordered, under severe
penalties, to enforce against such evil-doers the statutes of
Winchester, Northampton and Westminster.^
The Scottish trouble brought the court to the north. The
large number of north countrymen in the king's service, and the
restoration of a great chamber estate in Holderness made it easier
for the offices of state to remain there, even when there was once
more a call towards the south. In these years of exile from
Westminster the exchequer was entirely controlled by clerks
beneficed in the north. After Ayleston's early retirement, the
bishops of Durham and London, the dean of York, and the
archdeacon of Richmond successively held the office of treasurer.
The chancery, when not in the grip of the Stratfords, was directed
first by the archbishop of York, and then by the bishop of
Durham.
With the coming of chancery, common bench and exchequer,
York became once more a meeting-place for parliaments. Be-
tween 1330 and 1332 all the four parliaments of the period were
1 C.C.E., 1333-37, pp. 130, 188. ^ lb. p. 296.
^ Some records were sent from the Tower of London to York in May 1335,
in addition to those already there; C.C.B., 1333-37, p. 113. When Rlichael
Wath succeeded Henry CUfE as keeper of the chancery rolls on Apr. 28, 1337,
at Mortlake, there was still a chest at St. Mary's abbey in which roUs and writs
of chancery were stored, " as Michael says " ; ib., 1337-39, p. 130. See also
p. 64 below. ' lb. pp. 294-295.
§11 PARLIAMENTS 1330-1338 61
assembled at Westminster. But of the four parliaments of 1333
to 1335, three were at York and only one at Westminster. This
fact is the more significant since the Westminster parliament of
September 1332, in agreeing with the king that he should make his
way speedily to the north, sanctioned implicitly the migration to
York.^ When the chancery left York, parliaments were no longer
summoned there, the last summoned to York for February 1337
being prorogued to Westminster. ^
Yet it was not always convenient to have parliaments or
gatherings of a parliamentary character assembling so far to the
north as York, even though the exchequer and bench were there.
Thus in 1335 the council brought forward a curious plan to divide
a great council of magnates into three sections, meeting at York,
London, and some unspecified place in the march of Wales.^ No
assembly actually met at York after 1335, though there was a
parliament at Nottingham in 1336 and one at Northampton in
1338. Westminster, which had already seen parliaments in 1334
and 1336, saw three parliaments in 1337, and except for the
Northampton " parliament " of 1338, and the adjournment to
Winchester of the quasi-parliament of 1371,* Westminster was
^ Rot. Pari. ii. 66-67. In the last two parliaments of 1332, held respectively
at Westminster and York, prelates, barons and knights deUberated separately
as well as in common ; " les ditz prelatz par eux meismes, countes et barons
par eux meismes, et les chivalers des countez par eux meismes." Here we
have the " three estates," in fact though not in name, as early as 1332.
^ A gentle protest must be made against the assumption of so many writers,
including even Prof. PoUard in his Evolution of Parliament, that parUaments
were normally held " at Westminster." That was certainly not so in the critical
period of parUamentary growth between 1274 and 1338, whatever may have
obtained after 1338. The Hundred Years' War first made Westminster the
habitual seat of parliaments. Taking as a rough guide the rather accidental
list of the " parhaments " of Edward I.-III. in the Return of Members of Parlia-
ment, I find that, under Edward I. eight parhaments met at Westminster, one in
London, and seven elsewhere. Under Edward II. there is a clear majority of
fifteen Westminster parUaments, besides one in London, as against eight else-
where. Between 1327 and 1330 it was the other way, there being only two
parliaments at Westminster and six elsewhere. From 1330-32 all three parha-
ments were at Westminster. For the period 1333-38 there were five parhaments
at Westminster as against four elsewhere. The totals for the years 1274-1338
are 33 Westminster, 2 London and 25 elsewhere. I have taken no account of the
parUaments summoned but never assembled, and I have omitted the curious
meeting of borough members planned to take place at London in January 1337.
Probably most attempts to make such calculations as these would vary sUghtly,
but the net result would be the same.
^ Cal. Plea and Mem. Rolls, London, 1323-64, p. 93.
* See for this later, pp. 268-270.
62 EDWARD III.'S PERSONAL RULE ch. k
the invariable meeting-place for Edward IIL's parliaments from
1339 to 1377.
Few of the parliaments of the late thirties had any great
importance. Perhaps the most typical of the series was the
Westminster parliament of March, 1337, whose change of venue
from York to Westminster marked decisively the turn of the tide
southwards. Reference has already been made to it, because
advantage was taken of its meeting to create the duchy of
Cornwall and the six earldoms of which we have wTitten at some
length. The session was limited to thirteen days,^ and there is
no extant roll of its proceedings. Its statute for the promotion
of the wool trade, by the prohibition of the export of un worked
wool and the encouragement of foreign weavers to settle in
England, would, if it had been efiective, have produced an
economic revolution.^ But regulation of the export of wool was
delegated to the king and council, and they, by allowing export
on payment of an additional custom, simply made the new law
a pretext for a new tax. Though this act attracted the attention
of the chroniclers, they were more interested in the creation of
the seven new dignities. Great festivities attended these solemn
proceedings. A parliament of this sort was primarily a court,
but it was a court in the sense of an enlarged council, a glorified
gathering of magnates and commons to advise the king in matters
of moment, and to add to the ceremony with which he was
surrounded.^ The records of the wardrobe show how such an
^ See above, pp. 37-39. The date and duration of its sessions there are
fixed by the "writs of expenses" in C.C.R., 1337-39, pp. 113-114. The
calendar erroneously puts " Monday after St. Matthew last " as the day
of meeting, but clearly St. Mathias' day is meant, not St. Matthew's. As
St. Mathias' day in 1337 fell on Monday, the " Monday after " was Mar. 3.
On Mar. 20 the expenses writs were issued, allowing knights of the shire for
13 days' attendance. This makes the duration of the parHament Mar. 3-16,
a period confirmed by E.A. 388/2. Sunday, Mar. 2, is there "prima dies
parhamenti," doubtless for ceremonial or convivial reasons. Parliament ended
on Sunday, Mar. 16, when great festivities and the creation of knights and earls
were recorded in the wardrobe account.
^ Murimuth, p. 79. Statutes of the Realm, i. 280.
' These parliaments at Westminster, when the common bench and exchequer
were at York, give reasons for suggesting some Hmitations to the widely held
view which Prof. C. H. M'llwain developed in his able High Court of Parliament
and its Supremacy (1910), and Prof. Pollard has maintained strongly in his
Evolution of Parliament, notably in chapter ii. on "the High Court of Parliament."
This is the opinion that parHament was primarily a law court. " Curia " is not
essentially a law court in mediaeval phrase, but the king and his entourage, as
§ II IMPOVERISIDVIENT OF WESTMINSTER 63
assembly increased the expenses of the royal household.
Thus the counter-roll of Richard Ferriby in 1337 records
how the parliament met, and how its proceedings culmin-
ated in the great feasts after the concluding Sunday session,
when the king entertained the chief magnates, and the queen,
their ladies.^
An occasional meeting of parliament in Westminster, and
i the visits paid from time to time by some section of chancery,
I household, or exchequer,^ did little to relieve the impoverishment
I of Westminster which had resulted from absence of the admin-
I istration in general. In 1338, the inhabitants of Westminster
besought the king to allow them to be assessed at a lower rate
for the purposes of war taxation. As their city was " not a
borough or market town, and men do not traffic or sell there,"
they claimed that they were not able to live, except when the
" places of the exchequer and common bench or others of the
king's places stay there, and men are much impoverished because
the said places have not stayed there for a great while, and
well-known passages in Fleta, quoted by Mr. Pollard, show. Whether the royal
following were small or large, the judges and lawyers were naturally to the fore.
No doubt the meeting of a parUament made the court in one sense a " liigh
court," because it provided the king with sufficient, perhaps too much, counsel,
and no doubt also that, when so many advisers were gathered together, the king
thought it an especially appropriate time to transact legal or any other business
of importance. But even in the fourteenth century there was, as Mr. M'Uwain
recognises, no complete differentiation between " legal," " legislative " and
"executive " business. AU such went on side by side at all times, and always
with the advice of those around the king. " High Court of ParUament " is,
therefore, an appropriate phrase, but proves little to the purpose. Moreover,
the prayer for the High Court of Parhament, to which Prof. Pollard refers,
only got into the Prayer Book in 1661, and was written, perhaps by Wilham
Laud, somewhere about 1625, when it first appeared in print. It is unsafe to
argue back from the sixteenth and seventeenth to the thirteenth and fourteenth
centuries.
^ E.A. 388/2. " Isto die {i.e. Mar. 16) rex fecit fiUum suum primogenitum
ducem Cornubie, sex comites, videhcet Gloucest., Sarum., Derb., Norh.,
Hunt., et Suff., et xx. mihtes. Et tenuit magnam aulam iUo die cum omni so-
lenitate. Et domina regina tenuit paruam aulam ad sumptus regis ei concessos
dominabus et domicelHs." The " hospicium " expenses, which in the previous
week were £163 : : 8| swelled during this week of parhament to £665 : 7 : 0.
^ Sometimes, to mitigate the inconvenience caused to the southern sheriffs,
concessions were made to them, allowing them to pay in their money at London
instead of at York ; C.C.E., 1337-39, p. 356 ; order to the sheriff of Devon, Apr. 4,
1338, to take the money of his proffer, which he ought to have at York for the
morrow of the close of Easter, to London and pay it there to the treasurer,
Robert Wodehouse.
64 EDWAED III.'S PEESONAL RULE ch. ix
many who used to dwell in tlie town have departed therefrom
by reason of poverty, so that the men in the town cannot live
and maintain their estate unless they are favourably treated by
the king." ^ A commission declared that the complaints of
Westminster were well founded, and it looks as if some relief
were afforded. ^ In October 1337 it was complained at West-
minster that the " rolls of the chancery of Edward II. were not
with the king." ^ How slowly the transference to the south was
made is shown by the fact that many chancery records were not
taken away from York until the spring of 1339.^ Westminster's
turn came again when the exchequer and bench had once more
been moved back to it. During the rest of the reign it became
the administrative centre of the English state more completely
than it had ever been before. It was the Hundred Years' War
which finally secured for Westminster the permanent position
of " capital " of England. ^
One conclusive reason why Westminster began to draw the
officials back again after 1336 was that, although the military
strength of England lay in the north, her financial resources
were almost entirely in the southern counties. This is not the
place to discuss in detail the fiscal history of the reign of
Edward III., for we are concerned with finance only in so far as
it influenced administration. But ever since Edward III., in
1333, had assumed responsibility for the campaigns of Edward
Balliol in Scotland, finance had become an increasing anxiety to
him. In the early years of his reign the use of assignments had
been considerably extended, because the exchequer had little
cash in hand, and because, at the moment, there was no urgent
demand for payment in coin. Professor Willard has shown that
in the second exchequer year of Edward III., Michaelmas 1327
to Michaelmas 1328, the close and the memoranda rolls record
1 C.F.R. V. 92 ; C.C.R., 1337-39, pp. 552-553, 563. This was in September
and October 1338. Perhaps the estabhshment of a staple at Westminster in
1353 was an attempt to make it more industrially self -supporting ; though
doubtless it was even more a blow at the Londoners.
^ It was found that the men of the town were the poorer by £70 a year.
3 C.F.R. V. 47.
* C.C.R., 1339-41, p. 64, order of Apr. 22, 1339, to keeper of hanaper to pay
cost of their transference to Westminster.
* I have attempted to work out this idea in my Raleigh Lecture for 1923,
" The Beginnings of a Modern Capital : London and Westminster in the Four-
teenth Century " ; Proc. Brit. Acad. x. 487-511.
§ n THE EETURN TO WESTMINSTER 65
assignments amounting to a sum slightly in excess of the whole
exchequer disbursements entered on the issue rolls. ^ Only care-
ful comparison of the writs with the entries on the issue rolls
can discover how nearly the two are complementary, for assign-
ments might not mature until some little time after the year in
which they were made, and we must not assume that the assign-
ments recorded on the issue rolls of any one year are the assign-
ments made in that year. Even so, the obvious conclusion is
that the exchequer neither received nor paid any appreciable
sums in cash, but dealt with its creditors almost entirely on an
assignment basis. Professor Willard warns us against basing
premature generalisations on the figures of any one year, but it
is safe to say that the exchequer had become and remained, like
a modern bank, an office of accounts, where the sums of cash
received and paid out were small in comparison with the magni-
tude of book-keeping transactions. The stormy conditions of
the beginning of the reign doubtless caused exceptional stringency
of ready money.
A few years of peace might have restored normality, but
within three years the outbreak of war with Scotland brought
another difficulty upon the financiers. Serious hostilities began
with Halidon Hill in 1333, but before then the subterranean
financing of Balliol's privateering adventure to recover his in-
heritance had increased, as war always does, the demand for
ready money. Edward had no difficulty in obtaining what he
wanted, as Professor Willard has proved by his examination of
the exchequer turnover in 6 Edward III., Michaelmas 1332 to
Michaelmas 1333. Between Michaelmas 1332 and Hilarytide
1333, assignments were still frequent, but money payments stand
to them in the rough proportion of one-third to two-thirds. In
Hilary term the cash payments were more than two-thirds of the
whole, and assignments less than a third. After Easter, when
fighting had begun, the assignments became insignfficant : only
money down could meet expenses in the field. Accordingly large
sums of coin were sent to the north under careful escort : a sort
of branch exchequer was opened at York, and in May the
whole exchequer moved thither, that the money might be more
^ J. F. WiUard, " The Crown and its Creditors, 1327-1333," E.H.R. xlii.
12-19.
VOL. Ill P
66 EDWARD III.'S PERSONAL RULE oh. ix
on the spot for the paramount needs of the campaign.^ Mean-
while the wardrobe, and Tawton its keeper, were at New-
castle or Berwick, or as near as possible to the scene of action ;
and great sums were paid to Zouch, keeper of the great ward-
robe, for the purchase of military supplies. There is clearly a
real distiuction between the financial policy and methods of these
two years, and we may well believe that fundamentally that
distinction is due to the different needs of war and peace. When
the Himdred Years' War came, with obligations which dwarfed
those of the Scottish campaigns, this difference was emphasised
over and over again.
Edward's plans to pay for his expeditions were less and less
successful, and his last efforts to subdue the Scots, before war
with France broke out, were not on a large scale, though they
are reflected in the swollen exchequer receipts of the years 1334
to 1337, and to a less extent in the wardrobe accounts for the
same period. With the preliminary preparations against France
in 1337, the chief energies of the state were devoted mainly to
getting together money to pay for the new war. Parliamentary
grants were nearly always insufficient, and were now the less
adequate, because of the enormous cost of the elaborate series
of alliances which bishop Burghersh was negotiating, on Edward's
behalf, between the emperor Louis of Bavaria and the imperial
princes of the Netherlands. On Edward's failure to obtain fur-
ther supplies by the obsolete method of consulting the shires and
dioceses individually, ^ the crown embarked upon extraordinary
financial measures, to correlate which new administrative machin-
ery had to be introduced.
Transition from preparation to action was protracted. Mili-
tary organisation moved slowly, but financial provision dragged
far behind. The result was that the king's " transfretation "
^ See above, pp. 58-59.
^ See for this, J. F. Willard, " Edward III.'s negotiations for a grant in 1337,"
in E.H.R. xxi. 727-731. The document printed by Mr. Willard shows that in
Sept. 1337, a diocesan assembly of the great bishopric of Lichfield was summoned
to Stafford by bishop Northburgh, at whose entreaty each archdeaconry ap-
pointed collectors for the promised clerical tenth. At the same time the bishop
summoned a lay Staffordshire assembly to the same place. This meeting,
though badly attended, resulted in a county grant of a Is. from each librate of
land. The merchants of the shire at a subsequent meeting agreed that a like
grant should be levied on the wealthy men of certain specified towns. This
was soon superseded by a regular parliamentary grant.
§ II WAR AND FINANCE 67
was put off time after time, and it was given out that the post-
ponement of hostilities was " in accordance with the king's con-
cession to the pope." ^ Special parliamentary grants, increase in
customs duties, the purveyance of wool for the king's use and its
export,^ contracts with merchants, alien and native, to make the
wool monopoly an excuse for fresh exactions upon that com-
modity, advances from capitalists — Italian, Netherlandish, and
English— all were tried, but did not in the end suffice for the
king's wants.3 Nor was the situation eased by a foolish attempt
to prosecute both Scottish and French wars with equal energy.
As long as Edward was in England, the machinery devised, or
adapted, to meet the emergency did not jeopardise the unity of
control. Chancery and exchequer, wardrobe and chamber, each
worked their hardest, and did not get into each other's way. If
the exceptional arrangements made to raise men and money
threw a special burden on the household administration, there
was as yet little suggestion of difference between the agents of
the court and the officers of the state. The easy opportunism of
the king, who habitually made himself pleasant by scattering
favours to those whom he wished to conciliate, glossed over any
possibilities of friction, though its costliness and lack of positive
result were soon to show its essential unwisdom.
Plans were made for dividing the administration. The chan-
cellor and treasurer, with a section of the council, were to remain
in England to govern the country in the name of the king's
eight-year-old son, Edward, duke of Cornwall, who was to be
appointed regent.* The household officers, with another section
of the council and representatives of the offices left behind, were
; to attend the king. The absence of the king and a large number
1 Foedera, ii. 1022.
^ A receiver of the moneys arising from the sale of the king's wool sent
I beyond seas was appointed as early as 1337 in the person of John Charnels,
who had another king's clerk, Mr. John Wawayn, as his controller ; above, p. 45.
I They were at work by Oct. 1337 ; C.P.R., 1338-40, p. 471.
( ^ The best accounts of these financial expedients may be read in the papers
of Professor Unwin, F. R. Barnes, and E. Russell, in Finance and Trade under
Edward III. (M.U.P. 1918). These give us, in convenient shape, most of the
information available from printed sources. S. B. Terry's Financing of the
Hundred Years' War, 1337-60 (London School of Economics Studies, No. 35,
jl914) darkens counsel.
I * The actual appointment was not made until July 11, when the king was on
Jthe verge of departure.
68 EDWARD III.'S PERSONAL RULE ch. ix
of his ministers was to reveal a new problem. Unity of admin-
istration was incompatible with a king and court working in the
Netherlands, while a regency supported by another court strove
to govern England, carry on the Scottish war, and provide the
supplies of men and money for the contiuental struggle. Edward
was not unmindful of the difficulties involved before he set out,
and spent his last weeks in England drawing up, with the help
of his confidants, a scheme designed to overcome them. In June
1338, with those who were to go with him on his expedition, the
king took up his quarters at the Suffolk manor of Walton, near
Felixstow, to await the mobilisation in the Orwell of the fleet
which was to carry him and his host over the sea. There, on
July 12, " after great deliberation," on the advice of the " good
folk surrounding him," ^ Edward issued some remarkable ordi-
nances, which laid down for the administration certain rules for
immediate adoption, having special regard to what was to be
done while the king was abroad. He then took ship for the
Netherlands, sailing on July 16, and only came back to England
in February 1340. After Edward's departure and the consumma-
tion of the division of the administration, the curtain falls on
the first phase of his personal rule. With the administrative and
military readjustments thereby necessitated, we enter another
period in the administrative history of the reign.
* " par lauis et conseil de noz bonez gentz esteantz entour nous par grant
deliberacion." See below, pp. 69-80, where the Walton ordinances are dis-
cussed in detail.
§in THE WALTON ORDINANCES 69
SECTION III
Administrative and Constitutional Crisis, 1338-1343
In intention, if not in efEect, the Walton ordinances were
perhaps the most important administrative act of the reign of
Edward III. They aimed at co-ordinating the several branches
of the administration, by vesting a severe executive control in the
king and his immediate advisers, supplemented, in certain
directions, by the co-operation of the popular courts, which were
to share with the ministers in the appointment of local officers.
The ordinances, under cover of a writ of privy seal, dated July 12,
were sent to the chancellor in London, who was directed to have
them read before " the wise men of our council," and to see that
they were strictly observed. Two months later the chancery
dispatched a copy of them to the exchequer, with instructions
to observe them in so far as they concerned that office.^
Let us see by an analysis of the ordinances what means were
to be taken to carry out the principles they embodied. This is
not a simple task. The arrangement of the sections seems to be
haphazard, several obviously related paragraphs being separated
by others quite imconnected.^ Here and there the meaning is
ambiguous,^ and we are not always helped by the marginal
headings supplied in the best extant text.* To appreciate the
general efiect of the ordinances is even more difficult ; yet that too
must be attempted later.
The first and longest section deals with warrants for issue. ^
It is in substance a plan for securing royal control over the
exchequer and the chancery by a development of the traditional
system of royal warrants as the condition precedent to executive
acts of state. A limited discretion had always been allowed to
^ For the text of the ordinances see appendix to this section, pp. 143-150.
* Sections 1, 7 [latter part], 8 and 10, are all concerned with warrants ;
section 2, with the appointment of local o£ficers ; sections 3, 4 and 5, with
means to make the king solvent ; section 6, with escheator's duties ; and
section 9, with the amount of the king's debts and the income he required.
* As for example parts of section 2, pp. 146-147, below.
* Those of sections 2 and 3 especially. ^ Pp. 144-146, below.
70 CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS ch. ix
tlie chief executive departments, but any mandate involving
departure from routine or alteration of policy had, since the
thirteenth century, been normally justified by the issuing office
quoting a definite authority, or warrant, from the crown for its
action. In future, the chancery was not to authorise, nor the
exchequer to make, any kind of payment, fixed fees excepted,
without a specific warrant under the privy seal, in which the
reason for the payment was to be stated clearly, such phrases as
" for the king's secret needs " being prohibited as inadequate.
The wording of the passage is vague, but it implies, firstly, that
no chancery writ, ordering payments from the exchequer, was to
be valid unless warranted by privy seal, and secondly, that
payments might also be made on the authority of privy seals
addressed to the exchequer.^ To secure these results elaborate
new machinery was devised. These warrants were to be made
" with the assent of the king and of a wise and sufficient man
appointed for the purpose." They were to be enrolled by a
" certain clerk appointed and sworn for the purpose," and the
enrolment, though brief, was to give the place of issue, day and
year of the warrant, and the amount of, and reason for the
payment it authorised. As a check upon this, a counter-roll was
to be drawn up by " a certain clerk of the chamber assigned for
the purpose," under the supervision of a " wise, sufficient and
knowledgeable man " appointed by the king. At the end of
every year the chamberlains of the exchequer, in the presence of
the treasurer, were to account to a special auditing committee,
composed of a bishop, a banneret and a clerk. The clerk of the
chamber responsible for the counter-roU of the warrants, the man
whose duty it was to supervise him in this matter, ^ and the clerk
of the privy seal, were to bring to this audit, under their own
seals and the privy seal, the counter-roll of the w^arrants issued.
^ The latter course was becoming quite usual. Although chancery writs of
liberate were still issued, and the liberate roLLs continued, much reduced in size,
until 14 Henry VI., warrants under the small seals were gradually supplanting
such writs. For the history of chancery warrants under Edward III., see Dr.
B. Wilkinson, " The authorisation of chancery writs under Edward III.," in
B.J.R.L. viii. 107-139.
^ It is just possible that the description, " celui qi serra issint assigne par le
roi, come desus est dit," or " celui qe le roi auera issint assigne, come desus est
dit," wherever it is used, indicates the " wise man " who was to advise the king
in the issuing of the privy seal writs, but more probably it appUes to the super-
visor of the chamber clerk.
§ m THE WALTON ORDINANCES 71
The chamberlains were to receive allowances only for such pay-
ments as were vouched for by the warrants of privy seal and the
counter-roll. In effect the chamberlains would have to pay out
of their own pockets any payments not ordered by enrolled writ
of privy seal.
Following these general rules are others obviously introduced
to meet the special conditions of the moment. Whenever the
king was to take the privy seal away with him, and the
council was divided in his absence, then, if the proceedings of
the sectional councils involved payments of any kind, or execution
of business for which written authority was required, the necessary
warrants were to be issued by the " governors and chiefs " of
those councils, in the name of the king, under their personal seals,
in the form of bills modelled on the lines of privy seal warrants.
The " governors " of the councils issuing warrants were to take
transcripts of their bills to the king at the first opportunity.
These, after examination by the clerk of the privy seal, the clerk
of the chamber, and his appointed supervisor, were to be shown
to the king, and then enrolled and coimter-rolled, like normal privy
seal warrants. After this, letters of privy seal were to be issued
to the recipients of the biUs, indemnifying them. Thus, ultimately,
there were to be privy seal warrants for aU payments. Finally,
the committee of audit was to advise the king and council of the
state of the treasury, and how much the issues of the land had
yielded. The effect of the section was to put both chancery and
exchequer into leading-strings.
The second section deals with the appointment of sherifis and
other important local officials.^ The humihation of chancery and
exchequer was emphasised because, as a complement to the central
control already expounded, there was to be established a local
control exercised by the counties and towns. Henceforth sheriffs
were to be " elected " for one year only, by their respective shires,
from men for whom the shires were willing to be responsible.
The names of the selected candidates were to be submitted to
chancery for the issue of the necessary commissions, but that
office had no power to question the election or to remove the
appointed during their year of office. Other " great ministers "
of the county, including, presumably, the custodes pads, who at
1 Pp. 146-147, below.
72 CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS ch. ix
this time were also commonly commissioners of array, and certain
subordinate county officials, were to be similarly elected, whUe
customers of towns were to be elected by the townsfolk.^ None
of these officers were to be appointed for life.
Sections three, four and five, suggested by the immediate
financial distress of the crown, limited stiU further the discretion
of the exchequer. All exemptions from taxation were to be
annulled.2 Respite of debts and permits to pay debts by instal-
ments were forbidden, and no royal obhgations, such as bills
of the wardrobe, contracted before the king's accession, were to
be paid, until the king was out of debt.^ If any person, owing
money to the crown for debts incurred under the king's pre-
decessors, wished to compound for them by immediate payment
of a sum less than the full amount, the council was to be consulted,
and subsequent action based on the advice it gave.* In future
escheators were to be charged to make true extents, and to limit
their operations to lands within their jurisdiction. ^
In section seven, the system of warranty was extended at
the expense of chancery, and to the limitations imposed on that
office in section one, others were now added.^ Orders for the
execution of a variety of business were to have the same specific
authority for their issue as the orders for payments required.
After the conditions precedent to every kind of grant had been
stated, and the process by which the grants were to be made
explained, the crux of the matter was revealed in the provision
that all such gifts, and aU things else proceeding from chancery,
were to be warranted by writ of privy seal. The only exceptions
permitted were matters exclusively concerning the law, and
those touching the ofiice of the chancellor. Like the privy seal
warrants for payment, these privy seals were also to be enrolled
and counter-rolled, and every quarter the writs and their enrol-
ments and the rolls of chancery were to be inspected and
examined by the newly devised committee of audit, in the
presence of the clerk of the privy seal, the clerk of the chamber
responsible for the counter-roll of the privy seals for the issue of
money, and the man deputed to advise him. With matters of
^ See n. 1, p. 96, below. ^ Section 3, p. 147, below.
* Section 4, p. 147, below. ■* Section 5, p. 147, below.
5 Section 6, p. 147, below. * P. 148.
§ m THE WALTON OEDINANCES 73
special grace, or those involving any departure from tlie regula-
tions of the ordinances, the chancery was to have no concern.
Already sometimes it had been found necessary to control
the finaDcial administration of a campaign by setting up a
special treasurer for the purpose. In view of the application of
some such method to the war with France, the opportunity
was taken to lay down, ia the eighth section of the ordinances,
precise rules for the financing of future wars.^ These rules
postulated both a special war treasurer and a single general in
supreme command. All such war treasurers, whether clerks or
laymen, were to be possessed of sufficieDt revenue from lay fees
to make them answerable to the crown for their actions. These
treasurers were to pay out nothing from their receipts, except
on the written order of the general in command. At the end of
his term of service the commander was to hand over to the king
a roll, drawn up in the form of an indenture between himself
and the treasurer of war, in which were briefly noted all the
warrants he had issued. After examination by the council, this
roll was to be sent to the exchequer under the privy seal, and
on it were to be based the allowances made to the treasurer
concerned. The cost and importance of diplomatic missions
are indicated in the requirement that persons engaged on
" solemn " deputations should receive no wages or allowance for
expenses incurred, without written and certified warranty
prepared in similar manner. In such ways the principle of a
written and enrolled warrant for payment was extended from
the ordinary ministries of state to the special departments of
war and diplomacy.
The ultimate supremacy of the exchequer in financial
administration is clearly asserted in section nine.^ There the
treasurer of the exchequer ^ is directed to find out how much the
king owed to great merchants and in other large commitments,
and to estimate how much would be needed to make the king
solvent and to maintain his estate. The result of these calcula-
tions was to be sent to the long. This emphasis of the exchequer's
general responsibility for the royal finances is the more significant,
^ P. 149, below. 2 P. 149, below.
^ " Le grant tresorier " can only mean here the treasurer of the exchequer, as
distinguished from the treasurers of war and the treasurer of the household, whose
duties are referred to in other clauses.
74 CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS ch. ix
because so large a share in the business of issuing and controlling
writs concerned with expenditure was to be given to household
ofl&ces which would go abroad with the king.
The tenth and last section of the ordinances relates to the
wardrobe of the household.'- The treasurer of the household —
not described here as treasurer of the wardrobe ^ — was to have
no allowance for foreign, that is non-household, expenditure
not authorised by warrant of privy seal, duly enrolled and
controlled. The " counter-sums " of the expenses of the house-
hold were to remain with the clerk of the chamber, by the inspec-
tion and examination of his supervisor, already mentioned.^
The wardrobe was to make no prests, that is, monetary advances,
to non-household persons, without the king's special command
by word of mouth, and a privy seal warrant. All expenses of
the household were to be viewed from week to week, and from
month to month.
When we turn to consider the significance of the ordinances,
we are confronted with five outstanding features. One is the
growth in importance of the privy seal ; another is the calhng in
of the local administration to balance the central executive ; a
third is the two-fold limitation of the power of chancery and
exchequer by pressure from above and from below ; a fourth is
the intrusion of the chamber into matters of public finance, and
the last is the institution of a small supreme committee of audit.
These give rise to certain questions. Did the ordinances, like
so many other apparent innovations in mediaeval practice,
crystallise into a written code customs established some years
before ? Did they represent a natural development ? Did they
introduce novelties and mark a new departure ? The answer is
that the ordinances did all these things.
1 Pp. 149-150, below.
^ The keeper, or treasurer, of the wardrobe was now often called " treasurer
of the king's household " ; for instance, Tawton is so described in 1334 ; C.G.R.,
1333-37, p. 386. The earUest example I have noticed occurs more than ten
years before, when Roger Waltham was oflScially referred to in such terms ;
above, ii. 267. See also below, iv. 160.
^ P. 150, below. I am not clear what this means. It suggests either that
the auditing committee, or one of its members, was to examine the household
accounts, or that the clerk of the chamber, with his supervisor, were to have a
special counter-roll of them. The control of the wardrobe by the chamber is a
startling illustration of the growth of chamber power at this time. It is reminis-
cent of the minority of Henry III. ; see above, i. 195-196, 200.
§ HI THE WALTON ORDINANCES 75
The principle of controlling the administration by warrant
was not new, but the widespread application of it in these
provisions, by which privy seal warrants were made obligatory,
for all except routine business, in chancery, exchequer, and
even in the wardrobe where verbal royal command had generally
sufl&ced, does suggest that a big step forward was being taken.
It could only mean that the privy seal was to be regarded as
solely responsible for notification of the personal wishes of the
crown, a prerogative function made all the more secure by the
association of the keeper of the privy seal with the new committee
of audit. The danger of the privy seal becoming an all-powerful
office of state would be lessened by the fact that it normally
followed the court, even beyond seas, and by the check imposed
upon it in the persons of the clerk of the chamber and his
director. Nevertheless the privy seal was intended to be more
than an instrument of transmission.
To enlist the help of counties and boroughs for the nomina-
tion of local officers was also not unfamiliar. There were plenty
of precedents for sheriffs and coroners being popularly elected
by the shires.^ Perhaps election was pushed further now than at
any time earlier, but the object was not to conciliate local opinion
so much as to give the crown additional power. So far from
being considered dangerous to prerogative, such interference was
intended to enable the king the more easily to get his own way.
Edward III., like Henry VIII., was shrewd enough to set off
the lesser landed gentry of the shires and the commercial classes
against the magnates of church and state, who were his natural
critics. The Tudor vision of a strong king, keeping a tight hold
of the nobles by means of the squires and merchants, may have
floated before the imagination of the royalist politicians of the
fourteenth century. On the other hand, such subtleties may have
been beyond the grasp of opportunists, like Edward and his
courtiers, and the greatest experiment in that direction, the
admission of the commons to parliament, had certainly shown
that there was always a chance that the popular element might
join with the magnates against the crown.
The traditional offices tended to get too much of their own
^ W. A. Morris, The Medieval English Sheriff to 1300, pp. 182-185, 199-200
(M.U.P. 1927), usefully collects early instances.
76 CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS ch. ix
way. Therefore while care was taken to aUow them their
recognised constitutional position, they had to be reminded
sometimes of their subjection to the sovereign. There was nothing
new in the attempt to confine each office to the particular work
for which it existed, for multiplication and separation of depart-
ments was an essential factor in progress. AU the more reason
why, ia face of a great military struggle, the unity of the admini-
stration should be assured by means of a common control. This
control could only come from the king in person, or from the
Httle group of his most trusted advisers. Of necessity, it would
take away something from the individual liberty of the different
offices.
The most unexpected and the most novel proposals of the
ordinances concern the chamber and the projected committee of
audit. While the chamber seems the natural instrument for the
king to employ to control the privy seal on the one hand, and the
chancery, exchequer and wardrobe on the other, the fact that it
was given a place in the scheme of 1338 presupposes that it was
rapidly growing more powerful, and that it was regarded as an
integral part of the administration.^ The committee of audit,
which was to consist of three specially appointed members, a
bishop, a banneret and a clerk, was clearly intended to be the
keystone of the monarchical arch, with the office of the privy seal,
the chamber, the king's council and the local courts on the one
side, and the chancery, exchequer and wardrobe on the other.
Although, therefore, the source of the new control was the house-
hold, it was to have the assistance, not only of the local courts
and the king's council, but also of representatives of church,
laity and civil service. The specific task of the committee was
to secure the harmonious working together of the various elements
of the administration in the execution of the royal wiE. It could
hardly fail to grow conscious of the prospect before it of becom-
ing the most powerful body in the state.
The need of a chief councillor upon certain occasions was as
^ One is even tempted to suggest that the " clerk of the chamber " responsible
for the counter-roll of the privy seal warrants may have been the de facto keeper
of the secret seal although no mention of that seal is made in the ordinances.
See for this seal below, iv. 261-264 and 276-279, and v. ch. xvii. " The Re-
duplications of the Privy Seal," § I. " The Secret Seal," § II. " The Griffin
Seal," and § IV. " The Signet and the Secretary."
§ m THE WALTON ORDINANCES 77
mucli recognised as the expediency of dividing the council/ but
the assumption that in the king's absence there must be such
an o£&cer in charge of each section of the council seems a dis-
tinct advance. These vague and accidental chairmanships un-
doubtedly prepared the way for the final emergence of a per-
manent and official presidency of the council.
The duty placed upon the treasurer of the exchequer of
supplying the king with a statement of his debts, and an estimate
of the sum needed to discharge them and to provide him with
funds for the immediate future, was no revolutionary measure.
The preparation of such statistics postulated a systematic survey
of the revenue as a whole, and, if the injunction were obeyed,
would seem to mark a definite development in administrative
efficiency, though there is some evidence that similar attempts
had been made at other crises, notably in 1284. ^ After all, the
policy was in harmony with, and a natural corollary to, the
exchequer ordinances of 1323-26, just as the clauses concerning
the wardrobe were a restatement of provisions laid down in the
York ordinance of 1318.
Briefly, the Walton ordinances were the clearest exposition
of the views of the high curiaHst party, whose policy always was
to subject central and local administration, the administration
of the king's non-Enghsh lands, and the administration of
the financial side of war, to the strict control of special agents
of the crown. That fact in itseK suggests it was now hoped to
obtain that complete restoration of household authority which
had been imminent since 1332. Additional support is given to
this suggestion by the personal changes in the ministry which
took place immediately before and after the promulgation of the
ordinances, and by the difference between the line of action
pursued by the home government and the line of action followed
by the government abroad. The association of the popular
^ For example, Warwick had been "chief councillor" in 1315, Thomas of
Lancaster in 1316, and Henry of Lancaster in 1327. But none of these had been
a success ; Place of Edward II., pp. 104-106, and above, pp. 10, 22-24.
^ I am indebted to Miss Maljel H. Mills for a reference to Exch. Misc. K.R.
1/23, which she shows to belong to Easter term 1284, and to be an early attempt
to estimate royal revenue. For details, see her " Exchequer Agenda and an
Estimate of Revenue, Easter term 1284," in E.H.R. xl. 229-234, where this
document is printed with an illuminative commentary. See also below,
pp. 240-243.
78 CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS ch. ix
element is only another example of the radicalism of the court
as opposed to the stolid conservatism of the baronage, not, as
at first sight might appear, an instance of contradiction and
confusion of ends and means. Ground between the upper mill-
stone of prerogative and the nether millstone of popular control,
the great ofl&ces would have become ministries only in name, if
the ordinances had been as effective as they were intended.
Here we touch the real problem, to what extent were the
ordinances operative ? Was a sincere attempt made to carry out
any of their recommendations, and with what permanent or
temporary success ? The various clauses seem to have been
written down somewhat hastily, at the inspiration of a rigidly
bureaucratic mind. The machinery they describe was so meticu-
lously elaborated that its very completeness rendered it unwelcome
and largely impracticable. The increasing use of the privy seal
for authorising warrants has already been pointed out. It is
quite clear that in this connection the ordinances gave expression
to what was growing into current practice, and at the same time
supplied fresh impetus to the movement.^ But whether any
effort was made to record and check those privy seal writs, and
to examine the relevant archives of chancery, exchequer and
wardrobe, as the ordinances directed, there appears to be nothing
left to show. 2 No trace has been found of the enrolment or con-
trolment of the privy seal warrants, or of any " bills " issued by
the council, or of orders issued by military commanders-in-chief.
Nor has any evidence come to light concerning the person who
was to advise the king in the matter of issuing the warrants ; or
about the clerk of the chamber and his supervisor to be appointed
for the compilation and care of the counter-rolls, or as to the
appointment, personnel and activities of the committee of audit.
The most unique provisions of the ordinances were apparently
never tested by experience, or if they were, they did not work
sufficiently well to justify their continuance. We shall see, how-
^ See for this Dr. Wilkinson's article already referred to. For the expansion
of the activity, and the growth in power, of the privy seal, see later, vol. v. ch. xvi.
That the privy seal was not, however, the only seal used to convey the royal will
to the administration is patent from the parallel use of the chamber seals
for that purpose. While, therefore, the spirit of the ordinances was respected,
the letter of it was not. See ch. xvii.
^ See, however, p. 101, n. 6, below, where indications are given that some-
thing of the kind was tried for the wardrobe.
§ ni PREPAEATIONS FOR FRENCH WAR 79
ever, that a serious attempt was made to carry out the regulations
touching election of local officials, the gathering in of money due
to the king, and the holding of a comprehensive survey of the king's
financial position. In the long run the innovations projected
by the ordinances failed to endure. Whatever lasting results
there were came from the clauses carrying a step further
practices which had already been tried and found useful. If
Edward seriously wished the ordinances to be permanent in every
respect, he certainly was unable to effect his purpose. That he
issued them in his usual opportunist spirit, with his eye on his
immediate wants, seems more likely. The letter sent with the
ordinances to the chancellor almost gives the impression that the
motive underlying the king's action was to expedite the collection
of the 20,000 sacks of wool, granted to him earlier, of which only
3000 had yet materialised. The striving after unity of control
broke down the sharp distinction between national and household
offices, but probably paved the way for that ministerial conflict
which came to a head in 1340.
Clearly the policy of the Walton ordinances had been settled
some time previous to their promulgation. They were a
part of the elaborate preparations that were being made to
expedite the king's journey to Flanders, and to secure the
administration of the realm and the provision of adequate war
funds during his absence. Two other aspects of these prepara-
tions were the numerous councils which heralded and succeeded
Edward's departure, and the numerous ministerial changes and
readjustments that were gradually brought about. So early as
April 1338 two colloquia of knights from the shires had been held,
at York and Westminster respectively, to provide for the preserva-
tion of the peace while Edward was away.^ Moreover, while
the king was still in England a " great council," including the
commons and the lower clergy, was summoned to meet at
Northampton on July 26. ^ This was, in fact if not in name, a
^ Foedera, ii. 1013-1014. There were three or four knights from each shire,
who seem an anticipation of the " four knights " who, with the coroner, were to
carry out the election of sheriffs by the shires, determined at Walton. See below,
pp. 93-94.
^ The summonses were issued under great seal on June 15. There was also a
conference of merchants a few days later. The chancery was at Northampton
between Aug. 1 and 6, meeting in the Dominican church; C.C.R., 1337-39,
80 CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS oh. ix
parliament, and is treated as such by some contemporary
writers. Among other things, it considered and criticised the
Walton ordinances.^
More important were the administrative changes which
anticipated, or succeeded, Edward's voyage. Up to his departure,
the administrative offices were widely scattered. The exchequer
and common bench were stiU at York. The council ^ and the
household departments had followed the king to Walton, but
the chancery lagged behind them, and between June 6 and the
beginning of July was estabUshed at Bramford, twelve miles
away from Walton, just beyond Ipswich.^ Some of the house-
hold officers had already been sent abroad to join bishop Burghersh
in the Netherlands.* Archbishop Stratford and bishop Bury
were employed in escorting the two cardinals from Dover back
to the continent.^ As early as the previous April a new privy
seal of larger size had been substituted for the old one, as if to
announce beforehand that this instrument was about to assume
an added dignity, and a great " seal of absence " was ready
pp. 511-512, 522-524. This " great council " can fairly be reckoned as a parKa-
ment, but the contemporary phrase shows that, so late as 1338, there was no
clear distinction in title between great councils of nobles and representative
parhaments. Compare p. 29, n. 4, above.
1 See later, pp. 92-93.
2 C.G.P., 1337-39, pp. 458, 560.
^ The chancery was at Bury St. Edmunds on June 5, at Lopham, Norfolk,
June 6-10 (C.G.E., 1337-39, pp. 419, 421, 422-423), at Bramford, between June 11
and at least June 25, and again on July 7-11, ib. pp. 509, 510, 518. At Bram-
ford writs were sealed and recognisances received in the parish church. Numerous
writs were also issued from Ipswich and Walton. An interesting mandate to
the exchequer to pay Bentworth arrears of his wages, dated Walton, July 2, and
warranted " per regem," is enrolled on the close roU ; ib. p. 442. Moreover,
Exch. of Receipt, Warrants for Issue, f. 24, contains a writ close to the same
effect, " teste me ipso apud Gypeswicum," July 2. On the same file other letters
of July 2 include two privy seals dated Walton, one dated at Bury, and one great
seal dated at Ipswich. Therefore we have not only chancery writs dated at
three different places on the same day, but writs of privy seal at two different
places, and these two further removed from each other than are the places of the
chancery writs. The chancery and privy seal were itinerating independently,
though in close relation to the movements of the king and of each other. This
shows that, though the date of the chancery writ may well be that of the privy
seal initiating it, another place may be given as the place of issue. Of com-se
it was easy to take the seal to a place not twelve miles off.
* John Darcy, the steward, shared with bishop Burghersh, and the earls of
Northampton and Suffolk, in the negotiations for the treaty with the Flemings,
concluded at Antwerp on June 10 ; Foedera, ii. 1043.
6 lb. ii. 1045.
§ III LANCASTRIANS REPLACED BY COURTIERS 81
early in July.^ The alarm of the Lancastrians was shown when
Robert Stratford, the chancellor, their only important repre-
sentative left in high office, realised that the policy adopted
was incompatible with his retaining his post. Accordingly, on
July 6, he sought out the king at Walton, surrendered the great
seal, and begged that he might be released from the burden of
the chancery. 2
Edward at once transferred the seal to Richard Bentworth,
keeper of the privy seal, who had recently been elected and
confirmed bishop of London. Thus a prominent household
clerk took possession of the chief administrative position in the
state. When the new chancellor received the seal and was
sworn in, there was significantly added to his oath a new clause
that he would faithfuUy execute an ordinance which was soon
to be delivered to him by the king.^ Bentworth, more intent
on procuring his consecration than on taking up the duties of
his new office,* placed the seal in the care of the two chancery
clerks, John of Saint-Pol and Thomas of Bamburgh, who took
it back to Bramford and sealed with it the next day, July 7.^
On Edward's earlier journeys abroad, in 1329 and 1331, he had
taken his chancellor with him, but had left the great seal at
Westminster in charge of high chancery clerks, who sealed writs
with it in the usual fashion. The privy seal, and its keeper,
however, had accompanied the king. This custom was now
broken. The chancellor stayed in England, but the great seal
went with the king, under the custody of the keeper of the
privy seal. For home use there was made a special seal
of absence. This was sent to the two chancery clerks at
Bramford with directions that it should henceforth be used.
On July 14 they surrendered the great seal to the king on his
ship in the OrweU. By this time Bentworth had been conse-
^ Impressions of this " aliud sigillum pro regimine regni, nobis sic in remotis
degentibus " were sent round to sheriffs and justices on July 10, with instructions
to exhibit them "in pleno comitatu."
^ See above, p. 42, n. 3.
^ Foedera, n. 1047 : " qui tunc praestitit sacramentum . . . de oflBcio
canceUarii, prout moris est, fideUter exercendo et de quibusdam aliis, juxta
quandam ordinacionem eidem electo per ipsum dominum regem liberandam."
This was, of course, the ordinance of July 12. It is most unhkely that the ex-
keeper of the privy seal would have been in ignorance as to its scope.
* See above, p. 43. * Foedera, ii. 1047.
VOL. Ill G
El
82 CONSTITUTIONAL CKISIS ch. ix
crated at Lambeth,^ and on July 19 the keepers sought him out
at his house at Fulham, where they surrendered the seal of
absence to him. This he kept, as chancellor, until his death
on December 8, 1339. It is unlikely that Bentworth gave the
king trouble by being unmindful of his special oath, but it is
certain that the chief clerks of the chancery, notably John of
Saint-Pol, were well schooled in the Stratfordian tradition.
The treasurer of the exchequer had been, since March 1338,
Robert Wodehouse. He, hke Zouch, his predecessor, was often
an absentee, and was no more disposed than Bentworth to throw
obstacles in the way of the execution of the king's new policy.
For a long time he had been away from York, where John
Charnels represented him.
Royal instructions had been issued, probably before Edward
left England, that the regent was to " stay in the Tower of
London, as shall seem good to him and his council." ^ This was,
in effect, an order to concentrate the home administration in and
about London. As soon as the Northampton council, or parlia-
ment, was over, Wodehouse proceeded to arrange for the removal
of the exchequer from York to Westminster, after an absence
of five years.^ The writ of September 10, ordering the transfer,
recites that the king " wishes the exchequer to be brought to
Westminster, so that it may be nearer to him while he is in
the parts beyond the sea." ^ The main transference was made
^ On July 12. His chief consecrator was the ex-chancellor, Robert
Stratford, acting as deputy for his brother the archbishop, already abroad.
2 C.C.R., 1337-39, p. 445.
^ See above, p. 58.
* C.C.R., 1337-39, p. 533 ; " Exchequer Migrations," p. 292. The Michael-
mas session of 1338 was to be held at Westminster. The common bench was
to resume at Westminster on the octave of Hilary 1339 ; G.C.R., 1337-39, pp.
501-502. The order for the former was issued so late that it could not possibly
be completely executed before Sept. 30. However, the details of the removal
in I.E. 303, 13 E. III. Mich. t. mm. 28-30, show that, even before Sept. 10, many
exchequer officers were already at Westminster, or scattered at their homes for
the vacation, and that the transfers were made only gradually. Thus the
records of the receipt were removed between Sept. 25 and Oct. 4, by which latter
day most of the baggage of the various departments had reached Westminster.
It must have been very difficult to audit at Westminster a sheriff's accounts
based upon the " proffer " normally tendered at the preceding Easter, before the
arrival of " rolls of the proffer," which were only available at the later date.
Apparently, however, the session began at the proper date of Sept. 29 at West-
minster, but it cannot have been easy to do business until the rolls had been
received, unpacked and rearranged. It is interesting that a similar dislocation
§ m CHANGES IN EXCHEQUER 83
between September 25 and October 4, though a good deal was
moved even before that date. The common bench followed
the exchequer, and reached Westminster on December 12.
Thus Westminster became again one seat of the increasingly
centralised government, its other centre being, as we have seen,
the Tower of London. Almost immediately after the exchequer
had settled down in Westminster, William de la Zouch succeeded
Wodehouse as treasurer. ^ A member of the great house of the
Zouches of Harringworth, this king's clerk worked his way
through the keepership of the great wardrobe and the controller-
ship of the wardrobe to the keepership of the privy seal. Within
ten years he reached the summit of his official career as
treasurer. 2
The concentration of the administration of the regency on
the banks of the Thames secured the maximum efficiency possible
under the prevailing conditions.^ While it involved the not
entirely unforeseen relegation of the conquest of Scotland to a
secondary place, it marshalled the home forces for an approach-
ing struggle with the offices beyond the sea, as yet not con-
templated.
Besides the curb put on the treasurer by the new ordinances,
Zouch was further restrained by the curialist element among
his subordinates, notably by the lay chief baron. Sir Robert
of the autumn session had been caused by the removal to York in 1327, when the
exchequer did not leave Westminster until Oct. 7. Such interruptions of the
business of the Michaelmas session must have been most unfavourable to orderly
official work, in 1338 as in 1327. The common bench, which had over three
months to effect its removal, was spared these inconveniences. The order for
its removal was issued on Oct. 1. The huge convoy required in 1338 shows the
enormous development of the administrative machine ; 15 carts were needed
for the office of receipt, 4 for that of the " great roll," 11 for the records of the
two remembrancers, and 50 in all. In 1327, 20 carts were enough to take all the
rolls, writs and men of the exchequer from London to York, and also those of the
common bench.
1 Appointed Dec. 16, 1338. C.P.R., 1338-40, p. 195. He entered office on
Jan. 14, 1339. Wodehouse never held office again, and died some five years
later, his will being proved on Feb. 3, 1346 ; Le Neve's Fasti, iii. 138.
^ For his biography see Raine's Fasti Eboracenses, pp. 437-449, and my
article on him in the D.N.B.
^ I.R. 303/27 illustrates from the movements of John Thorp, the treasurer's
clerk, the cost and trouble of the York exchequer. Between July 2 and Oct. 6
Thorp was sent from York to the council at Northampton, thence he went to
London with the duke and council, and was then sent to York " pro scaocario
amouendo." These constant movements involved heavy extra expenses.
84 CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS ch. ix
Sadington. Moreover, the king had specially appointed two
royaHst earls, Arundel and Huntingdon, and a sympathetic
baron, Ralph Ne\dlle, to " attend the duke on the council."
As Arundel had been since April " captain and leader " of the
Scottish expedition, with financial independence and extensive
authority over all the northern counties,^ the sphere of the
regency was almost limited to the regions south of Trent. This
was natural enough, since financially the Scots war was to be
supported by the northern shires, leaving the richer lands south
of Trent to supply the needs of the king in Flanders.
In all the restrictive arrangements of 1338 we probably see
the handiwork of William Kilsby,^ now the most enterprising
and ingenious, and, from the eve of the expedition to Flanders,
perhaps also the most influential, of the king's advisers. A strong,
able and unscrupulous clerk, he had won the favour of the
authorities from the early part of the reign, and from 1328 on-
wards was the recipient of many livings and prebends in the
king's gift. His real importance began when he was receiver of
the king's chamber, between January 25, 1335, and July 6, 1338.^
His extreme activity in raising money by loans and grants, and
in levying ships and soldiers to fight the Scots and French, stood
in strong contrast to the half-hearted measures of the king's
more constitutional advisers, and doubtless secured for him his
high place in the royal favour. On July 6, 1338, he succeeded
Bentworth as keeper of the privy seal. We may well suspect that
Kilsby had much to do with the formulation of the ordinances
of Walton, whose special note was the glorification of household
authority as represented by the keeper of the privy seal and by
the clerk of the chamber. Moreover, on July 14, when the
temporary keepers of the great seal of absence brought the real
great seal to Edward on shipboard, the king at once handed it
over to the care of Kilsby, who was to go to Flanders with him.
^ Focdera, ii. 1029-10.30. The date was April 25. Arundel then was clearly
the supreme commander contemplated in the ordinances of Walton. John
Charnels, deputy treasurer at York, is called on July 8 simply " the king's
receiver " there. Was he the " treasurer for the Scots war " referred to in the
ordinances ?
^ His name is generally written in contemporary records Kildesby : but his
surname came from the Northamptonshire village of Kilsby, which is clearly
identifiable with it ; C.P.R., 1334-38, p. 528.
* C.P.E., 1340-43, p. 448 ; MS. Ad., 35,181, i. 12.
§ m WILLIAM KILSBY 85
Kilsby remained keeper of the great and privy seals for the
whole period of the king's sojourn abroad, and used both instru-
ments freely. The concentration of the two seals in his hands,
though justified by earlier precedents/ was a new departure for
the reign of Edward III.^ The result was that Kilsby, like
Benstead under Edward I., was both public and domestic chan-
cellor of the royal administration out of England. Such an
arrangement must have been satisfactory, for it was adopted
whenever Edward had need to leave his realm in future.
To assist him in his dual capacity, Kilsby had with him all
the clerks of the privy seal, among them John Winwick,^ a
Lancashireman of whom we shall often hear again, and a certain
number of prominent chancery clerks.^ How far the two ele-
ments combined to form one staff, or whether they maintained
themselves more or less independently, is not clear.
Of the clerks of chancery, there was William Ravendale,
whose labours in the king's service beyond the seas were appro-
priately rewarded by the life-long custody of the hanaper of
chancery.^ A more important personality was Mr. John Thoresby,
a doctor of civil law, who early in Edward III.'s reign had been
transferred from the household of archbishop Melton to the
service of the crown.^ He is generally described as belonging to
the Thoresbys of Thoresby in Wensleydale, but I suspect there
^ See, for instance, above, ii. 68-70. But in 1286-89 both seals followed
Edward I. abroad, and with them were both chancellor and keeper of the privy-
seal.
* C.G.R., 1327-30, p. 547 ; ib., 1330-33, p. 299 ; and above, p. 81.
» M.B.E., T. of R., 2031277.
* In C.W. 248/11263, is an indented Ust of 28 clerks who had gone
with Edward III., sent from Antwerp on July 25, 1338, with instructions to
the chancery to give them an advantage over all other clerks as regards vacant
benefices, by reason of their great labours. This seems a letter of " general
warranty," and an ample justification for any promotions of these clerks by
chancery writ. The list is not exhaustive.
* C.P.R., 1338-40, p. 403 ; the grant, dated Dec. 29, 1339, at Antwerp, was
to come into effect at Easter 1340, after the king's return.
* His first hving was given him by earl Thomas of Lancaster in 1320, and
in 1330 he went to Avignon to urge his old patron's canonisation. Up to this
date Thoresby was receiver of Melton's chamber, and in 1330 was made by his
patron, treasurer's clerk in the exchequer, soon after Melton was appointed
treasurer ; I.R. 254, 5 E. III. Mich. t. Henceforth, he remained a king's clerk
and before long entered the office of chancery. For the question whether
Thoresby was Melton's nephew, as has sometimes been suggested, see Fasti
Ebor., pp. 449-494, and later, p. 215, nn. 2 and 4.
86 CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS ch. ix
is no older authority for this than the family pride of Ralph
Thoresby, the Leeds antiquary of the early eighteenth century.^
It is almost certain that his surname is derived from North
Thoresby in Lindsey, a few miles south of Grimsby.^ His kins-
men the Walthams, and, perhaps, the Ravensers, certainly came
from that neighbourhood. He was " constantly attendant on
the king's business " in 1333 ; ^ and, since 1336 at least, he had,
as king's notary, been included among the clerks of chancery.'*
His services as notary in chancery had been twice rewarded by
grants, on the last occasion just before the king left England.^
In the absence of the seniors in England, Thoresby became one
of the most prominent of the group. He was early admitted to
the king's council,^ and his notarial training made him exceed-
ingly useful in drafting the alliances with the imperial princes,
which were now among the chief undertakings of the chancery
officials abroad.
The chancery clerks at court discharged some of the usual
chancery routine, such as receiving attorneys and recognisances,'
but the importance of this paled before that of their diplomatic
work. The special work was so exacting that Kilsby constantly
had to employ foreign clerks to supplement his own scribes.
Well might such a sole director of secretarial work be called the
" king's secretary " in a sense more particular than that in which
^ R. Thoresby, Vicaria Leodiensis, p. 185 ; see also his Ducatus Leodiensis,
p. 72, for the genealogical table of the Thoresbys of Wensleydale.
2 See later, pp. 215-216, n. 4.
» C.P.R., 1330-34, p. 471.
* lb., 1334-48, p. 329, grant to Thoresby, Sept. 26, 1336, of forty marks a
year from the hanaper until adequately beneficed, " for his services to the king
in chancery and also for his office of notary, and because his stay in chancery
for the said business is very convenient for the king."
^ G.C.R., 1337-39, p. 363, grant of forty marks from the hanaper, "the king
wishing him to support his expenses more easily in consideration of his services
as notary in chancery." He was made archdeacon of London in 1339 ; G.P.R.,
1338-40, p. 379. Thoresby's retinue of war of five men-at-arms, and his war
wage of 4s. a day, show his importance ; M.B.E. 203/277.
^ M.B.E. 203/277, where payments are recorded " magistro J. de
Thoresby, clerico, de conciho regis." I am far from convinced that this
means that he was " clerk of the king's council," as the phrase has sometimes
been interpreted.
' C.P.R., 1338-40, p. 192. Dr. B. Wilkinson has suggested to me that
some acts of great seal, issued by Kilsby abroad, contain traces of being drafted
in privy seal rather than in chancery form ; for instance, French was more
commonly used, and the privy seal formula " Done a Andevers " superseded
the chancery style " teste me ipso apud Andewerp " ; Foedera, ii, 1104-1105.
§ m THE ADMINISTRATION ABEOAD 87
the description was generally used.^ Sometimes Kilsby was
actually called the king's chancellor in utter disregard of the
rightful chancellor in England. ^
Kilsby had a congenial successor as receiver of the chamber
in the Holderness clerk, Thomas Hatfield, who was not only a
vigorous chamber clerk but was also eminently competent to
share with Kilsby the work of directing the home administration
as well as that of the household abroad. The two allies were
admirably qualified by ability and lack of scruple to carry out
the lofty programme outlined for their respective offices by the
Walton ordinances. Hatfield took with him to the Netherlands
the stronger section of the chamber staff, though leaving sub-
ordinates to administer the chamber in England, and to collect
money and stores. With the king went naturally the king's
wardrobe, for which a new keeper had been found in William
Norwell, appointed on July 12, 1338, and a new controller in
Richard Nateby, appointed a few days later. Norwell and
Nateby were men who had worked up their way, step by step,
through the wardrobe departments. Lacking great personality,
they were yet competent to conduct business on a scale un-
precedented in wardrobe history. Along with these offices there
was the great wardrobe and its keeper, Thomas Cross, who had
had already a year's experience in office,^ and, as queen Philippa
accompanied her husband, her wardrobe also.
^ The activities of Kilsby as keeper of the great seal can be studied in the
chancery rolls. In addition to the ordinary rolls of writs for the period July 1338
to February 1340, issued by the chancellor in England, " teste custode," there
was a parallel enrolment of writs issued " teste rege," in the Netherlands, nearly
every item of which is warranted " per regem." These supplementary patents
are summarised in C.P.R., 1338-40, pp. 189-197, (12 Edward III. pt. IV.,
" patents at Antwerp ") ; pp. 370-376 (" patents to magnates of Germany "),
and pp. 377-410 (" patents 12-14 Edward III."), without any word as to their
exceptional character. There were no corresponding overseas charters, fines
or letters close. We may, however, distinguish in the scanty hst of charters
issued " teste custode " between 1338 and 1340 in England, those which were
" by keeper and council," and those which were " by privy seal." The former
are few in number, and mainly formal or confirmatory in character : the latter
are clearly the result of the orders sent from Edward, through Kilsby, in the
Netherlands ; C.Ch.R. iv. 456-464. But the period when solemnly witnessed
charters were abundant was already over, and business of the most importantsort
was freely transacted by patent. Many patent and close letters of the regency
were warranted by privy seal, and therefore inspired by the government in the
Netherlands, as the Walton ordinances directed. ^ See later, p. 100, n. 2.
^ In the hst of king's clerks beyond sea, in C.W. 248/11263, the name of
Cross is given, but erased. There is no doubt, however, of his presence at
88 CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS ch. ix
Besides the household clerks the king had an equally faithful
circle of lay advisers. Some of them, the earls and barons, were
more renowned for military than for consultative ability, but
the king's knights were as valuable for the one as for the other,
and the faithful knight easily became baron or earl, without any
cooling in loyalty which went back to the days of household
service. William Montague, earl of Salisbury, sufficiently illus-
trates this type. All through the period he was busy in his
master's service in the Netherlands, both as diplomatist and
soldier.
It was in diplomatic work that the highly placed ecclesiastics
who attended the king found their special employment. Here
the two parties were almost equally represented, for in 1337
bishop Burghersh had preceded Edward to the Netherlands, and
remained there negotiating with the Netherlandish princes until
his death in 1340. So attractive was such service that the elderly
Yorkshire knight and lawyer. Sir Geoffrey Scrope, abandoned
the chief justiceship coram rege to devote his last years to
diplomacy and warfare.
Archbishop Stratford and bishop Bury of Durham had also
preceded the king overseas, but it is clear that the former was
faUing out of sympathy with the king and the courtiers, and
co-operation with Burghersh did nothing to allay ancient feuds.
Soon Stratford was writing home to his sufEragans suggesting that
the liberties of the church were in danger, that the unworthy
chancellor Bentworth was unlawfully taxing ecclesiastical persons
by chancery writs, and that it behoved good prelates to attend
parhaments constantly and strike a blow for the church against
the encroachments of the state. ^ No doubt his brother Eobert,
his vicar-general during his absence, was giving similar advice.
The heaviest share of the burden of governing which fell upon
lay shoulders was borne by men of comparatively humble rank.
Conspicuous among the king's knights, who were the fellow-
workers of Kjlsby, Hatfield and Norwell, was a Httle group of
Antwerp. Some clerks, like Robert Watford of the privy seal office, went
abroad later, apparently in Fob. 1339 ; ib. 251/11502.
^ See the remarkable letter of Stratford to Ralph of Shrewsbury, bishop of
Bath and Wells, dated Antwerp, Mar. 24, 1339, printed in. Registrum Badulphi
de Salopia, Somerset Record Soc. ix. 357-358 (1895).
§ m THE KING'S CONFIDANTS 89
men whose close comradeship was based on a common poMcy
of absolute support of the king. At their head were the two
chief lay officers of the household : John Darcy,^ steward of the
household from 1337 to the end of 1340, and Henry Ferrars, for
the same period king's chamberlain. After them we may reckon
the energetic and unscrupulous knight of the chamber, John
Molyns, an old protege of SaHsbury. Molyns had won the king's
confidence when a simple yeoman of the chamber, and had
estabhshed himself by marriage with the heiress of the Poges of
Stoke Poges.2 From 1337 he had been surveyor of the chamber,
and in 1338 he was in continual attendance on the king.^ He
so wilhngly co-operated with Kilsby in raising money and soldiers
for the king that he was soon raised to the status of banneret.*
They had the support of men of higher rank, such as the two
younger sons of the house of Warwick, John and Giles Beauchamp,
Walter Manny, the valiant Hainaulter, now definitely estabhshed
in England, Reginald Cobham and Nicholas Cantelupe. Behind
them all was the influence not only of Sahsbury but of William
^ The John Darcys of the period are very puzzling, but the ramifications of
the Darcy family have been carefully worked out in the new edition of the
Complete Peerage, iv. 51-58. John Darcy, the steward, at first is generally
caUed " le neveu," but by Jan. 1340 " le cosyn " (C.P.R., 1338-40, p. 407), to
distinguish him from his cousins Philip and John and the former's son, Norman
Darcy of Nocton, who were Lancastrians. He is later distinguished from his
son of the same name by being called " le piere." He was the son of a younger
son of the Lincolnshire house of Darcy. Both John Darcy " le piere " and
John Darcy " le filz " were abroad with the king in 1338-40 [C.C.R. xiii. p. 523j,
and also from June to Nov. 1340, for Mujimuth, p. 116, mentions John Darcy
" fihus " among those landing with Edward III. at the Tower, and does not
mention the father. It seems clear, however, that the steward was John the
elder. If Murimuth's list could be trusted as exhaustive, this younger Darcy
might have been the John Darcy appointed chamberlain. John Darcy " le piere "
died on May 30, 1347 ; Cal. Inq. ix. 31-34, which give dates varying from May
23-31, but four out of seven say May 30. John Darcy, his son, was then of full
age, and variously described as " aged 24, 29 and 30 ' or more '." Even if
30 in 1347, he must have been a very young chamberlain by Dec. 1340,
so that the argument from Murimuth's silence must not be pressed. I shall,
therefore, assume that the father was successively steward and chamberlain.
The son's employment in subordinate chamber work in the early forties confirms
this view ; see later, iv. 271, 273, 274.
^ Molyns was " valettus regis " by 1334, and married by 1331 to Egidia
(Gill) Poges ; G.F.R. iv. 281, 312, 315.
* For his relations to the chamber, see later, iv. 243-244, 267, 296, n. 2 ;
C.P.R., 1338-40, p. 62 ; ib. p. 8 shows he had Hcence to crenellate his London
house in Baynard Castle ward.
* C.P.R., 1338-40, p. 402. This is a grant, dated Dec. 12, 1339, giving
Molyns £100 a year from the exchequer to support his state as a banneret.
90 CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS ch. ix
Bohun, earl of Northampton. These men, with the leading
clerks, formed the king's council in the Netherlands. More
than two years' constant working together in field and council
stiffened their policy and cemented their friendship.
The final result of the division of the ministry in July 1338 was
accordingly the estabhshment of an organised and exclusive court
party, such as England had not known since the days of the
Despensers. This party, confident of royal support, aspired to
dominate the ministry at home, looking upon it as mainly useful
for providing the money which the king was to spend, and
expecting it to carry out implicitly all orders received from
abroad.
The parallel ministries, though moving within certain Hmits,
possessed fixed headquarters. After the Northampton council,
the home government settled down at Westminster and the Tower,
regarding comparative immobihty in London as the more con-
venient, and boasting that the profound peace of the country made
it unnecessary for the chancery to itinerate.^ Antwerp was the
chief centre of the king's court from August 1338 to February
1339, unless diplomatic or mihtary considerations necessitated
some change. Even when Edward made his famous journey to
Coblenz to meet Louis of Bavaria, a large section of the household
remained behind at Antwerp.^ Thus Antwerp became the second
seat of government, and the oflB.ces collected there commandeered
for their use many houses in and about the castle, and the Pre-
monstratensian abbey of St. Michael's, where the king and queen
were lodged.^
It was not as easy to divide the functions of the two branches
^ See the answers of the home government to suggestions from abroad in
the paper printed in Baldwin, King's Council, pp. 478-479 : " Au primer point
soit respondu qe la pes est bien garde, Dieu mercie, et qe par celle cause nest
pas mestir que la chauncellerie soit mouante per le pais. Item ouesqe ce soit
dit qe, si le chaunceller et la place et les autres du conseil feussent seuerez, les
busoignes le roi serroient desespleitees, desicome tut de conseil ne suffit mie
de espletter ses busoignes." The official doctrine seems to have been that a
travelling chancery helped to keep the peace. The distinction between the
chancellor and his office ("la place ") is suggestive.
^ M.B.E. 203/82, shows many of the " familia regis," and 266 horses re-
mained at Antwerp " retro regem." The king himseK was only absent between
Aug. 16 and Sept. 12.
^ See later, iv. 103, for details. Foedera, n. 1102, shows that St. Michael's
abbey was the royal lodging, and remained so until the end of the king's
visit. There Lionel of Antwerp was born and baptised.
§ m THE ADMINISTRATION AT HOME 91
of the government as it was to divide their quarters. The king
had crossed over without money in the hope that all he wanted
would speedily follow him, but his expectations were never
adequately realised. The exchequer got to work slowly, and then
with little practical result. If sending out peremptory or persuasive
writs had been enough, both exchequer and chancery did their
best. But in the absence of the royal authority, gentle and
simple ahke found every excuse for disregarding orders. Wode-
house did what he could, and between July and December, when
he left office, receipts from the exchequer, amounting to nearly
£28,000,^ were booked by the wardrobe in Brabant. This was not
considered satisfactory, and it was probably in consequence of the
scanty total that Wodehouse was replaced by Zouch in December.^
Under the new treasurer the stream of supply flowed still more
fitfully, and Zouch's contribution, for the whole of the time he
was in office, hardly exceeded that of Wodehouse for the first six
months of the campaign.^
The exchequer was only one of several instruments for raising
money. It had nothing directly to do with the collection and the
sale of the 20,000 sacks of wool, voted long ago by the West-
minster parliament. On this wool subsidy the king placed his
chief reliance. As soon as he reached Brabant, Edward had
appointed special supervisors to deal with it.* But his efforts to
realise this potential source of income were attended with little
success. It was in vain that the staple at Antwerp was organised
under WilUam Pole as its mayor.^ Of this staple the wardrobe
at Antwerp was in a sense the treasury, for all the officials and
warriors, who received Hcences to export defined quantities of wool
to the Netherlands, were always instructed to take their wool to
Antwerp to the staple there and " pay custom and subsidy to the
keeper of the wardrobe at the same staple." ^ Despite or perhaps
because of such grants, the wool came in with extreme slowness.
1 M.B.E. 203/10. The exact receipt was £27,670 : 17 : 2^.
2 C.P.R., 1338-40, p. 195 ; an Antwerp patent of Dec. 16.
^ M.B.E. 203/25. The sum, for the whole of Zouch's time, Deo. 1338 to
May 1340, was only £35,878 : 2 : 7 J. For the last four months Edward was
back in England.
* Foedera, ii. 1054.
* C.P.R., 1338-40, p. 189. This was on Aug. 4, 1338.
^ C.F.R. V. 146, 147, gives instances. Thus hcence in 1339 was given to
Molyns for 80, Kilsby 40, Cusance 12, and Otto Grandison, 10 sacks of wool.
92 CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS ch. ix
Wliat came was largely damaged and unsaleable, and the king
had already overpledged what he hoped to receive from the wool
subsidy for payments to his foreign alUes and for the expenses of
his army and travels. In such circumstances the king could
barely pay his way, even with the help of reckless borrowings on
an unprecedented scale from any quarter willing to lend to him.
The result of all this was a series of bitter reproaches sent from
Antwerp to Westminster.
The home government was working against no small odds.
Until the exchequer had completed its removal from York and had
put its affairs into some sort of order in Westminster, it was not
in a position to pay much attention to the financial recom-
mendations of the ordinances of Walton. It was also hampered
to some extent by the attitude of certain people to those provisions.
At the council of Northampton, several of the magnates had
declared that estallementz had never been suspended within the
memory of man, and that traditional methods could not be
changed except with the consent of the barons, and that in
parhament.i This indirectly impugned the legality of the
ordinances, and voiced the feeling against any deviation from the
customary treatment of debtors to the crown. Curtailment of
privileges could only be a temporary expedient of doubtful value.
Nor does it appear that practice in regard to debt and taxation
was greatly modified, though undoubtedly both chancery and
exchequer tried to get money, due to the king, paid more punctu-
ally.2 The prehminary to an understanding of the true state of
the royal finances, and to any attempt to put them into working
order, was a careful scrutiny of exchequer records. Although
some investigation was contemplated in order to find out how
much was owing to the crown,^ it is doubtful whether the exchequer
ever made this, much less undertook a more general analysis.
Only with the results of a complete search before him, could the
^ Baldwin, u.s. p. 478 : " queux choses sanz assent des grauntz et ce en
parlement ne rien ne deuoient estre changees." Probably one of the chief tasks
of this council was consideration of the Walton ordinances. The words suggest
that the statements were made in answer to a direct appeal for an opinion.
* Something might be learnt from an intensive study of the memoranda
rolls for 1338 and 1339, especially the memoranda of " breuia retornabiUa "
issued by the exchequer, and a comparison of their evidence with that of the
memoranda roUs for one or two preceding years.
» M.R.K.R. 115, breu. dir. bar., Mich, term, m. 3d.
§m DIFFICULTIES OF THE EXCHEQUER 93
treasurer make any useful estimate of the king's future require-
ments, or an authoritative pronouncement concerning his unpaid
debts. A recently discovered fragmentary exchequer document
shows that for the year 1339-40 a summary of the totals of
receipts and issues, based on the receipt and issue rolls, was
actually compiled. ^ Some development of this sort seems almost
a necessary stage in the striving towards that strength of
exchequer control which was attained in the days of treasurer
Edington.2 Unfortunately little evidence of it has survived.
Apart from this one fragment, no similar documents have been
found, except for another crucial period twenty years after,^
although one would think a review of revenue and expenditure
would have been needed every year.*
One of the most unpopular of Edward's attempted retrench-
ments was openly flouted. In September 1338 the exchequer
was instructed that payment of the annual fees of all officials
was to be suspended until further notice, unless the ministers
had no other means of support. The money thus saved was to
be diverted to the king's immediate use.^ The mandate seems
to have been entirely ignored, and a second order to the same
effect, issued from Antwerp on May 6, 1339,^ drew forth the reply
from the council that the officials concerned threatened to
resign their offices in a body if deprived of their salaries.'
By the time of the Northampton council, it was resolved to
give effect to that part of the ordinances which provided for
the election of local officers. As early as August 20, 1338,
writs of chancery instructed a commission of the coroners of
every county, and " four good knights and others," to elect
a fit person to be sheriff, and certify the crown of their action,
1 P.R.O., unclassed fragment. For knowledge of this, I am indebted to Mr.
Hilary Jenkinson. Such totals were not, however, of great use, because they
included many book-keeping transactions having nothing to do with the
king's real income and expenses. ^ See later, pp. 204-205.
^ See later, pp. 240-242 ; and E.H.R. xxxix. 404-419.
* E.H.R. xxxix. 417. If a tradition was being observed, it is curious that
other memoranda of the same kind have not come down to us. Probably the
explanation is that such documents were looked upon as of only transitory value,
and, once submitted to the treasurer or to the king, would be destroyed.
5 C.C.R., 1337-39, p. 467 ; M.R.K.R. 115, breu. dir. bar., Mich. t. m. 3d.
" Foedera, ii. 1080-1081. Cf. Baldwin, u.s. pp. 476-478.
^ Baldwin, u.s. p. 478 : " Et dient apertement qe si lour fee soit retret,
lis se retrererrent de lour service."
94 CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS ch. ix
so that the king could appoint the chosen sheriff, i Similar
orders were, on September 7, directed to the mayor, bailiffs
and commimities of thirteen of the largest cities and towns, to
elect collectors and controllers of customs in their respective
ports, to acquaint the king with the names of the elected, and
to see that such persons went to chancery to take oath and
receive their commissions.^
As far as the sheriffs were concerned, the mandates were
largely disregarded. Only six shires, constituting three sheriff-
doms, took the trouble to elect their sheriffs and present their
names to chancery for appointment.^ In 1339 these three
grouped shires again elected their sheriffs, and a fourth group
then followed their example.^ The writs had been sent out with
little discrimination in the first place, for the county of Rutland
had received one. The returning officers pointed out that, as
Rutland was a Hberty in which the nomination of sheriff to
the exchequer appertained to the lord of the castle of Oakham,^
then Hugh Audley, earl of Gloucester,^ they had no power in
the matter.' Edward soon showed himself opposed to the poHcy
of elective sheriffs, and tried to saddle the magnates of North-
ampton with responsibility for a course of action prescribed,
presumably, with his goodwill. In November he wrote from
Antwerp to the chancellor, reciting, almost with indignation,
how he had heard that the chancellor and council at Northampton
had directed " that all sheriffs of our realm be elected by men
of the shires in which they are to act, and in no other manner."
But, because the earl of Derby and Henry Ferrars, the chamber-
lain, had borne witness to the loyalty and good sense of Sir
1 C.C.R., 1337-39, p. 463. * C.C.R., 1337-39, p. 501.
' Surrey and Sussex, Somerset and Dorset, Cambridge and Huntingdon;
Dorothy Hughes, Social atid Constitutional Tendencies in the Early Years of
Edward III., pp. 62, 68; C.F.R. v. 92, 94, 96, 144, 146, 154; Foedera, ii. 1090.
The coroners and four knights, or " four of the richest and most honourable men
of the shire, if no knights were present," were the executive agents of the elections.
At the Cambridge-Huntingdon election, four knights, five persons, named,
" et quidam aUi," " noluerunt ahcui eleccioni consentire " ; Chanc. Misc. 92/2.
* Essex and Hertford ; C.F.R. v. 144.
* " et vicecomes de feodo racione dominii ilhus castri."
« " loco suo."
' " Et ideo non pertinet ad nos ad aUquem vicecomitem in dicto comitatu
eligendum " ; Chanc. Misc. bu. 128, file 1, No. 15 from end. Professor Bertha H.
Putnam kindly drew my attention to this and other similar writs : for instance,
ib. bu. 92, file 2, No. 15 and No. 3 from end ; ib. bu. 98, file 3, No. 5 from end,
§ m FAILURE OF LOCAL ELECTIONS 95
Roger la Zouch, sherifi of Leicester and Warwick, the council
was to suffer him to remain in that office until the king's return
to England, unless removed for reasonable cause certified to,
and approved by, the king.^ At the same time Edward sent
another mandate to the effect that Thomas Wake of Blis worth,
sheriff of Northampton, should be continued as sheriff because
he was serving with the king beyond seas,^ and later he issued
a similar order in favour of the sheriff of Staff ord.^ It was
hardly to be expected that the home ministry would be eager to
enforce a system clearly designed by the courtiers to be a check
upon their discretion. The king's manifest disapproval of it
gave them ample justification for slackness. No sheriff was
elected after December 1339, though some elected sheriffs were
allowed to remain in office. Within less than a couple of years
from the issue of the ordinances, statutory legislation put the
appointment of sheriffs into the hands of the exchequer,^ thereby
reverting to the old custom, but keeping the office an annual one,
although the king reserved the right to reappoint any whom
he wished. It is not improbable that there were elections of
custodes pacts even before any sheriffs were elected. This
method of selection was certainly tried soon, and in some shires
continued until 1345, long after election of sheriffs had been
abandoned and much else of the Walton ordinances buried
in obHvion. The names of the candidates were sent to chancery,
which usually, though not invariably, appointed the nominees.^
1 C.W. 249/11354, is worth quoting : "Nous auoms entenduz coment au
darrein counseU tenuz a Northampton ordene fust par vous et autres de nostre
counseil, qi illoeqes estoient, qe touz les viscountes de nostre roialme feussent
esluz par gentz des countez ou Us serroient et nemye en autre manere, mes parce
I qe le . . . counte de Derby et monsieur Henri de Fereres, nostre chaumberlein,
' ont tesmoigne . . . qe monsieur Roger la Zouch, nostre visconte de Leycestre
et Warrewik, se ad bien et loialment porte deuers nous ... si vous mandoms
' qe le dit monsieur Roger soeffroez tenir le dit office en pees, sans estre remue
tanq a nostre reuenir en Angleterre," etc. The chancellor was therefore to
order the exchequer by writ " qmls le soefFrent demorer en le dit office." This is
a privy seal, dated Antwerp, Nov. 3, 1338. ^ lb. 249/11355.
^ lb. 249,11392. * Statutes, i. 281-283.
* I have to thank Miss Bertha Putnam for evidence of the generality of the
practice. The shires sent in " petitions " to the crown, some of which still
survive in the P.R.O. (for example, Ancient Petitions, 107/5327, 115/5741, 142/
j 7077), and then the chancery later made the appointment by patent : e.g.
1 Chanc. Misc. 33/9. The identity of phrase in these professedly local requests
makes one rather suspicious of their absolute spontaneity. There are such
returns for nineteen counties, but in only eight is there this description : " Ces
96 CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS ch. ix
By November 1338 it was possible to ratify elections of
collectors of customs/ but there resulted no increased flow of
good wool to the continent, and little of what was exported
paid customs in England. The king's merchants, ministers and
soldiers were allowed to export wool on their own account, on
condition of paying custom, when it reached Antwerp, to the
keeper of the wardrobe, who thus usurped the functions of the
exchequer. 2 It was small compensation to the exchequer that
it was called upon now, as in the thirteenth century, to discharge
some of the duties of the absent wardrobe and the great wardrobe.^
Vigorous efforts were made to keep the two governments in
touch with each other. An endless stream of letters of great
and small seals instructed the government at home how to deal
with each detail as it arose. The chancery received the minutest
directions,* and the exchequer was constantly ordered to pay
moneys for war expenses contracted in the Netherlands, which
the king's resources on the spot were inadequate to meet.^ In
sunt les nouns qe sunt ellutz des mieuxs vauetz demorauns en le dit counte pur
la garde faire de la pees." " Seven out of the eight bona fide election returns,"
writes Miss Putnam, " correspond to seven of the eight counties in which
sheriffs were elected, and one of my additional finds (almost certainly an elec-
tion), corresponds to the eighth. Long ago I found lists of elected keepers of
the peace in Lancashire, but they are for later dates, 19 and 24 Edward III. ;
Chanc. Misc. 65/1, and Ancient Indictments, f. 56."
^ See, for instance, C.F.R. v. 105. It showed initiative when on Sept. 30,
1339, the regency set up a new collectorship of customs, with cocket seal, at
Carnarvon, whence up to that time wools had been exported to the north without
payment of customs ; ib. 145. I cannot find that the two Carnarvon collectors
were chosen through any form of election before they received their commissions.
2 C.F.E. V. 106-109, and C.C.R., 1337-39, pp. 564-569, give a large number of
instances.
^ The exchequer paid the wages and provided the robes of such household
officers as the marshal of the haU ; C.C.R., 1339-41, p. 175 ; cf. ib. pp. 76, 115,
for other examples. None are of real importance.
* See C.W. S. 248-259, for great seal warrants during the king's absence
abroad.
^ Exch. of Receipt, Warrants for Issue, £f. 22-28, contain writs from 12 to 15
Edw. III. A good many are simple writs of liberate " teste custode," but the
majority are under the privy seal. The issue rolls for these years show what
an enormous proportion of exchequer issues were on account of wardrobe
expenses in the Netherlands, payable to the keepers " by the hand " of some
accredited agent. In effect the exchequer was expected to pay whatever ha-
bilities the king incurred. In many cases it noted, on the back of the warrant,
the date of the payment or the book entry Kquidating the claim. These
" warrants " have been recently rearranged in rough chronological order, so
that old references can only be verified with difficulty. Those using them
§ III FRICTION BETWEEN THE ADMINISTRATIONS 97
this and in similar ways the hands of council, exchequer and
chancery were in every way tied. Not only was their discretion
limited ; it was fettered by the special commissions in whose
hands the leyy of the extraordinary taxes was placed ; by the
hostiHty of the magnates, as well as by the suspicions of the
king. Early in 1339, a new burden was imposed upon the
administration in the shape of a levy of troops for coast
defence,^ since a French fleet threatened to invade England and
to cut off the king from his base.
Long articles of inquiry were sent by the king to the council
'in England, and elaborate replies to each query were solemnly
returned to Antwerp. ^ They clearly show the authorities at
cross purposes, and each seems to make out a good case against
the other. The men in Brabant had a real grievance in not
receiving the wished for supplies. But the English council had
a good answer when it disclaimed any blame for the failure.
" It is the fault of the collectors, receivers and customers, whom
the treasurer cannot bring to account nor the chancellor by his
writs, for as soon as orders are sent them to render accounts,
they cross the sea and remain under the protection of the men
who are there." ^ The remedy suggested by the council was for
the king to send over " some great bishop or other magnate,"
or to summon a parliament. Among the surviving correspon-
should be warned that the new arrangement has been rather carelessly done,
the dates taken being sometimes the date of the warrant, but sometimes that of
the exchequer payment. Too much stress must not, however, be laid upon the
difference between exchequer and wardrobe payments. It was aU a matter of
rather elaborate and tortuous book-keeping. When the exchequer paid one of
these wardrobe obhgations, it debited the wardrobe with the sum paid, and
recorded the payment as " by the hand of " the recipient. It was much more
after this fashion than by sending cash beyond sea that the exchequer played
its full part in meeting war expenditure.
1 Foedera, ii. 1070-1072.
^ Two such documents are printed in Baldwin's King^s Council, Appendix I.
pp. 476-478 and pp. 478-479. The former is also printed by Hughes, u.s.
pp. 237-241. But neither version is quite complete. Miss Hughes has also
printed, pp. 242-245, extracts from the answers of the council to fifteen articles
of inquiry by the king, which seem to belong to July 1339 or a little later. The
method of partially printing such documents as these three is not very satis-
factory, notably in not affording the student all the material for determining
the dating from internal evidence. They all come from the P.R.O. collection
officially described as Chancery ; Parliamentary and Council Proceedings, 1 jl,
9 and 10. ^ Hughes, u.s. p. 244.
VOL. Ill H
98 CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS • ch. ix
dence between the two administrations are some notable letters
in which Molyns expomided to the treasurer the royal wishes.^
Besides this interchange of written inquiries and answers,
there was frequent personal communication between the two
administrations. Constant messengers from the king crossed
over the North Sea. First John Chamels was dispatched ; ^ then
Sir John Molyns went to England three times within five months,^
and Mr. Robert Askeby was sent five times within one year.*
Contrariwise, William of Cusance was ordered by Edward to
Brabant for a stay of over three months,^ and even treasurer
Zouch was summoned to the Netherlands to justify his conduct.
To make it easier for the treasurer to go, Robert Sadington,
chief baron, was in June 1339 appointed his deputy during his
absence.^ The council expressed its regret that Zouch should
be called abroad, but announced that he would come as soon
as he could. Before it had dispatched the letter, Edward
changed his mind, and the council, crossing out its remonstrance,
declared its " great joy " at the treasurer being excused the
journey.' In November 1339, John Thorp, an exchequer official,
was sent by the keeper to the king to inform him as to the state
of affairs at home, and on his return to report to keeper and
council the things ordained by the king and his council in the
parts beyond the seas.^
Edward had at last realised that he was working on wrong
* For instance see the answer of Wodehouse, the outgoing treasurer, to
Molyns, -written on Jan. 6, 1340, after Bentworth's death. Wodehouse wrote in
a very intimate way to his " tres chers amis," and recorded the demands of some
Almaine merchants, adding, " il semble a moi qe homme leur doit deUure en la
plus belle et courtoise manere qe horn sauera "; A.C. xlii/133.
2 3I.B.E. 203/183. On Feb. 15, 1339, Chamels was caUed "keeper of the
treasury in parts beyond sea " ; C.C.R., 1339-41, p. 26.
^ lb. " Domino Johanni de Molyns, misso per regem de Brabancia vsque
AngHam tribus vicibus, videhcet mensibus Sept. et Nou., anno xii°, et mense
Feb., anno xiii°."
* M.B.E. 203/188. These were (a) 34 days in March and April, (6) 39 days in
Aug. and Sept., (c) 44 days in Nov. and Dec, all in 1339, (d) 45 days in Jan. and
Feb., (e) 48 days in March and April, both in 1340.
^ lb. 203/185. " Domino WiUelmo de Cusancia, clerico, venienti de Angha
vsque partes Brabancie ad regem per speciale mandatum suum." Cusance was
paid 20s. a day for this mission, which lasted from Oct. 31, 1339, to Feb. 8, 1340.
« C.P.R., 1338-40, p. 387 (June 25 at Vilvorde), to act during the absence of
Zouch, " who has been summoned to the king beyond the seas or until further
order." A duphcate commission was made out in favour of Richard Ferriby.
' Hughes, U.S. p. 242. » C.C.R., 1339-41, p. 291.
§ m CHANGE IN KING'S POLICY 99
lines, and meditated a change of policy. A council, chancery
and exchequer, coerced and in leading strings, could not act with
vigour sufficient to keep the king's coffers supplied. After some
sixteen months of inaction, Edward had made up his mind to
invade France with armed force, and supplies became more than
ever necessary, both to maintain the army in the field and to
bribe greedy allies into a semblance of activity. The magnate
opposition was not quite silent, even in the council chamber at
Antwerp. Archbishop Stratford was still there to voice his pro-
found discontent with the king's methods, and there is little
doubt but that many of the barons, fretting at their purposeless
idleness in Brabant, were in cordial sympathy with the primate.
The king's game was up when his chief financial backer, William
de la Pole, showed signs of making common cause with Stratford.
Pole had advanced the king more money than any other English
capitalist, and, as mayor of the Antwerp staple, had done his
best to supply the king's needs. He had had his reward in
numerous grants and concessions, including even the dismember-
ment of the chamber franchise of Burst wick in his favour. ^ It
may well be presumed that he saw that the king's initial policy
had reached its limit.
Diplomatic and military preparations matured slowly in the
midst of financial embarrassments. They were apparently in
the hands of a select inner council of four, namely, Henry
Burghersh, bishop of Lincoln, William Montague, earl of Salis-
bury, William KUsby and Sir Geofirey Scrope. But the allies
refused to move until further concessions had been made to
them. At last a draft treaty, concluded on May 19, 1339, at
Brussels, showed how far Edward would go in order to bring
them up to the mark. In this important document the king bade
all men know that, to give himself power to take the field, he had
, appointed his brother-in-law, William, marquis of Jiilich, as
" our privy and very special sovereign secretary of our council,
and of all our business which touches us both on this side of the
sea and beyond it." ^ With the marquis, but subordinate to
^ C.P.R., 1338-40, pp. 193-194. This grant of Nov. 10, 1338, was renewed in
Sept. 1339 ; ib. pp. 393-394. It was surrendered in 1354; ib. 1354-58, p. 159.
^ This document is in Chanc. Misc. 30/8. Its words are : " nous auoms le dit
marquis . . . fait . . . nostre priue et tres especial souuerain secretaire de
nostre conseill et de toutz nos bosoignes qui nous touchent, tant per dela mer
100 CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS ch. ix
him, were associated the four councillors already mentioned.
The king promised to abide by the advice of the five, and especially
by the counsel of the marquis. ^
With his submission to the foreigner, Edward perhaps found
it more necessary to stress the pre-eminence of Kilsby as the
chief of his overseas administration. Certainly, as keeper of both
great and privy seals, Kilsby had naturally taken the lead in the
negotiations with the allies, and Edward enhanced this position
by definitely describing Kilsby as " our chancellor," regardless
of the feelings of bishop Bentworth.^ By the double surrender
to his own minister and to his exacting ally, Edward at last
gained his object, and two months later was able to enter upon
the campaign of the Thierache. To carry this through he had
to concede another point to his rebellious advisers in England.
In a patent issued on September 29 at Marcoing, the first French
town he occupied in this campaign, he announced the complete
abandonment of his earlier home policy. By this document,
archbishop Stratford was given, in the English regency, the same
paramouncy that had already been accepted by William of Jiilich
in the royal counsels for England and the Netherlands alike.
He was formally appointed " principal councillor to Edward, duke
comme par decha." The document has lost its seals, but the slits remain where
the seals of the king and the other four councillors were placed. The marquis
did not seal, and the document was clearly intended for his satisfaction. I am
indebted to Mr. V. H. Galbraith for calling my attention to this important result
of Kilsby's activity as keeper of the great seal. How far it was effective I do not
know, but it did not lead to any permanent result, for, when in 1340 the marquis
was created earl of Cambridge, nothing was said about his position as chief
councillor ; Lords'' Reports, v. 40 ; Foedera, ii. 1124. For other remarks on this
creation, see later, p. 137.
^ " principalement et souuerainement et dautres les quatre de nostre
counseill."
^ Chanc. Misc. 30/8. " Willame de Kylzby nostre chanceUier." It was
not at all unusual, however, on the continent, for any seal bearer to be called a
chancellor, and in Aragon, chancellor of the secret seal was a recognised title.
See above, i. 155, n. 1. In 1333, in a remarkable characterisation of bishop Bury,
Petrarch called him " quondam regis Anglorum cancellarius " ; Petrarchae
Epistolae Selectae, ed. A. F. Johnson, p. 10. Bury gave up the privy seal to go
to Avignon, and " cancellarius " here clearly means " keeper of the privy seal."
Petrarch's contempt for " barbarians " may excuse his technical ignorance, but
he stumbled by accident on a truth. Compare later, p. 226, for Winwick's
description as chancellor in the treaty of Bretigni. The keepers of the privy
seal of the Black Prince were regularly called his chancellors. See also later
chapters on the privy seal and on the Black Prince's household.
§ m THE THIERACHE CAMPAIGN 101
of Cornwall, keeper of tlie realm." ^ William de la Pole was made
secondary baron of the excliequer,^ with a special obligation to
safeguard the interests of those who had, by advancing money
under bonds, saved the king from " dangerous delay " in France.
With this object the new secondary was ordered to supervise all
exchequer receipts, and to devote them strictly to the discharge
of these particular loans. A further series of lavish grants en-
couraged the Hull financier to activity.^ At the same time,
Stratford and Pole were empowered, jointly with bishop Bury,
to proceed to England and explain to a full parliament the king's
financial distress, and to solicit from it a remedy,* Next day, an
indenture was drafted by which power was given to the three
emissaries, in conjunction with the former chiefs of the duke's
council, to discharge by various devices the debts incurred by
the king beyond seas.^
In substance the old regency was combined with the heads
of the baronial opposition that had ventured to speak out even
in the Netherlands. All attempts to keep the home government
in leading strings were relinquished, and that in effect meant
the abolition of some part of the policy laid down by the Walton
ordinances, whose provisions proved in practice to work both
for and against the king's interests.^ Even the trusty generals
^ C.P.R., 1338-40, p. 394. If William's councillorship ever meant anything,
the effect of Stratford's nomination was to restrict his exercising authority in
England.
^ lb. p. 394. This is the first instance of a lay " secondary baron."
^ It was now that the Burstwick grant, above p. 99 and n. 1, was renewed.
Now also Pole was granted the houses in Lombard Street, London, formerly in
possession of the Bardi, see later, iv. 402-405. Pole was reappointed secondary
baron by keeper and council on Oct. 28, and admitted on Nov. 10 ; M.R.K.R.
116, com. rec. Mich. t. A curious grant was that to Catherine, Pole's wife, of
license to marry after his death whomsoever she would of the king's allegiance.
This was done at WiUiam's " instant supphcation " ; G.P.R., 1338-40, p. 386.
Pole was also allowed, " at the end of the king's present voyage," to " enjoy
henceforth his own fireside at his pleasure " ; ib. p. 386.
* Foedera, ii. 1091.
^ Ib. ii. 1091-1092. To Stratford, Bury and Pole were added the regent,
the chancellor Bentworth, the earls of Arundel and Huntingdon, Henry Percy
and Ralph Neville. Of this group any four could act, provided that the regent,
the archbishop and Ralph Neville were three of them. It is difficult to see how
the pettifogging expedients, suggested as a means of raising the wind, could
ever have done any good, considering the amount of the king's debts.
^ Some provisions of the ordinances seem, however, to have been observed
later, notably a more general use of warrants for chancery and exchequer writs,
and the double certification by bill imder the seal of the keeper of the wardrobe
102 CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS oh. ix
of the king united with the baronial opposition to destroy the
work of Kilsby and his crew in 1338. It is significant that the
concessions which consummated this change of policy were made,
as the writ tells us, at the instance of William Montague, earl of
Salisbury, the intimate personal associate of the king, and a
member, moreover, of the camarilla of five to whom Edward had
handed over the control of his foreign policy.^ Edward III. was
learning, for the first time but not for the last, that a king, who
pledged his credit to the uttermost in the quest of foreign glory,
needed help alike from foreign allies and from friends at home.
To gain domestic support he must adopt a policy approved by
his magnates and commons.
Stratford had at last won back more than his ancient
authority. He was now the " governor of the council," spoken
of in the Walton ordinances. Men called him domini regis
patricius.^ He was dux regis as well as principal councillor.^
His position excited much envy, and seems in some measure to
have turned his head. Visions extending far beyond politics
began to loom before him. The successful wordling dreamt of
renouncing mundane pursuits and emulating the example of
his predecessor, St, Thomas, by standing forth as the champion
of the hberties of holy church.^ But the politician controlled
the enthusiast, and the disciple of St. Thomas did not scruple to
use his authority to promote his own interests. When, on
December 7, chancellor Bentworth died, Stratford secured the
election and confirmation of his nephew, Ralph Stratford, to
and by a roll under privy seal sent into chancery. See, for instance, C.C.R.,
1339-41, pp. 523-526, where very large sums for war wages, incurred in the
expedition beyond seas, were ordered to be paid by Edington, receiver in the
north, " as may appear by bills under the seal of Norwell, late keeper of the
wardrobe, and by a counter roll under the privy seal sent into chancery." These
orders were dated June 1340, and, therefore, for long arrears of wages.
^ The power to remit debts and restore the chattels of fugitives by reason-
able fines was granted, "instanti supphcationi dilecti et fideUs nostri, Willelmi
de Monte Acuto, comitis Sarum et marescaUi AngUe, qui propter hoc erga nos
diu institit et instanter " ; Foedera, ii. 1091.
^ Avesbury, p. 324.
' Dene in Anglia Sacra, ii. 375, " dux regis et ejus consUiarius principaUs."
* His zeal for St. Thomas went back further than his primacy. In 1331,
when still bishop of Winchester, he had founded a chantry in the parish church
of Stratford-on-Avon, dedicated to St. Thomas of Canterbury ; G.P.R., 1330-
34, p. 79.
§ m STRATFORD'S COMMANDING POSITION 103
his see of London/ so that three bishops on the bench then
represented the house of Stratford. The day after Bentworth's
death, the archbishop and the English council put the great
seal into the hands of John of Saint-Pol and two other chancery
clerks,^ devoted to Stratford's service. On February 13, 1340,
a week before the king's return, the regent made Saint-Pol
sole keeper, stating that this was the wish of the king and his
council in the Netherlands. ^
Zouch, the treasurer, worked happily with Stratford. His
impossible position as treasurer had completed his severance
from the court interest, and transferred the sympathies of the
sometime wardrobe clerk to the aristocratic tradition which was
his by birth. A few months later, an accidental vacancy in a
great post in the church was to cause Zouch's antagonism to
the courtiers to blaze out before the world.
In the greatest of all matters, Stratford and his colleagues
failed. When parliament met, on October 13, 1339, the arch-
bishop appeared before it, attended by bishop Bury and William
de la Pole, and harangued it on the duty of meeting generously
^ The election was on Jan. 26, 1340 ; the regency gave the royal assent to
it within three days. Stratford's strong desire to build up a family connection
is seen in the pains he now took to procure the appointment of a humbler
kinsman, or fellow-townsman, as porter at Christ Church, Canterbury ; Lit.
Cantuar, ii. 217, R.S. This was Alexander Stratford, appointed on Dec. 29,
1339. In 1330 Alexander was a member of Robert Stratford's household;
C.P.R., 1330-34, p. 218.
^ Foedera, ii. 1101. Wath and Bamburgh were his colleagues.
3 Foedera, ii. 1111. C.C.E., 1339-41, p. 451. Compare C.W. f. 1534, for
the "regent's warrant" for this writ of chancery. Both warrant and writ state
that an appointment of Saint-Pol, Wath and Bamburgh had been made by the
keeper with the advice of the archbishop and others of his council, until the
king had declared his will in the matter, but that this had now been altered and
Saint-Pol made sole keeper, because the king had so directed, " with the assent
of his council in the parts beyond sea." Thus, the personal authority of the
crown, and of its intimate advisers, was invoked to aid Stratford in strengthening
the position of his faithful partisan. The deed, though given under the keeper's
privy seal, was enrolled in the close roll, as if it had been an act of great seal,
a proceeding more usual in earher times than at that date. With regard to
Saint-Pol, it should be added that since June 7, 1339, his appointment as keeper
of the Domus Conversorum for hfe, in succession to Richard Airmyn, renewed
the connection, already estabhshed under Edward II., between the keepership
of the chancery roUs and the house of converts. The latter may weU have been
thus early used as a place of deposit for chancery records and for the abode of
the " household of the chancery." The adjoining street was called even in
1339 " Chancellor's Lane " ; C.P.R., 1338-40, p. 304. The reason for this,
given in MaxweU-Lyte's Great Seal, p. 10, is not altogether convincing.
104 CONSTITUTIONAL CKISIS ch. ix
the pressing needs of the king.^ These were the more exacting
since, after the change of government, the exchequer resources
were mainly devoted, under Pole's guidance, to the payment of
debts already incurred, so that its issues almost ceased to flow
to the Netherlands, The lords were willing to make a grant,
but the commons refused to pledge their constituents to a large
supply, without first taking them into consultation.^ To secure
this it was necessary that another parliament should be sum-
moned for January 1340. In this assembly, the " peers holding
by barony " made a grant, but the promised subsidy of the
commons was hampered by such stringent conditions that the
regency dared not accept them, but referred them to the absent
king. 3 Before this problem was submitted to Edward, he had
remedied his immediate distress by a more direct method.
Pole had offered to lend him what he required on condition
that he should receive absolute security. Therefore Edward,
" with the advice and assent of the prelates, earls and others
attending him on this side the seas," granted Pole the collection
of the customs of all the chief ports until he should be fully
satisfied for all moneys lent.* Clearly the surrender to Stratford
had done nothing to ease the situation, and equally obviously
Pole put personal advantage before public policy.
The Thierache campaign had already come to its inglorious
close ; and Edward had no longer either military or political
reasons for tarrpng longer in the Netherlands. The only
question was whether his Netherlandish allies would let him
leave their country. As early as December, Edward had been
scattering bonds, promises and grants among his confederates,
and had obtained the acquiescence of the duke of Brabant in
his proposal to return to England, pro\dded that he left the
earls of Derby and Salisbury as hostages. He pledged himself
^ Pressure was still constantly brought to bear on the home government to
send supplies to Flanders. See a curious personal letter written in the name of
the regent Edward to queen Philippa, in A.C. liv. 29, dated Oct. 20 (1339).
PhUippa had clearly written to her son, a boy of ten, urging him to do his best.
^ Eot. Pari. ii. 104. " Mes pur ceo q'il covient qe I'aide soit graunt, en ce
cas ils n'oseront assenter tant qu'ils eussent conseillez et avisez les communes
de lour pais." ^ lb. ii. 107-108.
* C.P.R., 1338-40, p. 408. The patent is dated Jan. 26, 1340, at Antwerp :
" On this side the seas," of course, here means the continental side. The
commons' conditional grant was not made till Feb. 19.
§ m THE KING'S FAILUEE AND RETUEN 105
to return before the end of June, and agreed that, during his
absence, the duke's retinue of a thousand men-at-arms should
be at his charge.^ The sums procured from Pole probably
enabled Edward to buy ofE some of his more importunate
creditors. His last act abroad was to balance his dependence
on Brabant by concluding an alliance with the communes of
Flanders. This was consummated when, to please the Flemings,
Edward assumed the title of king of France so as to have a
legal claim upon their overlordship. The change in title
involved a change in the royal seals, the administrative results
of which we shall have to examine later. The assumption of
the double title was made in the beginning of the new regnal
year on January 25, 1340. Soon afterwards Edward left queen
Philippa behind him at Ghent,^ and took ship for England.
The king was back in England by February 21.^ On the
previous day writs, issued from Harwich, summoned the third
parliament since October. This body met on March 29, 1340,
and liberally helped the king by various devices, among which
the grant of the ninth sheaf, fleece and lamb was the most novel
feature. The grants were, however, only made on condition that
the king accepted the petitions presented to him. The four
statutes of 1340 met all the chief demands of parliament,^ in-
cluding the abolition of tallage, and the solemn declaration that
no future charge or aid should be imposed, save with the common
assent of the prelates, earls, barons and commons in parliament.
It was a sign of the king's dependence on parliament that the
statutes should be drawn up by a committee on which bishops,
barons, knights and burgesses had their place, and that the
leaders of that committee should be the archbishop and his chief
colleagues in the council of regency. From our special point of
1 Foedera, ii. 1100-1101.
^ It was at Ghent that in the following March Philippa gave birth to her
foxu-th son, John " of Gaunt." Lionel of Antwerp had been christened in
honour of the lion of Brabant. Now John had as one of his godfathers, James
van Artevelde.
^ lb. ii. 1115.
* Bot. Pari. ii. 112-116; Statutes of the Realm, i. 289; Stubbs, C.H. ii. 401-
402. Some of the petitions are printed in A. W. Goodman, Chartxilary of
Winchester Cathedral, pp. 131-135. It is significant that these statutes of 1340
should all be issued technically as sealed letters patent. " En tesmoignance de
quele chose a cestes presentes lettres avons mys nostre seal"; Stat. i. 294.
ParUament ended on May 10.
106 CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS oh. ix
view it is noteworthy that the acts included the restoration to
the exchequer of the right to appoint sherifis.^ Equally sig-
nificant was the revival of the eight escheatorships as they had
been in 1330, the abolition of the obsolete " presentment of
Englishry," and a certain number of minor reforms which give
the statutes of 1340 considerable importance in the history of
administration. The whole course of this parliament was one
victory for the aristocracy of barons and bishops ; but this
success was the easier by reason of their close association with
the commons, who had shown themselves even more unbending
than the magnates.
Stratford's power was now at its height. On every commission
appointed by parliament there figure the names of himself and
of his episcopal and baronial associates. If parliament was to
control the king, the Stratfords were to control parliament. On
April 28 the archbishop once more became chancellor. Parlia-
ment, moreover, stipulated that, when the king returned to the
seat of war, the duke of Cornwall should again be regent under
the control of the archbishop and the earls of Huntingdon,
Lancaster and Warenne.^ Of these Stratford and Huntingdon
were commissioned to be the regent's chief counsellors.^ It was
clearly intended that they should have full powers to execute
the acts of the parliament, which took upon itself to audit war
finance and to make detailed arrangements for the conduct of
the Scots war. To all these minute interferences with his pre-
rogative, Edward gave a general consent. The one field left
open to him was the French war. His only hope was that the
harmony now established between him and parliament would
enable a home administration, in sympathy with parliamentary
claims, to supply him with adequate funds.
Everything now depended upon the speedy collection of the
new grant, which was the most elaborate attempt at universal
^ See above, pp. 71-72, 75, 94-95, and later, pp. 146-147 ; Foedera, ii. 1122.
^ Rot. Pari. ii. 114. " Qils soient entendantz a lui." They were a sort of
secret council, vriih power to add to their number " les justices et autres sages
du roialme."
' lb. ii. 116. " deputez par especial commission d'estre ses chiefs
counseillers de mener les grosses busoignes du roialme, et I'exploit des busoignes
touchantz a nostre seignour le roi, auxibien par decea come par aillours." The
extent of their commission is noteworthy. The relation between the two
commissions is not clear.
§ m THE GRANT OF THE NINTH 107
graduated taxation yet known. Besides the formal legitima-
tion, for three years, of the war-customs on staple commodities,
the prelates, earls and barons "for themselves and their tenants,"
and the knights of the shires "for the commons of the land,"
granted the king the " ninth sheaf, the ninth fleece and the ninth
lamb from all their sheaves, fleeces and lambs for the two years
next to come." This was the contribution of the landholding
and farming class. The citizens and burgesses granted separately
the " very ninth of all their goods." But merchants " not dwell-
ing in cities or boroughs, and other folk, dwelling in forests and
wastes, who did not live of tillage or store of sheep," were to
pay a fifteenth " according to its true value." ^ To assess and
levy these taxes, to convert into money the taxes in kind and to
safeguard their exclusive devotion to the expenses of the war, a
special organisation was gradually evolved, which, though for-
mally accountable to the exchequer, acted for most purposes in
substantial independence of it.^ The general lines of collection
and assignment were laid down in the statute legalising the grant.
There were " taxers," later called vendors and assessors, deputed
to act under magnate " surveyors." The taxes were to be
assigned "to aid the good keeping of the realm, both by land
and by sea, for the king's wars against the Scots and the
French." ^
The first attempt to fill in the outline of the scheme was
made on April 20, when receivers and magnate supervisors were
appointed in each shire,* and charged to find out by inquisition
^ Rot. Pari. ii. 112-113. I translate " gaignerie " tillage, but it may possibly
mean " pasturage." It is in this sense, says Godefroy, that " gaignerie " is
sometimes used in central France. The more usual sense is, however, " laboux-
age." There could not have been much tillage in forests and wastes except
of small clearings tilled by small men. I have been helped in dealing with the
ninth by the M.A. thesis of my pupil, Mr. M. V. Gregory, on " the Administra-
tion of the Subsidies, 1336-48." Much material is contained in Nonarum
Inquisitiones tempore Ediuardi III., Record Com. 1807.
^ It is suggestive that Edington's expenses of 20s. a day were entirely paid
by the wardrobe ; E.A. 389/8. The period was May 12, 1340, to Apr. 16, 1341.
* Statutes of the Realm, i. 288.
* C.P.R., 1338-40, pp. 499-504. There were from three to six receivers or
collectors in each shire, the parts of Lincolnshire and the ridings of Yorkshire
being regarded as separate counties, and some shires being grouped together,
namely, Northampton and Rutland, Essex and Hertford, and Cambridge and
Huntingdon. There were two or three supervisors, earls, barons, bishops and
abbots. They seem drawn indifferently from those in sympathy with the court
108 CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS ch. ix
the value of the ninth fleece, lamb and sheep and the ninth of
the goods in cities and boroughs. These were to be collected
locally and sold, so that the proceeds thereof might be delivered
to the exchequer with all speed, preference being given at the
sales to rectors and farmers of churches. The receivers were also
to find out, by oath of juries of the shires, the value of the move-
ables of citizens and burgesses, " as of those who live not by
culture of fields and store of sheep," and to exact from such the
ninth part. They had, finally, to levy on merchants not dwelling
in boroughs, and on men dwelling in forests and wastes who
lived not by agriculture or sheep-farming, the fifteenth of the
same. They were warned that poor cottiers and others, living by
bodily toil, were exempted from the tax, and that the clergy
were to pay the ninth only on such properties as were not assessed
for the clerical tenth, already granted by them. Authority was
given to the collectors to arrest and imprison those who resisted
their commission.
A few days later, on May 2, Robert Sadiugton, the knightly
chief baron, was appointed treasurer in place of Zouch, who, as
we shall see, was now in violent antagonism to the courtiers.^
This was doubtless to keep the exchequer in more friendly hands
than those of the dean of York.
A more decisive step came on May 12, after the dissolution
of parHament, when two higher officers, " receivers of the ninth,"
were appointed " by king and council " to act north and south
of the Trent respectively.^ Thus the county collection was sub-
jected to centrahsed control, radiating from two centres. This
separate administration of the north and south was probably the
outcome of the earlier policy of allocating northern revenues to
the Scottish, and southern to the French war. It was a phase
of " appropriation of supplies," and was doubtless further sug-
gested by the order of April 20, which instructed the collectors
of the northern shires, including Nottingham and Derby, to
and from the baronial party. A feature of the appointments is the large
number of abbots employed both as collectors and as supervisors. Stratford
himself was sole supervisor in Kent.
^ C.P.R., 1338-40, p. 471. The appointment was " by king and council."
Zouch was now seeking to become archbishop of York, in opposition to Edward's
favourite, Kilsby. See later, pp. 116-118.
2 C.F.B. V. 178-179.
§ m THE COLLECTION OF THE NINTH 109
account at York for all the moneys received by them.^ As there
was no longer talk of a return of the exchequer to that city, this
involved a collecting organisation with a substantial measure of
internal autonomy. The persons appointed to be these receivers
were two king's clerks, William Edington for the south, and John
Ellerker for the north, of Trent.
The name of William Edington hardly occurs in public
documents before this date. Coming from Edington, a Wiltshire
manor of the bishops of Salisbury, Edington became the
personal clerk of Adam Orleton, not long before Adam secured
for himself the bishopric of Winchester. He was transferred,
not later than 1335, to the king's service, and his policy as a
king's clerk developed naturally on the courtier lines suggested
by his patron's career. He became prominent only with his
appointment as one of the two receivers of the ninth, but for the
rest of his life he was an administrative and political leader.^
Ellerker had had experience as chamberlain of north Wales since
October 1338.^ His present position was, perhaps, due to his
subordination to Arundel, who was both justice of north Wales
and a leading councillor of the regency. Edington was instructed
to receive the money arising from the ninth in the counties south
of Trent, and to keep it safely in the Tower of London, " so that
answer be made to the king therefor." ^ The receivers of each
shire were to cause the moneys to be brought to him and delivered
1 C.P.R., 1338-40, p. 504.
^ I owe to Mr. Gregory the chief known facts of Edington's early career.
He was an attorney of Orleton, then bishop of Worcester, in 1332 {C.P.R.,
1330-34, p. 277), appointed by Orleton, now bishop of Winchester, as master
of St. Cross hospital, 1335 {ib. 1334-38, p. 88), and again Orleton's attorney in
1336 (ib. p. 306). In his appointment to St. Cross he was described as king's
clerk.
^ C.F.R. V. 98. He had previously been treasvirer of the Dublin exchequer,
resigning that office before July 28, 1337 ; ib. p. 26. The receiver was described
as " John EUerker the younger " ; ib. p. 190. It is not quite certain, therefore,
whether he was the Carnarvon and DubUn official. Anyhow chamberlain
Ellerker, who was succeeded at Carnarvon by Robert Hanbury on May 28, 1340
(ib. p. 175), was reappointed to hold office on Oct. 2, 1341 ; ib. p. 252. I am
inclined to think that John Ellerker the younger was the holder of all these
offices, and that Ellerker the elder must be sought for elsewhere.
* Such a phrase often means personal responsibility to some household office
such as the chamber, but it is clear that here the ultimate accountability was to
the exchequer; see C.C.R., 1341-43, p. 243, and C.P.R., 1345-48, p. 120.
Probably the king used prudently vague language, but the baronial current was
running too strongly for him to give effect to his own wishes.
110 CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS ch. ix
by indenture, for the defence of the realm, the expedition of the
war and for other arduous affairs touching the king, and for no
other purpose.^ The commission to EUerker was in similar terms,
except that he was to receive the proceeds of the northern subsidy
at the church of St. Peter's, York, and keep them safely in the
treasury there.
The collection of these taxes took time, but Edward, feverishly
bent on redeeming his promise to his allies to be back in the
Netherlands by midsummer, hurried on his preparations with as
little regard to his financial position as he had shown in 1338.
As the taxes on lambs, sheaves and fleeces could not be levied
in their completeness until after shearing and harvest time, the
new subsidy did little to meet Edward's immediate necessities.
Moreover, the king's own actions prevented the new taxes being
used for their proper purposes. On the eve of his departure
Edward appropriated more than £6000 of the potential receipts of
the ninth for the payment of arrears of war wages. ^ Still larger
sums were assigned to the bankers and others who made the king
advances and to other royal creditors.^ The effect was that, just
as had happened two years before, the regency was left to send
supplies after the king.
Stratford clearly did not relish the responsibility thus thrust
upon him. If we may believe one of the sanest of the contem-
porary chroniclers, the archbishop objected to Edward returning
to the Netherlands in such circumstances, and especially in the
light of the knowledge that the French had made great naval
preparations to block his way.^ The king's own admirals backed
up the archbishop's arguments, but Edward brushed aside their
^ C.F.R. V. 178. The writ says that it was ordered in parliament that the
moneys should be received at the Tower and expended for the defence of the
realm ; but there is nothing to that effect in Eot. Pari., or in the test of the act ;
Statutes of the Realm, i. 288-289. The meticulous care with which the king
adopted, in these writs, the language of parhament makes it far from impossible
that there was some sort of understanding.
^ See in particular C.C.R., 1339-41, pp. 523-526, where on June 22 from
Shotley the king ordered Edington to pay these sums for war wages during the
previous expedition. Such a policy did not give the ministers a chance of
using the new money for its destined purposes.
* The close rolls are full of such assignments, for instance, those made to
William de la Pole; ib. pp. 515-516, 618-620, or to the Bardi and Peruzzi;
ib. p. 505.
* Avesbury, p. 310-311. Murimuth, p. 105, confirms the naval preparations.
§ III STRATFORD'S RESIGNATION 111
advice. There were stormy scenes between the king and the
archbishop, but some sort of reconciliation was effected. Edward
now kept Whitsuntide at Ipswich, whence he joined his fleet in the
Orwell. On June 20 Stratford appeared on the king's ship. He
professed that his health was no longer strong enough to allow him
to bear the burden of the chancery, and surrendered the great seal
into the king's hands. ^ Edward was afraid to break with the
archbishop, and placated him both by paying him a large
proportion of the arrears of his wages for his service abroad,^
and by a grant of further immunities.^
Though there was no question of the archbishop's restoration
to the chancery, the arrangements made for the custody of the
seals showed the king's wish to gloss over recent differences.
Edward intended again to take the great seal abroad with him,
but the appointment of Robert Stratford, bishop of Chichester,
to succeed his brother as chancellor, and the assignment of the
temporary custody of the new seal of absence to John of Saint-Pol,
showed the anxiety Edward had to stand well with the Strat-
fordians. Indeed Saint-Pol first used the seal at Lambeth under
the archbishop's eye.^ The king immediately after this re-
arrangement, crossed the North Sea, and won on June 24 the
decisive naval victory of Sluys, which destroyed the French naval
power, secured his communications with home, and saved England
from the fear of invasion. But subsequent military operations
did not add to his glory, and the summer and autumn reproduced
with remarkable fidelity the situation which had prevailed during
his previous expedition.
There were once more two separate governments, one at home
^ Foedera, ii. 1129. " Praetendens se propter infirmitatem et debilitatem
corporis sui non posse diutius in dicto canoeUarii officio laborare." This, though
official, is clearly more exact than Avesbury's account (p. 311). " Arc hie -
piscopus vero statim se posuit totahter extra concUium domini regis et, capta
Ucentia, ab eodem recessit et sigUlum cancellariae sibi remisit." He adds that
later the king was reconciled with the primate, and " retradidit sibi sigillum
cancellariae." The latter statement is untrue.
2 lb. ii. 1125-1126.
^ C.Ch.R. iv. 472, " out of devotion to St. Thomas and affection for the
archbishop."
* Foedera, ii. 1129. Saint-Pol received the seal at Chelmsford on June 22,
and first sealed at Lambeth " in camera archiepiscopi " on June 23. The
bishop of Chichester took up his duties on July 12 "ad hospicium in vico qui
vocatur Chancellor Lane." This seema the bishop's " hospicium," not the
" hospicium cancellariae."
112 CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS ch. ix
and the other in the Netherlands. Stratford's illness must have
been a diplomatic one, for he continued to direct the regency
between the king's departure on June 22 and his return on
November 30. The infant duke of Cornwall was again keeper of
the realm/ with wider powers, notably in respect of filling vacant
posts in the church, and of removing unworthy officials, than on
the previous occasion. There was delay, probably deliberate
delay, in choosing the regent's chief councillors, and the arrange-
ments ultimately made did not altogether fit in with the parHa-
mentary proposals which the king had accepted. The day after
the duke's appointment, the earl of Huntingdon was ordered to
attend upon him mth other councillors not specified.^ It was
not until the eve of the king's departure that archbishop Stratford,
Henry Percy, Thomas Wake and Ralph Neville ^ were nominated
to this function. Later, on July 8, William Beauchamp was also
appointed to " stay about the body of the keeper." ^ Besides
his brother's support as chancellor, the archbishop had had, since
June 21, a congenial treasurer in the veteran bishop Northburgh
of Lichfield,^ who had begun his official career, some thirty years
earher, as the first independent keeper of the privy seal.^ The
restoration of the outgoing lay treasurer, Sadington, to his old
post of chief baron showed perhaps some desire to balance
Northburgh by a royalist stalwart. It is from this point of view
significant that some partisans of the court were left behind,
including Sir John Molyns,'' so active in the Netherlands on a
former occasion. Substantially, then, the home government was
controlled by Stratford and his friends, and after Stratford had
regained his former ascendency, the situation was a reproduction
of that of 1339-40.
^ This appointment was on May 27; Foedera, ii. 1125. The powers were
given on May 29.
^ Foedera, ii. 1125. The writs are dated Shotley, opposite Harwich, on
June 21.
^ Neville had been steward of the household.
* G.P.R., 1338-40, p. 505 : " by letter of the duke."
* lb. pp. 543-544. The appointment, dated Shotley, June 21, was "per
regem."
« Above, ii. 286-287.
' Molyns' activity in England during the king's absence can be easily worked
out from the close roUs. Even Kilsby was still in England on July 24, when
Yarmouth was ordered to pro-vide him with ships, " as the king wishes to hasten
WUham's passage for certain reasons " ; C.C.R., 1339-41, p. 434.
§ m THE ADMINISTRATION AT HOME 113
Some show of vigour was put into the collection of supplies,^
but neither the ninth nor the wool tax yielded the desired results.
The careful precautions taken to remedy negligent collection
seem to have had little effect.^ It was still hardly time for
much money to have come from the ninth, especially as
there was something like an organised conspiracy to prevent
its proceeds being sold for the king's profit.^ Meanwhile the
king's expedition against Tournai and Saint-Omer was held up
by his allies' refusal to move until they had been paid. Therefore
a new parUament was summoned for July 11. To this Edward
sent the earls of Arundel and Gloucester and Sir William Trussell
with letters, describing the glories of the battle of Sluys, and
demonstrating the alternative that lay before the king of
receiving immediate supplies or losing his allies. The envoys
declared " well, nobly and in good style " the " anguish and
peril in which the king, queen and magnates of the host lay for
lack of money." * In the end it was recognised that no immediate
help could come from the ninth, and the commons, repeating
the experiment of 1338, allowed the king to seize 20,000 sacks
of wool, whose owners were to be paid from the proceeds of
taxes already granted.
By July 30 arrangements for the execution of the plan were
worked out in earnest with the merchants, and the king was
informed that the wool grant was not to be administered by
such men as had mismanaged the earlier grants, but that all
the grant was to be delivered into his hands as soon as was
possible.^ The contracting merchants agreed to pay stipulated
sums on behalf of the wool of the different shires to the wardrobe
at Bruges, at various dates in the late summer and autumn.^
There was no time for these promises to be carried out. The
^ For instance, the circular on Sept. 7 to the assessors and vendors of the
ninth in all counties of England, stated that the king had learnt that they did
not " travail earnestly " but were " neghgent and lukewarm " despite the king's
orders ; C.C.R., 1339-41, p. 517. Compare the circular of Oct. 31 ; ib. pp.
585-586.
^ Besides the general power given to the regency to remove "insufficient
ministers," three commissions of magnates had been appointed as early as
Apr. 28, charged with the duty of removing negligent collectors of customs,
even when appointed for hfe, and appointing others in their place ; C.P.B.,
1338-40, pp. 507-508.
3 jRot. Pari. ii. 117. * Ib. 122. » jf,
* Some of the indentures are summarised in C.C.R., 1339-41, pp. 614-622.
VOL. Ill I
114 CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS ch. ix
fatal policy of assignment was pursued more actively than ever,
and but little of any sums raised reached the king in
Flanders. It was to no purpose that further messengers
passed to and fro between the two administrations. ^
The supreme folly of the king in starting a campaign, for
which he had no means to pay, soon produced its natural result
in the unsatisfactory truce of Esplechin, sealed on September 25.
For another two months after this, Edward tarried in Ghent,
sending home bitter reproaches to his negligent ministers. They
replied with excuses and apologies, but little treasure. As a
last effort, orders were issued on November 27 to all the county
receivers south of Trent to cause all money from the subsidies
received by them to be taken to Edington at the Tower without
delay, except such sums as the king had already assigned to be
paid directly by the receivers. ^ But this command was given
too late to have any result. The failure of the home government
played into the hands of the impatient warriors with the king
in Flanders. The haste with which the arrangements had been
made prevented that orderly division into a home and a foreign
ministry, which had been the feature of the period of the earlier
Netherlandish campaign. The great offices of state, the
chancery and the treasury, were substantially kept in England.
Not only the chancellor and the treasurer, but nearly all the
chief officers of the chancery, and practically all the officers of
the exchequer, remained at Westminster. Nor were the house-
hold offices simply taken over seas with the court in a body.
The chamber, absorbed in the administration of its landed
estate, was becoming, to some extent, sedentary. Though
Hatfield and other chamber officers were with the king, a large
part of its staff, including Molyns and all the officers of the
chamber lands, did not accompany Edward. Even Kilsby
remained in England for some weeks after the king's departure.
The whole of the great wardrobe stayed at home, and John
^ For instance, the mission of Richard Winkley, the Dominican confessor of
the king, and of Mr. Robert of Askeby, the clerk of the chamber, before whom a
special council was held on Sept. 4, 1340 ; ib. p. 621. There was also an abortive
council held after IVIichaelmas for the punishment of false ministers. See for
the details of this, Miss Dorothy Hughes' Early Years of Edward III., pp. 89-99.
This book gives the fullest modern account of these critical years.
2 C.C.B., 1339-41, p. 577.
§ m THE ADMINISTRATION IN FLANDERS 115
Fleet, with the privy wardrobe and part of the chamber staff,
was established in the Tower of London, receiving proceeds
of taxation almost in rivalry with Edington, receiver of the
ninth, whose office was also located in the Tower. In point
of fact the king had fled from England, leaving Stratford
to rule in his place, and there was no longer a question
of "two ministries," for the court was dependent upon the
home government.
The wardrobe and privy seal had followed the king, and were
the basis of the organised administration which he had at his
disposal. But the wardrobe accounts of William of Cusance
testify to operations on a much smaller scale than those of
\ 1338-40.1 They show Cusance seeking for supplies with little
success, and the chamber clerks, Hatfield and Askeby, hard
at work, the latter specially assigned to collect the wool subsidy,
but failing to make very much out of it. Substantially, the
king's staff consisted of the ofl&cers of the household, the warrior
element, mainly intent upon the prosecution of the war, and
the clerks of the wardrobe, chamber and privy seal, each of
whom was often called away from his specific duties by the
exigencies of diplomacy and finance. To these we must add
the highly placed diplomatists, like bishop Burghersh and Sir
Geoffrey Scrope, the sometime chief justice. After a few weeks
the masterful personality of Kilsby strengthened the royal
councils. As on the previous Netherlandish expedition, Kilsby
kept both the privy and the great seals. For the service of the
former he was attended by the whole office of the privy seal ;
for that of the latter he had the help of a few chancery clerks,
the most important of whom was Thoresby, the trained notary,
and even Thoresby left the Netherlands before the king. There
was also the swarm of foreign rivals, the Bardi and Peruzzi,
the society of the Leopardi, Henry Muddepenning and the
German societies, and the Netherlandish bankers. All of these
acted as intermediaries between Edward and his subjects, raised
loans, farmed his taxes and recouped themselves from the
proceeds. Yet indispensable as they were, they were trusted
neither by the king nor by his ministers.
Besides strong antagonisms of policy and principles, personal
^ E.A. 389/8. For details see later, iv. 108, et seq.
116 CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS ch. ix
rivalries complicated the situation. One illustration, the story
of the conflict between WilUam Zouch and William Kilsby for
succession to the see of York, may be permitted, though it takes
us far from administrative history.
On April 4, 1340, archbishop Melton died, full of years and
honour. On April 7 the king gave Zouch, at that moment
treasurer of the exchequer and dean of York, the custody of the
temporalities of the vacant see. The royal conge d'elire was
issued on April 13, ^ and, the day before this, Zouch left the
treasury to a deputy, in order to make his way northwards to
preside at the election and administer the temporalities.^ Up to
this point, everything suggested that he was in high favour with
the king, and that Edward was doing all he could to help him in
winning over the chapter to his election.
Then came a sudden and characteristic change in the oppor-
tunist king's pohcy. On April 14 the York temporalities were
transferred from Zouch's care to that of chamber officials, who,
however, were ordered to account for them in the exchequer.^
The explanation seems to be that Zouch's affinities being now
too strongly with the party of Stratford, Edward had abandoned
all wish for his promotion. A more complacent archbishop could
be found in Kilsby, the brain of the court party. As a first step
Kilsby was, on April 20, sent away from court, " taking some
secret things of the king from London to York and other parts
of the north." ^ His real purpose seems to have been to secure
a seat in the chapter, so that he might personally urge his claims
to be archbishop against those of the dean. He had, therefore,
to be appointed hastily to a prebend, and on April 15 Edward
had issued a mandate to the dean and canons for his immediate
admission to a place in the chapter, because the king had
" lately," in Melton's lifetime, granted him a prebend in the
royal gift by reason of an ancient vacancy of the see under
Edward I.^ Seven days later, assurance was made doubly sure
by Kilsby's fresh appointment to the prebend of Wilton, of
1 C.P.R., 1338-40, p. 462.
^ lb. p. 450, shows that Zouch was doing exchequer business up to Apr. 11,
but that by Apr. 12 John Thorp was acting as deputy treasurer.
^ C.F.R. V. 170. One of them was Nicholas Buckland.
* G.P.B., 1338-40, p. 463.
5 lb. pp. 461-462.
§m ZOUCH AND KILSBY RIVALS FOR YORK 117
which Edward claimed the presentation on account of the
vacancy of the see.^
Rumour was already busy with Kilsby's name, for on April 26
the king, "to stop slanderous reports," declared that he had no
knowledge that Kilsby was excommunicated or suspended by
the pope, but that he had always found him " honourable, con-
stant and faithful, devoted to God and worthy of great honour
from the king, who holds him dear above others and keeps him
constantly by his side. " ^ On May 2 a new treasurer was found
in the layman Sadington, and Zouch was ordered to surrender
the office.^ On the same day the York election was held, and in
that Zouch had his revenge, for he was chosen archbishop by a
majority of the canons, though a certain proportion of them did
vote for Kilsby.^ The prudent victor got himself installed at
once, but KUsby persisted in his claims, and the only refuge
was an appeal to Avignon, The king showed his partisanship
by doing his best to keep Zouch in England,^ by writing urgently
to the pope in Kilsby's favour,^ and by retaining his grip on the
temporalities of the see, whose keepers, on July 8, were ordered
to account in the chamber, that is to the king's personal de-
pendents.'
It was doubtless this business which prevented Kilsby attend-
ing the king when he went to Flanders on June 22. But Edward
needed his services, and Kilsby soon followed him. The keeper
of both great and privy seals could not desert the king on a wild
^ lb. p. 461. The prebend of Wilton is not given in Le Neve's Fasti. Can
it be that Edward in his haste appointed his favourite to a non-existent prebend ?
It is, however, doubtless a confusion with the prebend of Wetwang to which
Kalsby was again presented by the king on Oct. 6, 1341 ; ib., 1340-43, p. 291.
The reference in the mandate of Apr. 15 to a presentation made " lately " on
Apr. 22, illustrates the difficulties involved in the thorny problem of the signifi-
cance of the dating of writs of chancery and the rashness of basing too much upon
the exactitude of such dates.
2 lb., 1338-40, p. 519. » 7j_ p_ 471^
* Eighteen members of the chapter were present, and thirteen of them voted
for Zouch ; W. H. Dixon and J. Raine, Lives 0/ the Archbishops of York, pp.
439-440.
^ C.C.R., 1339-41, p. 638, gives a summons of July 8 to Zouch to account at
the Michaelmas exchequer for household and other offices accountable there.
* Foedera, ii. 1118, etc.
' C.F.R. V. 183. This chancery writ, Uke that in n. 5 above, was issued
by the regency : but the warranty of each was a writ of privy seal of which
Kilsby was keeper! But who "kept" the privy seal in the Netherlands
before Kilsby went there ? Or did it remain in England with its keepers ?
118 CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS oh. ix
goose chase to Avignon, but contented himself with putting every
obstacle in the way of Zouch's journey. Only after Kilsby had
gone abroad, did papal intervention allow Zouch access to Avig-
non. Even then Kilsby's ingenuity was not exhausted. On
November 10, Zouch was waylaid by aristocratic brigands as he
left Geneva, was imprisoned in some desert place in the Vaud,
and only released after paying a heavy ransom and taking oath
not to disclose his captors. The pope dispensed Zouch from
these vows, and had the offenders brought to justice. It was
shrewdly suspected that Kilsby was at the bottom of the out-
rage. Despite such treatment, Zouch remained for two years at
the curia, waiting in vain for a papal decision on his claims.^
The York succession was still in suspense when Kilsby came back
with the king in November 1340. His personal grievances against
Stratford and the other chief officials lend point to the rancour
with which he prosecuted his master's interests against them.
His sordid quest of office added a new difficulty to the already
doubtful relations between Edward III. and Avignon. At last,
in 1342, Zouch's installation at York through the good offices of
Clement VI. ended the long struggle in favour of the papal
nominee. The whole incident shows upon what unstable founda-
tions the royal household administration was built.
The dissension between the king's personal following and the
home government came to a head in 1340, in the greatest minis-
terial crisis of the reign. This quarrel was, as Avesbury tells us,
between the king and his confidants and the ministers serving
in the great offices,^ and could only mature when the king re-
turned to England. The steps, however, by which the official
ministry was to be upset, developed during the frequent " parlia-
ments " of the " king's council beyond the sea," held amidst
gloom, poverty and depression at Ghent during October and
November, 1340.
The intelligent but prejudiced French chronicler of London,
to whom we owe the most vivid account of the ministerial and
^ For more details, see my article on Zouch in the D.N.B.
" Avesbury, pp. 323-324, describes how, on Nov. 30, Edward returned to
England " cum suis secretariis," and was " offensus cum suis officiariis in magnis
officiis ministrantibus." " Quidam secretarii " were jealous of archbishop
Stratford. " Secretarius " is stiU simply " confidant," with no suggestion of
official meaning.
§ III BREACH BETWEEN MINISTERS AND COURT 119
constitutional struggle, paints with bias, but substantial accuracy,
the general course of the movement.^ " The king tarried long
in the city of Ghent, and there he held his parliament,^ and took
council as to whether the better course were to remain in Flanders
or to return to England. Each week he sent letters to his false
friends in England, asking for aid and succour from the common
treasure, granted to him by the whole commons of England.
And the false traitors, sworn to his service, answered the king
that the tenths could not be collected, nor the sacks of wool
raised, and that they dared do no more than they had done for
fear of civil war, for the people would rather rise in revolt than
pay any more taxes.^ The money that they had collected was
not enough to pay the wages of the king's ministers, nor to pay
his debts, nor to meet the expenses of his household, for which
purposes they had been assigned by the king himself." But
there was one minister in England who was better afiected to
his sovereign than the rest. This faithful servant secretly set
forth in writing all the plans of the traitors, and forwarded his
report to the king. He urged that the king's only salvation was
to return privately to London, for it was useless to write further
letters to the ministry, though, if he came to England, the king
would easily find enough treasure to carry on the war and conquer
his enemies.
Impressed by this advice, Edward took immediate action.
He persuaded the duke of Brabant and the Flemish leaders to
suffer him to return to England, on the ground that his presence
in his own land afforded the best chance of his paying them what
he owed them. Meanwhile his wrath against Stratford boiled
over. On November 18 he sent to Benedict XII. as ambassadors,
William Norwich, dean of Lincoln, John Offord and John Thoresby.
Their charge was to lay before the pope his fierce indignation
against the primate. It was Stratford who had advised him to
" cross the sea without provision of money and horses, trusting in
^ The French Chronicle of London, ed. Aungier, pp. 82-84 (Camden Soc.
1844).
* It is significant that so late as 1340 " parliament " could still be used in
the sense of a rather narrowly restricted section of the royal council.
^ For an instance of this, see C.C.R., 1339-41, p. 536, a writ of Sept. 30,
ordering the sheriff of Essex to imprison those resisting the subsidy of the ninth,
" since certain men of the county refuse to pay andresist the vendors and assessors
with all their might." See also above, p. 113.
120 CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS ch. ix
the archbishop's promise to supply money in a few days," It
was Stratford who, by not sending him a penny during the long
siege of Tournai, had forced him to make the truce of Esplechin.
" I believe," said the king, " that the archbishop wished me, by
lack of money, to be betrayed and killed." ^ Stratford then was
an unmitigated traitor, and the king's first business was to punish
him as he deserved. Ha\dng thus done his worst against his
minister, Edward abandoned his wife, children and wardrobe, and,
with a scanty following of personal confidants, rode from Ghent
to Sluys, where he took ship. After a stormy passage of three
days and nights he sailed up the Thames, and on the night of
St. Andrew's day landed before cock-crow at the water gate of the
Tower.
It is important to know who exactly were the confidants or
secretarii who came back with the king. Few of them held a
more definite ofiicial position than that of banneret, knight or
clerk of the household. Among them laymen predominated,
military rather than political considerations weighing with the
king at that time. Highest in rank was William Bohun, earl of
Northampton, who, though the acting head of a great family,
represented the type of magnate keener on beating the French
than on scoring advantages for his class. With him were the
bannerets Reginald Cobham and Walter Manny, the latter a
Hainaulter already acclimatised to England, and devoted to the
court interest. The same devotion inspired the three knights,
mentioned by name, Nicholas Cantilupe and John and Giles
Beauchamp. Of clerks two only were specified, but one of them
was Kilsby, the arch-conspirator, and the other Philip Weston,
who, although almoner and confessor of the king, had contributed
his quota of troops to the royal army, and was reckoned, like
Kilsby, as equivalent in rank and pay to a banneret. Kilsby,
keeper of the privy seal, was the only ofl&cial among them, for
John Darcy the son, who was also mentioned among the knights,
was not John Darcy the steward of the household, who was
probably left behind in Flanders. ^ One quality at least the
^ C. Pap. Reg. Let. ii. 584-585. William Norwich had brought papal remon-
strances from Avignon to the Netherlands. Edward discreetly begged the pope
" to keep secret the part about the archbishop, letting the rest be known."
^ Darcy the steward first appears in the Tower on Dec. 14 ; Foedera, ii.
1142. The household gradually followed the king home.
§ m EDWARD'S SECRET ARII 121
whole band had in common, absolute irresponsibility. A king,
advised by such a group, was the very opposite of the ideal king
of Lancastrian tradition, who took no important step without the
counsel and consent of the higher baronage.
The king and his friends had come back to make a clean sweep
of the administration. Edward demanded to see Sir Nicholas de
la Beche, warden of the Tower and master of the household of
Edward of Cornwall, the nominal regent. But Beche was absent
from his post, and this evidence of slackness increased the wrath
of the king. He summoned the mayor of London to his presence,
and ordered him to lay hands on the chief members of the
ministry. When morning broke, the chancellor, Robert Stratford,
and the treasurer, Roger Northburgh, came to the Tower and
received their dismissal. Nothing but respect for the liberties of
the church saved the two bishops from arrest. The chief clerks
of the chancery were regarded as implicated in their chief's
misdeeds, and no regard for clerical immunities screened from
imprisonment John of Saint-Pol, keeper of the rolls, and his
colleagues, Michael Wath, Henry Stratford, the archbishop's
cousin, and Robert Chigwell. No chancery clerk was thought
fit even for the temporary custody of the seal, which remained,
as when beyond seas, with Kilsby. Of the exchequer officers
John Thorp, the sometime deputy for treasurer Zouch, shared the
fate of the senior clerks of chancery.
The anger of the king was indiscriminating and he struck out
in many directions. The negligent constable of the Tower was
imprisoned and deprived of all his offices.^ The chief English
financiers, the brothers William and Richard Pole, and the
London merchant, John Pulteney, were similarly made scape-
goats of the financial failure. Among the judges arrested were
Sir John Stonor, chief justice coram rege, and four justices of the
common bench. Sir Richard Willoughby, who had been Parving's
predecessor as chief justice coram rege, John Inge, William
Sharshill and John Shardlow, the last two while holding assizes
at Cambridge. Sir Thomas Ferrars, keeper of the Channel
Islands, was also among the captives. ^ Of the greater nobles,
^ Beche was replaced by Bartholomew Burghersh, as " master of the house-
hold " of Edward, duke of CornwaU, by Jan. 1341 ; E.A. 389/6, mm. 1, 3.
^ Murimuth, p. 117, enumerated most of the above, but the most authorita-
tive list of victims is in C.P.R., 1340-43, pp. 110-111, where is summarised the
122 CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS ch. k
only one was attacked. This was Thomas Wake, son-in-law of
the blind old earl of Lancaster. Wake, as a member of the council
of regency, was regarded as sharing responsibility for its acts,i but
he was soon released.
There was some attempt at a general purging of the local
offices,^ and all the escheators and most of the sheriffs were
certainly removed, though the evidence does not quite sustain
the general change of ministers spoken of by the chroniclers. ^
For a short time Edward's desire to concentrate authority in his
own hands went so far that he took the county of Chester out of
the hands of his infant son, and gave it to keepers of his own
choosing.*
special commission for their trial, dated Jan. 13, 1341. The whole of the names
in the text are included, except Inge and Wake. Inge was however tried in
Somerset for taking money from Utigants, confessed, and paid a fine (Hughes,
U.S. p. 184, from Assize Rolls). The accusation was that they had " borne them-
selves fraudulently and unfaithfully in their offices." The French Chronicle
of London, pp. 85-86, gives the hst of the prisons to which they were consigned
" par le conseil sire Wilham de Killesby." In Year Book 15 Edw. III., p. 387,
it was complained in Michaelmas term 1341 that Sharshill " fust en Galys, et
ne poet estre trove." As a matter of fact, he was stiU imprisoned in Caerphilly
castle. ^ Chron. Angliae, p. 10.
2 C.C.B., 1339-41, p. 607. Writs of Jan. 15, 1341, to all sheriffs, ordered
election of new coroners, " as the king has ordained that the sheriffs, escheators,
coroners, and other such ministers who were before the king's return to England
shall be removed."
3 For instance Murimuth, p. 118. " Et cito post hujusmodi adventum suum
rex amovit omnes vicecomites et aUos ministros in suis publicis officiis constitutes,
et alios etiam invitos subrogavit eisdem." Compare French Chronicle of London,
p. 88. " Puisse apres le mardi prochein devant la conversion seint Poul, touz
les officiers en la court le roy furent oustez et remuez parmy sire WiUiam de
Killesby." The date given is Jan. 23, 1341, and truly illustrates the gradual
character of the process. The records show that between Jan. 9 and Feb. 3 six
of the eight group-county escheatries changed hands, and that the other two
groups followed in early May; Gibson in E.H.R. xxxvi. 225, conveniently sum-
marises the fine roll entries. The sweep of the sheriffs was fairly complete.
Between Jan. 4 and Jan. 26 eight sheriffs were removed from thirteen shires,
though one was recalled in a few days. Between Feb. 6 and Mar. 16 foiir more
sheriffs were changed in five shires ; C.F.R. v. 199-201. In six sheriffdoms
(nine shires) whose chiefs were not removed, new sheriffs had already been
appointed a few weeks before the king's return. In only one normal shire,
Hereford, did the same sheriff go on from 1336 to 1343. Murimuth was inexact
rather than wrong in his statement.
* C.F.R. V. 214, an order of Feb. 14, 1341. Mrs. M. Sharp, who pointed out
this reference to me, assures me that within a few weeks Cheshire was again
in the hands of Edward of Windsor, and that she is very doubtful whether the
resumption mentioned in the text was ever effected. Henry Ferrars was the
justice of Chester whom the writ superseded in favour of Wilham Beauchamp and
Hugh Berwick.
§ m FALL OF THE MINLSTRY 123
Edward's wrath and desire for vengeance were chiefly directed
against men whom he was unable to reach. His early release
of Wake showed that he dared not attack the Lancastrian barons,
and the privileges of the church kept his hands ofi the fallen
chancellor and treasurer. Two other men, against whom he was
especially moved, also escaped his clutches. One was the chamber
knight, John Molyns, and the other was the head of all offending,
archbishop Stratford.
Molyns had hitherto been a foremost ally of Kilsby in further-
ing the king's will. But he had never lost a chance of piling
up a fortune for himself, and the opportunity of remaining in
England, as chief steward of chamber manors, had given him
means to enrich himself which he could not resist. He had
therefore abandoned his earlier associates and had thrown in
his lot with the incriminated ministers. Much incensed by such
double dealing, Edvard put the renegade into the Tower,^ but
within a few days he broke prison. The king ransacked his
treasures, seized his manors and held high revel in his
Buckinghamshire house,^ but he failed to catch him, and for
five years Molyns remained outcast and unforgiven.^
Stratford, on the king's arrival in England, retired from
Lambeth to Charing, whence he soon sought a securer refuge
among the monks of his own cathedral. He reached Canterbury
on December 2, the day of the return of St. Thomas of Canter-
bury from exile. On that very day, there died in Flanders two
of the archbishop's worst enemies. Sir Geofirey Scrope and
^ C.F.R. V. 197, shows that Molyns was " attached " and imprisoned in the
Tower, but that before Dec. 5 he had escaped.
^ French Chronicle of London, pp. 85-87, gives a detailed account of the king's
proceedings against Molyns.
^ In 1345 he was forgiven and his lands restored " of the king's special
favour " ; C.C.R., 1343-46, pp. 603-606, 610 ; C.P.R., 1345-48, pp. 29, 76.
Moreover, his son WiUiam, who married an heiress, entered the king's service as
" valettus ". Later John was employed as justice of oyer and terminer and of the
peace, and also as steward of Queen Phihppa's lands ; C.P.R., 1350-54, pp. 228,
368. Several times pardoned for minor offences, MoIjtis came to grief a second
time in 1357, when his lands were seized and his son made responsible for his
maintenance ; C.C.R., 1354-60, p. 372. Later he was imprisoned in Notting-
ham Castle, while his wife Gill was imprisoned in Cambridge Castle. In 1359
WiUiam Molyns was allowed under heavy sureties to superintend his father's
transfer from Nottingham Castle to Cambridge Castle, where he joined his wife;
C.C.R., 1354-60, p. 48. He died on Mar. 10, 1360 ; C.C.R., 1360-64, p. 220.
GUI was pardoned a few months later (C.P.R., 1358-61, p. 435), for her share
in her husband's frauds and violence. See below, iv. 296, n. 2.
124 CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS ch. ix
bishop Burgliersli, the ancient leaders of the court party. The
ferocious temper of the time regarded this as God's judgment
on the enemies of holy church.^ For the next three months
a fierce controversy went on between Canterbury and West-
minister, in the course of which the points at issue between
parties were defined and the new administration slowly con-
stituted.
There was some delay in filling up the chancery and treasury.
The king had vowed he would appoint no more ministers save
those amenable to the jurisdiction of the civil courts, and accord-
ingly his choice feU upon laymen. The new chancellor was
Sir Eobert Bourcliier,^ an Essex knight, a warrior of the French
wars and several times knight of the shire for Essex. The
Cumberland lawyer-knight. Sir Robert Parving, who had often
represented Cumberland in Edward III.'s parliaments, and was
already chief justice of the common bench, was made treasurer
on the day after Bourchier's appointment to the chancery.^
As Sir Robert Sadington remained chief baron of the exchequer,
it followed that three of the great ministries were held by lay
men " justiciable " in the king's courts.
There were changes, too, in the personnel of the great offices,
but the majority of those promoted were old officials and clerks.
In the chancery the disgraced " greater " clerks were replaced
by their subordinates. When, after a month, Kilsby rehnquished
his grip on the chancery rolls,^ a new keeper for them was found
in Thomas Evesham. He, however, was replaced on February
21, 1341, by John Thoresby,^ the leader of the younger genera-
tion of chancery clerks. In the exchequer, even Sadington
received a new commission, and on the same day, January 20,
1341, four new barons and a new chancellor of the exchequer
^ Birchington in Anglia Sacra, i. 21. " Sicque dictus archiepiscopus a
duobus inimicis suis fuerat a Dei Providentia liberatus."
2 Fotdera, ii. 1142.
^ C.P.R., 1340-43, p. 75. For Parving see Dr. J. R. M'Grath, Sir Robert
Parvyng, Knight of the. Shire for Cumberland and Chancellor of England ; (Kendal,
1919, reprinted from Cumberland and Westmorland Antiq. and Arch. Society's
Transactions, xix. new series).
* Kilsby received the rolls on Dee. 2, 1340, at which time they were removed
by royal precept from the house of John of Saint-Pol and transferred to the
Tower. They remained in the Tower under Kilsby's custody until Jan. 3 ;
Foedera, ii. 1142. s jj jj jj^j
§ m THE NEW MINISTERS 125
were given him as colleagues, while new remembrancers were
also appointed. 1 Although a lay baron of the exchequer was
no novelty, all of the newly nominated barons were clerks, and
one of them, Gervase Wilford, the most notable of the clerical
barons of the reign. The king had evidently no objections
to clerics, when they did not shelter themselves behind the
immunities of their order.
With deep disgust the Stratfordians lamented that clerks
as well as knights took part in the persecution of the archbishop. ^
Indeed the head and front of all offending was the clerk Kilsby,
whose malevolence was quickened by his knowledge that not
all the authority of his master was sufficient to establish him
at York as the rival primate to Stratford. While the loudly
advertised doctrine that clerks served the king's interests better
than laymen was more of a pretence than a reality, no thorough-
going anti-clerical movement was as yet within the range of
practical politics.
There were naturally fewer changes in the household staff,
which was already to the king's liking. That the faithful John
Darcy the elder relinquished the stewardship in order to become
king's chamberlain ^ was perhaps significant. Was this another
effort of the victorious king to enhance the dignity of the chamber?
Darcy's successor as steward was Ralph, " baron of Stafford," *
who in the first days of 1341 took a leading part in the attack
on Stratford. Kilsby, of course, continued to keep the privy
seal, and it looks as if the inexperienced lay ministers were but
as clay in his dexterous hands. In April 1341 his brother,
Robert KUsby, became controller of the wardrobe, and so gave
^ C.P.R., 1340-43, pp. 80-81. Sadington's reappointment, though enrolled,
was annotated " vacated because surrendered." In addition to Wilford, the
other barons, Thomas Blaston, WiUiam Brocklesby and WiUiam Stowe were also
clerks. Blaston was a reappointment. William Everdon, chancellor of the
exchequer, was a king's clerk. It was stUl natural for keepers of seals to be
clergymen.
^ Birchington, u.s. p. 20. " Verum non solum milites sed et clerici hoc
fecerunt : et pro his nequiter termmandis ipsi in necem archiepiscopi conspiran-
tes," etc.
^ He was not called steward after Dec. 15, and apparently became chamber-
lain at once. See for his identity earlier, p. 120.
* The persistence with which he is called " baron of Stafford " suggests that
the term was almost employed as a surname. Or was it an anticipation of the
time, soon coming though not yet come, when baron, like earl, had become a
title of honour, or grade in the " peerage " ?
126 CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS oh. ix
him a fresh hold over the household offices.^ In the great
struggle between the king and Stratford which occupied the
first few months of 1341, William Kilsby remained constantly
the spokesman of the royal pleasure.
This struggle has often been described, and need not again
be dwelt upon at length.^ It was waged with extraordinary
vindictiveness, and both parties indulged in language of the
most violent kind. The greatest blame must rest with the
king's champions, who in their haste to abuse the archbishop
took no trouble to state their master's case clearly or logically.
Stratford, on the contrary, though equally malicious, used
restrained language, in striking contrast to the outbursts of the
courtiers. Although Stratford complicated the situation by
combining an assertion of extreme clerical doctrine with state-
ments of his political grievances, his impassioned appeals on
behalf of the liberties of the church made a real impression on
public opinion. His ostentatious posing as the imitator of St.
Thomas need not be taken seriously. Yet there was an element
of sincerity in his touching renunciation of his worldly career,
and in his bitter regrets for his excessive devotion to the service
of the state. There was some nobility in the steadfastness with
which he braved his former associates and maintained his
position in the teeth of brutal threats. He was rewarded when
every party in the Easter parliament rallied to his cause. The
king and his courtiers found they could make no impression
on baronage, clergy or commons. If the administrative crisis
of November had shown Edward making his boldest bid for
despotism, the constitutional crisis of April secured the accept-
ance of the archbishop's theory of the constitution. Even
^ Robert Kilsby was controller from Apr. 17, 1341, to July 21, 1342.
^ The latest and fullest accounts are those of Mr. G. T. Lapsley, " Arch-
bishop Stratford and the ParUamentary Crisis of 1341," in E.H.JR. xxx. 6-18
and 193-215, and Miss D. Hughes, The Early Years of Edward III., pp. 100-181,
but Pike, Constitutional History of the House of Lords, pp. 186-198, L. Vernon
Harcourt, His Grace the Steivard and Trial by Peers, pp. 338-345, and Stubbs,
C.H. ii. 402-411, should still be consulted. The chief original sources are
Birchington, " Vitae archiep. Cant." in Wharton's Anglia Sacra, i. 20-41 ; Rot.
Pari. ii. 126-134 ; French Chronicle of London, pp. 82-90 ; Avesbury, pp. 116-121 ;
Cont. Hemingburgh, ii. 363-388. See also later, p. 128, n. 1. Barnes' History
of Edward III. pp. 212-235 (1688), gives a quaint and sometimes inaccurate
but very detailed narrative of the whole story, and includes translations of the
chief documents issued by both sides.
§ III STRATFORD'S POLITICAL THEORY 127
more permanent was that close understanding between the
baronial leaders and the dignified clergy which was to endure
for the rest of the century, and was the permanent condition of
any real constitutional control of the monarchy. What Winchel-
sea and the ordainers had with difficulty enforced against a
weakling, Stratford and his associates imposed on a vigorous
and active king.
To the historian of household administration Stratford's
formulation of the baronial position is of some importance,
though it did but restate more specifically the position of
Winchelsea and Thomas of Lancaster. The king regarded the
country over which he ruled as his personal estate, to be
administered by his household servants, in whom he saw
his most trusted and useful advisers. To them he wished
to assimilate the ministers whose original comprehension within
the household system was already a mere matter of history.
The baronial standpoint stressed the difference between the two
classes of royal advisers, or comprehended both ahke in a wide
class of ministers of the nation. The king, they allowed, was the
ruler of the land ; but he could only rule after taking advice, the
natural councillors of a good king being the magnates of church
and state. " The most special thing," wrote Stratford to
Edward, " that which keeps kings and princes flourishing, is
wise counsel." Solomon, by following the counsel of the wisest
in the land, maintained his throne in peace and his vassals in
subjection. Rehoboam, his son, adhered to young and foolish
counsellors and lost most of his kingdom. Similarly sinister
counsel brought Edward of Carnarvon to ruin, and the evil
councillors of the reigning king's minority would have turned
from him the hearts of his people, had not the prudent advice of
the prelates and peers re-estabhshed his position and won him
victory over all his enemies. Now the king, like his ill-fated
father, was beginning to follow the example of Rehoboam, and
it was Stratford's duty to urge on him the summoning of a
parhament, that he might take the advice of the lords and wise
men of the land, without whose counsel and aid he could neither
conquer abroad nor live happily at home.^
^ Stratford's letter of Jan. 1, written in French, is in Avesbury, pp. 324-327,
and in Foedera, ii. 1143.
128 CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS ch. ix
Edward's answer was the indiscriminate invective of the
libellus famosus, a pamphlet in fact but in form a letter close,
drafted officially in the chancery, and scattered broadcast to
excite ill-will against the archbishop. ^ To this Stratford rephed
by urging the chancellor to revoke any letter issued out of
chancery against the terms of Magna Carta and contrary to the
Hberties of holy church. In another manifesto he set forth at
length the claims of the church to dominate the state, " There
are two powers," he declared, " by which the world is ruled, the
power of the priesthood and the power of the prince." Of these
the sacerdotal authority was by its very nature superior to that
of the state. High clerical claims were to be combined with
baronial pretensions. The fusion of the two oppositions, already
closely related, built up a sohd constitutional rock against which
the waves of court influence beat in vain.
The admirable steadfastness of Stratford resisted all attempts
to lure him away from his cathedral. For four months he tarried
with the monks of Christ Church, preaching pohtical sermons in
the cathedral, and walking as nearly as he could in the footsteps
of the martyred Thomas, The stalwarts of the court party,
Nicholas Cantelupe, Ralph Stafford the new steward, and finally
Kilsby himself, went down to Canterbury and sought to bully
him into compliance. But he would neither go over to Brabant
as a pledge for the king's debts, nor answer to any charges except
in fuU parhament and under safe conduct. At last Edward was
^ It was published widely, being sent out to seventeen bishops, nine secular
chapters, and to St. Augustine's and Christ Church, Canterbury. I have
examined one of the originals sent to the chapter of Exeter and still preserved in
the capitidar Hbrary ; MSS. Cap. Exon. No. 2227 ; compare Hist. MSS. Com.
Reports, Various Collections, iv. 75. It is enrolled as a letter close ; C.C.R.,
1341-43, pp. 102-103. The Exeter copy is sealed with white wax by the great
seal "en simple queue." Copies are variously dated, sometimes at Langley, Feb.
10, sometimes at Westminster, either Feb. 10 or 12. The dictum of Hengham
in 1290 still held good, " quia in cancellaria et aUbi in uno et eodem die unus
clericus ponit unam datam et aUus aham " ; State Trials of Edivard I. p. 35,
Place might have been added here to date. Stratford calls the royal corre-
spondence, " hbeUos famosos per aemulos et inimicos nostros amare dictates et
scriptos." Bishop Orleton was suspected of having composed it (Avesbmy,
p, 33), but he denied it (Birchington, p. 39). It is unhkely that an aged bishop,
whose pohtical course was run and who was becoming bhnd, would have
gratuitously taken up the duties of a chancery clerk. The responsibihty was,
of course, with king and chancellor. It can be read in print in Foedera, n. H47-
1148, Birchington, pp. 23-27, and Avesbury, pp. 330-335.
§ m CONTKOVERSY OF STRATFORD AND COURT 129
forced to yield, and summoned the three orders to Westminster for
Easter Monday, April 23.
While the controversy with Stratford was raging, the
courtiers ostentatiously carried out their programme of reform.
On December 10, 1340, sixteen separate commissions to hear and
determine any oppressions and extortions by justices or other
ministers of the king had been appointed, each having assigned
to it a shire or group of shires. ^ The most prominent members
of these commissions were the new ministers, the justices whom
the king had just appointed to office and the courtiers who had
been his chief helpers. But to each group one or more magnates
were assigned, ^ though to secure their acceptance of such a post
the king found it prudent to assure them that their consent to
act would in no wise derogate from their privileges as " peers
of the realm." ^ A single additional commission of Parving,
Sadington and Scott, the new chief justice coram rege, was
empowered a month later on January 13, 1341, to try Willoughby
and the other prisoners, clerks and laymen alike. ^ Moreover, a
general inquiry was ordered into the administration. Besides
this, the rolls of every office of state, not only those of the chancery
and treasury and the two benches, but those of the sheriffs,
escheators, forest officers, and taxers and collectors of extra-
ordinary aids, were to be scrutinised, and complaints against aU
^ C.P.R., 1340-43, pp. 106, 111-113. Cf. above, pp. 121-122.
^ The constitution of the commission for London, Middlesex and Surrey is
not quite typical. It consists of the chancellor, treasurer, privy seal, the chief
baron of the exchequer and William Scott, soon to be made Parving's successor
as chief justice coram rege. The northern commissions, on the other hand,
contain the smallest official element. Nicholas Cantelupe served in three
counties. Compare Murimuth, p. 118: " Et in quolibet comitatu ordinavit
unum magnum justiciarium, scihcet comitem vel magnum baronem, quibus
alios mediocres associavit."
* Foedera, ii. 1142. Each of the eleven magnates, who received this assur-
ance, served on one of the commissions. I cannot agree with Mr. Pike ( Year
Books of 14-15 Edward III. pp. xxiv.-xxv.) that the eleven were " a hst of the
leading men in England in whom the king had the greatest confidence," and
still less that Edward had " no confidence " in the officials he had just appointed.
The truth is almost the contrary, namely, that the eleven were the doubters,
who would not act, unless assured that their rights as " pares regni " were not
endangered by compliance.
* C.P.R., 1340-43, p. 111. Besides the special commissions appointed for
this purpose, old members of the local commissions took part in these trials.
Thus the steward Stafford, Darcy the chamberlain, and Thomas Wake were
among the judges of Willoughby ; French Chronicle of London, p. 87. Wake's
active intervention is confirmed by Year Books, 14-15 Edward III. p. 263.
VOL. Ill K
130 CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS ch. ix
such ministers solicited. ^ As a guarantee of return to normal
administration, Edward directed the exchequer to see that all
revenue should be brought with speed to the receipt at West-
minster, and that no payments therefrom should be made,
without the king's special order, unless by the treasurers and
chamberlains. The many who had received special assignments
on revenue at its source were put off with a vague declaration
of the royal intention to give them satisfaction. ^
It looked as if the whole of the machine of state was about to
be overhauled. At first the investigations proceeded briskly, the
commissioners showing great activity and punishing aU the
accused indifferently. ^ But the pace soon slackened, and the
upshot was very much hke what had happened in the trials of
the judges after Edward I.'s return from the continent in 1289.
The guilty officials found their best policy was to submit them-
selves to the king's will. Thus Willoughby, brow-beaten by
Parving, who accused him of selhng the laws as he would sell oxen
or cows,^ threw himself on the king's mercy, a course described
by one of his judges, as " the wisest plea that he had ever
pleaded." ^ Even then he was still led from shire to shire to
answer suits against him. Yet in a few months, he was suffered
to redeem his offences by a heavy fine, and restored with most of
his fellow judges to the bench.^ The chancery clerks seem never
to have been tried at all, doubtless because of Stratford's outcry
against the arraignment of clergy before lay tribunals. Later,
the Easter parliament's petition for the release of all the im-
prisoned clerks was substantially granted.' The lay offenders
had greater trouble in procuring their release, especially the
financiers, who had few friends. The Londoners' zeal for civic
^ French Chronicle of London, pp. 87, 88-89.
2 Foedera, ii. 1147 ; C.C.R., 1341-43, p. 14.
* Murimuth, p. 118, " qui justiciarii tarn rigide et voluntarie processerunt
quod nullus impunitus evasit, sive bene gesserit regis negotia sive male."
* " Vendi les leys com boefe ou vache " ; Year Books, 14-15 Edward III.
p. 259. * lb. p. 263.
« C.P.R., 1340-43, p. 229. Pardon May 29, 1341, to Willoughby for aU
trespasses and oppressions from the days of Edward II. onwards by fine of
1200 marks assigned to the earl of Derby.
' Rot. Pari. ii. 130 : " L'enteneion le roi n'est pas qe clerks soient pris
contre la lei ou en prejudice la privilege de seinte eglise." Miss Hughes, pp.
182-211, has put together the chief facts recorded as to the inquests and their
results.
§ m PARLIAMENT SUPPORTS STRATFORD 131
privilege compelled Edward to give up the sessions of the special
justices in the Tower, but the only result was that William Pole
and others stayed in captivity without trial. Pole did not
obtain his release until May 1342, and only secured indemnity in
1344.1 Already an abrupt stop had been put to the investigation
of the charges against the present ministry. The adoption by
the Easter parliament of 1341 of the programme of the opposition
showed the king that it was useless to expect any definite results
from the inquiries of the commissioners, who quietly gave up
their task.
Edward was still full of fight when the Easter parUament
met on April 23, 1341. The best evidence of this is the vigorous
efforts made by the two household officers, Stafford and Darcy,^
to prevent the two Stratfords and Northburgh taking their
seats. When the archbishop, armed with a safe conduct,^ wished
to enter the parHament house, the courtiers forbade him ad-
mission. But the archbishop showed tact as well as boldness,
though it needed a week of patience to secure the recognition
of their rights.* A chronicler's story puts in dramatic, perhaps
too dramatic, form the last stage in the process. ^ The second
week of the session had begun. A " full parhament " was
assembled, with the king on his throne, presiding over the general
gathering, but Stratford was still kept out of his seat. A repre-
sentative of the ancient houses, earl Warenne, had marked with
disgust the absence of the three bishops and the presence of
such men as Parving, Stafford, Kilsby, Darcy and others " not
worthy to sit in parhament." He indignantly expostulated
with the king. " Sir king," he cried, " how goes this parha-
ment ? Parhaments were not wont to be like this. For here
those who should be foremost are shut out, while there sit other
men of low rank ® who have no business to be here. Such right
belongs only to the peers of the land. Sir king, think of this."
" Then John Darcy quietly got up and went out, and was followed
1 lb. ii. 154.
^ It was " par abettement sire William de Killesby " ; French Chronicle,
p. 90.
* This, dated Jan. 26, is printed in Foedera, ii. 1146.
* Birchington, pp. 38-41.
* French Chronicle, p. 90.
* " Gentz de mester," almost equivalent to " servientes."
132 CONSTITUTIONAL CEISIS ch. ix
by Ejlsby and the rest without a word," ^ In this silent abdica-
tion of their seats, the servants of the household abandoned the
struggle. Other magnates associated themselves with Warenne's
request, and the earl of Arundel demanded from the king
the immediate admission of the archbishop. Edward could no
longer resist, and granted what was asked. The Stratfords and
Northburgh took their places, and a committee of magnates
reported that the " peers of the land should not be arrested
or brought to judgment save in full parhament and before their
peers." ^ But the king stiU evaded the archbishop's vociferous
demand to be tried by his peers, by the simple process of bring-
ing no specific allegations against him. In these circumstances,
it was useless to carry on the feud any longer. Accordingly,
the king once more came to the full parhament in the painted
chamber. " And the said archbishop humbled himself before
the lord king and besought his favour, and the king re-
ceived him back into his goodwill." ^ Thus ended the personal
quarrel of the king and the archbishop. The result was largely
in Stratford's favour, and he resumed his old place in the king's
counsels, though doubtless with diminished authority.
The petitions of commons and magnates showed full con-
sciousness of triumph. It is significant that they involved a
return to the poUcy of the lords ordainers, and even expressed
themselves in language which closely followed the phrasing of
the ordinances of 1311. The claims included a demand that the
chief ministers should be sworn, on appointment, to uphold the
law and respect the great charter, that auditors of the accounts
of all extraordinary war taxation should be appointed, and that
the chief ministers should be appointed by the advice of the
prelates, earls and barons in parhament.^ Along with these
^ " Et meintenaunt coyement sire Johan Darcy se leva, et s'en alia hors, et
puisse apres sire William de Killesby et touz les autres susnomez saunz nul mot
parler " ; ib. p. 90. It is amusing to see how the modern doctrine of the peer-
age lawyers has reversed Warenne's argument. In 1903 the House of Lords
determined that Darcy's presence in a later parhament as chamberlain and
councillor " proved that he sat in parhament in right of the barony of Darcy,"
that is, that he was there on an equahty with those " peres de la terre " who in
his hfetime had disowned him ; The Complete Peerage, ed. Vicary Gibbs, iv. 57.
But Warenne spoke as a partisan. The novelty in his attitude was his objection
to the ministers holding seats in parhament ex officio. The practice, however,
continued.
2 Rot. Pari. ii. 127. ^ Ibid. * See below, p. 133, n. 4.
§ m SURRENDER OF THE KING 133
demands of the laity, the clergy, again under Stratford's leader-
ship, insisted that the king's ministers should no longer imperil
their souls and break the law by imprisoning clerks without
regard to the privileges of holy church.
Edward was not prepared to admit such extensive claims,
and returned ambiguous answers which parhament refused to
accept. In consequence the session was prolonged until the
eve of Whitsuntide, by which date the king ended the discussions
by a partial concession. He allowed the ministers to take the
required oaths to obey the law, and some of them at once pledged
themselves on the cross of Canterbury. He agreed to such minor
requests as the repeal of the ordinances of Northampton, which
had been abused by employing procedure, devised to lay hold
of malefactors, to " attach " any persons against whom the
government had any ill will. He also permitted the commissions
of inquiry as to ministers' acts to be revised and corrected to
prevent them being misused, and granted an audit of the war
taxes, provided that the treasurer and the chief baron of the
exchequer were added to the nominees of the lords. ^
Edward was recalcitrant on two items only. He would not
accept the nomination of ministers in set phrase, ^ but he agreed
that, on the death and resignation of certain specified officers,
he would appoint fitting successors with the advice of the
magnates and councillors near at hand. They should be sworn,
as determined in the next parhament, and in each parhament
these offices should be taken into the king's hands and the
officers called upon to answer all complaints.^ If convicted by
judgment of the peers, they were to be removed and punished
in accordance with their offences.* To the chief clerical petition
^ Stubbs, C.H. ii. 409, speaks as if a general audit of accounts had been
demanded and conceded. But the whole question was hmited to the wool
grant and other special taxes which had been definitely ear-marked for the
expenses of the war.
^ Rot. Pari. ii. 132. They were to be appointed by the king " par acorde
des grantz qi serront trove plus pres en pays, lesqueux il prendra devers lui et
par le bon conseil q'il avera entour lui," and were to be " covenable."
* lb. ii. 132-133. The justices of the two benches, the justices assigned on
various local commissions, and the barons of the exchequer were not to join in
this surrender of their offices to the king at each parliament, though they were
equally bound to answer complaints.
* lb. ii. 132. Here also Stubbs overstresses Edward's concession. The
words of the statute should be read along with Murimuth, pp. 119-120,
134 CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS ch. ix
Edward returned a non-committal answer, disclaiming any
intention of violating ecclesiastical immunities, and affirming
that, if any clerks had been imprisoned, it was with just cause.
" And if any one has any complaint, the king is ready to do his
duty." 1
The analogy between the policy of the triumphant opposition
in 1341 with that of the ordainers in 1311 has already been
emphasised. Though the parliament of 1341 represented the
commons as well as the prelates and barons, it wished for the
same things as the purely baronial assemblies of thirty years
earlier. This is natural enough, since the leadership was still
in the hands of the prelates and barons, though the endorsement
of their policy by the commons immensely increased the moral
force and the material resources of the magnates. There was
nothing in 1311 analogous to the grant of 30,000 sacks of wool
for the conduct of the French war with which the disappointed
king was now consoled. In return for abandoning the doubtful
advantage of ruling through his household, the king saw an
opportunity of renewing his quest of the French crown, which
who well summarises the situation. " Sed finaliter rex concessit majorem
partem dictarum petitionum, sed de praefectione et electione officiariorum
non concessit." The " statutum " is printed in the roll of parhament. The
comparison between the petition, the king's answer and the statute yields
interesting differences of detail. The petition was that chancellor, treasurer,
barons and chancellor of the exchequer, justices of both benches, and all other
justices, steward and chamberlain of the household, keeper of the privy seal
and treasurer of the wardrobe should be sworn, and that chancellor, chief
justices of both benches, treasurer chancellor and chief baron of the exchequer,
steward of the household, keeper and controller of the wardrobe, " un clerk
convenable pur garder son prive seal," and the chief clerk of the common bench
should be appointed by the advice of the prelates, earls and barons in parha-
ment, and sworn as above before the peers (Mot. Pari. ii. 128). The king's
answer (ib. p. 131) accepts the last without specifying the offices, but the statute
(ib. p. 132) gives a diiierent hst, viz. chancellor, treasurer, barons and chancellor
of the exchequer, justices of the two benches, " justices assignez en pais,"
steward and chamberlain of the household, keeper of the privy seal, treasurer
and controller of the wardrobe," et ceux qi sont chiefs deputez a demurer pres
du filz le roi, duk de Cornewaille." The petition for the baronial appointment
of ministers is remarkably close in its wording to the corresponding ordinance of
1311, even in such an omission as that of chamberlain and in the description of
the keeper of the privy seal as " un clerk covenable pur garder son prive seal."
Perhaps bishop Northburgh, the first keeper in 1312, and the only survivor of
that period stiU in active pohtics, may have had something to do with these
resemblances. Above ii. 286-289. See also above ii. 231, 285 and 320.
1 Rot. Pari. ii. 130.
§ m THE UNITY OF THE ADMINISTRATION 135
experience had proved to be impossible as long as be was in
conflict with the magnates backed up by the commons. As in
1311, the parliament had emphasised the unity of the admin-
istration. Household ministers and great officers of the crown
were alike, not only because all were equally servants of the
king, but because they were also, as ministers of the nation,
responsible for their acts to the baronage by whose advice they
were chosen, and consequently liable, if they did amiss, to be
judged by the peers of the realm, and that in full parliament.
It seemed as if the triumph of the estates were complete, and
that the baronial theory of government had met with general
acceptance.
Events soon showed that this was far from being so. If there
were unity of administration from the parliament's point of
view, there was an equal singleness of purpose among the ser-
vants of the crown, looked at from the standpoint of the king
and the court. This unity was at the moment not a unity of
theory merely. The changes in the administration brought about
by Kilsby's coup d'etat still remained, and the chancery and
treasury, like the privy seal, the wardrobe and the chamber,
were in the hands of the king's friends, pledged by interests and
traditions to an anti-baronial, anti-clerical policy. These men
were not likely to let power slip from their hands without a
supreme effort. When, at the moment of the dissolution, the
ministers were called upon to take the prescribed oath to obey
the laws and the charters, some of the most prominent, including
Stafford and Darcy as well as the chief non-household officers,
abstained from the unwelcome obligation.^ Among these we may
be sure was Kilsby, and even those who had taken the oath had
no intention of abiding by it. It was recorded on the parliament
roll that " the said chancellor, treasurer and justices made their
protest that they did not assent to the form of the said statutes,
and that they could not observe them in the case that the said
statutes were found contrary to the laws and usages of the realm
which they had already sworn to observe." ^ The king himself
^ The ministers who swore on the cross of Canterbury included the chan-
cellor, treasurer, some of the justices of the benches, the steward and chamber-
lain, and some others ; Eot. Pari. ii. 131.
" lb. ii. 131.
136 CONSTITUTIONAL CEISIS ch. ix
registered a similar protest. For the moment, however, these
declarations were kept secret.
Parliament broke up on May 26, the eve of Pentecost, and
great pains were taken to give publicity to its statutes. Yet
in recognising the importance of what this parliament did, it
would be an error to consider its legislation as its most valuable
or enduring work. Its significance lies rather in the virtual im-
position on the crown of the whole Lancastrian constitutional
programme, and notably the Lancastrian doctrine of peerage.
Though Edward was astute enough to avoid formal decisions
on the questions both of trial by peers and of the nature of
peerage, the virtual triumph of Stratford and his associates in-
volved little less than a pronouncement in their favour. What
had been a party programme for more than twenty years was
now accepted as a constitutional principle, and the baronial con-
ception of peerage became in the course of the next generation
the recognised theory of the English state. The idea at the root
of the baronial theory of peerage was closely connected with the
baronial doctrine that the magnates were the natural councillors
of the king. As such, it was antagonistic to the royalist view
that the king could summon whomsoever he pleased to his
councils.
Over a hundred years earlier, the curialist Peter des Roches
had laid down the doctrine that there were no " peers " in
England as in France.^ Constitutional historians, who have read
into the thirteenth century the doctrine of a later age, have
characterised this statement as a blunder. 2 At least it was the
doctrine not only of Henry III. but of Edward I., who, so far from
creating, as has been imagined, a closed " house of lords " of
hereditary peers, made the smallest concession he dared to the
principle of heredity. He freely summoned to his parliament
not only his ministers of all degrees, but such men of estate
whom he chose, without imagining in the slightest that he was
^ M. Paris, H.M. iii. 252.
^ Stubbs, CH. ii. 191, calls Peter's assertion an " ignorant blunder," though
he at once goes on to statements which tend to disprove his dictum. But
Stubbs implicitly taught that Edward I. was the creator of the house of lords,
led to this view by the unconscious influence of the " legal opinion " which he
disliked, whose ultimate outcome is the monstrous and unhistorical theory of
the modern peerage lawyers.
§ m BARONIAL DOCTRINE OF PEERAGE 137
giving their descendants a right to a similar privilege. The
doctrine of a closed and limited " peerage " was a baronial, not
a royalist creed. The very phrase " peers of the realm " first
cropped up in the manifestos of the baronial opposition to
Edward II. It was revived again when barons combined with
courtiers to overthrow the rule of Mortimer, and its first appear-
ance in records was in those of the parliament of October 1330,
when Mortimer was judged by his " peers." They only con-
descended to pass sentence upon Simon of Bereford and other
non-baronial traitors because their cases were brought before
them, and not because these culprits had any right to such a
trial. Nine years later, in 1340, the phrase received royal sanction
when Edward III. in appointing his brother-in-law, William of
Jiilich, earl of Cambridge, also appointed him a " peer of the
realm." ^ Finally, the same doctrine of peerage permeated the
whole of the proceedings of the parliament of Easter 1341, as
well as the Stratfordian constitutional literature which had pre-
pared public opinion in advance.
What did " peers " mean to the king in 1340 and to the
magnates of 1330 and 1341 ? It was a term closely associated
with judicial work, for the " peers of the land " are constantly
described as " judges of parliament." Yet it was not used, as
some have imagined, in a purely judicial sense, and had assuredly
next to nothing to do with the judicium parium of Magna Carta.
To me it seems clear that " peers of the land " were simply
synonymous with the magnates who were habitually summoned
to parliament. Inevitably the expression covered prelates, earls
and barons. If other " peers " were added to them, their in-
clusion does not refer to a particular type of " ennobled blood,"
or even to a vague and extensive non-represented aristocracy,
but to the ministers, judges and other official members of parlia-
ment, or to the persons of baronial status, who had not happened
to be present in the first instance or to have been summoned to
that particular assembly. Accordingly Stratford claimed " trial
by peers." not because he " held by barony " but because he
^ Foedera, ii. 1124 (May 12, 1340), " ipsum in comitem et parem regni nostri
rite creaverimus, nomen comitis Cantebrigiae sibi, et haeredibus suis, ex eo
legitime descendentibus, pro titulo perpetuo concedentes." The stress is on the
hereditary character of the title, but it also involves, I think, the hereditary
idea of peerage.
138 CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS ch. ix
was the greatest " magnate of the land." Nevertheless the
tendency of the phrase was to limit the political " peerage " to
a definite and restricted class, the class of " greater barons,"
the magnates of church and state, who had a hereditary claim
to give the king counsel, and therefore a moral right to a parlia-
mentary summons. Before long, though not yet in 1341, it was
definitely to exclude ministers as such, just as the parliament of
1330 had already excluded officials like Simon Bereford.^ This
doctrine of peerage was in short what made most powerfully for
that " hereditary house of lords " which was almost in being by
the end of the fourteenth century, though not quite formally
established until the days of the Tudors. In imposing the doc-
trine of peerage on the constitution, the parliament of 1341 made
its most prominent mark on history. A strictly hereditary peer-
age was in baronial eyes the best safeguard against the household
system, and the rule of the upstart courtier.^ It was a further
^ Bereford was a knight and escheator south of Trent, but had never been
summoned to parhament.
^ In his brilliant and provocative chapter on " the fiction of the peerage "
{Evolution of Parliament, pp. 81-106), Prof. Pollard has usefully collected early
instances of the occurrence of the phrase " peer of the land," and has done good
service by dissipating some widespread delusions. Unluckily his overstressing
of the " judicial " aspect of parhament has thrown some of his facts out of focus,
and has led him to interpret his quotations with imperfect regard to their
context. It is, in my judgment, a pure illusion to speak of peers numbered by
thousands, and " including the lesser as well as the greater barons " (p. 87).
Nor can I accept the doctrine that " thousands " of tenants-in-chief were
presumed to have been at the Sahsbury gemot of 1086 (p. 88), or the wanton
suggestion that " barons " could not be " knighted," according to " feudal
principle." The treaty of Leake (p. 93) did not " provide for the attendance at
council " of certain " representatives of Lancaster," but instituted a short-hved
new " standing council," of which Lancaster's representative was only one out
of five. When the treaty of Leake speaks of " agard des pieres," this has
nothing to do with " judgment by peers." It is a simple reference to parha-
ment of things outside the purview of the standing council. On p. 95 the
reference to Rot. Pari. ii. 107 is misunderstood. The offer of a tenth sheaf, etc.,
of their demesne lands in Jan. 1340, made by " les countes et barouns esteanz en
dit parlement " was " pur eux et pur lour piers de la terre qi tiegnent par
baronie," that is, it was an offer by the earls and barons, present in parhament,
not for themselves only, but also for the earls and barons who did not happen to
be there. It does not prove that " others were peers as well as earls and barons."
I hold, therefore, that " peer " is " officially " (or I should rather say " loosely ")
used as a " normal description of those who received a special writ of summons."
It is to be regretted that none of these slips have been corrected in the second
edition of this remarkably able book. In the rolls of parliament " peers "
generally mean " prelates, earls and barons." This is what the term " peer "
means in the accurate and well-informed Murimuth. The term was used
officially as early as 1341. See Year Book 15 Edw. III. p. 389, " Nota qe jour
§ III ITS ACCEPTANCE BY PARLIAMENT 139
extension of the doctrine when the bishops, whose rights as peers
were so emphatically stressed by Stratford, were later denied
the status of peers by a strictly hereditary aristocracy.
Edward III. was, as ever, an opportunist, and his progress
from one definite point to another had Httle regard for general
principles of poUcy. As soon as the unwelcome parliament
was got rid of, he began to look around for pretexts to repudiate
his concessions. An excuse had already come, while parliament
was still in session, to divert attention from home to foreign
poHtics. This was the death of the duke of Brittany and the
resultant disputed succession to that duchy. This gave Edward
de grace fust done contra le counte de Gareine, . . . no7i obstante qil est pere de
la terre." No doubt canonical restrictions limited the part of the prelates in
judgments, but this did not destroy their rights as peers. A further and rather
disturbing light on the doctrine of peers is thrown by Modus Tenendi Parlia-
mentum, but not one that is favourable to Mr. Pollard's doctrine. In this
interesting treatise, " pares parhamenti " or " pares regni " means little more
than " members of parUament." There are six " gradus parium parliamenti,"
or as we should say estates ; Select Charters, p. 508. Every member of each
order is the peer of his comrades of that rank, though all are peers of parHament.
AU " pares parhamenti " are normally to be seated, but they must stand to speak,
so as to be heard by the " pares, quia omnes pares sunt judices et justiciarii "
(p. 512). There is no suggestion of limiting the judicial function to the mag-
nates. All through, the rights of the " communitates " are emphasised. Though
in granting aids it is necessary " quod omnes pares parhamenti consentient,"
yet money grants are the special business of the three lower " grades," namely
the proctors of the lower clergy, the knights and the burgesses. No one can
withdraw from parhament, " nisi optenta inde hcentia de rege et omnibus paribus
suis," that is the members of his own grade. Each order has its separate place
in the parhament house; " nuUus sedeat nisi inter suos pares" (p. 611).
Prelates are a separate order from " comites et barones et suos pares." All
" peers " of earls and barons have a right to a summons, and that on the ground
of tenure of fees, worth £400 a year for an earl, and 400 marks for a baron.
" Et nulU minores laici summoneri nee venire debent ad parHamentum " (p.
503). Ministers, justices, officials and clerks are " de parliamento " but not
really of it, sitting apart from the six orders (p. 511). This treatise was certainly
not written in its present form under Edward II., and I doubt whether Prof.
Pollard is justified in pushing back the " original draft " to " the latter half of
Edward II.'s reign " (Evolution of Pari. 2nd ed. p. 433), but it may well be an
idealisation of parHament any time after 1341. The stress laid on " peerage "
and on the closed character of the baronial " gradus," shows that the Lancastrian
point of view is mainly represented, though with greater bias towards the
commons than one would expect at this stage. For the date see Bemont,
" La Date du Modus Tenendi ParHamentum " in Melanges Julien Havet, pp.
465-480 (1895), and D. K. Hodnett and W. P. White, " The Manuscripts of the
Modus Tenendi ParHamentum," in E.H.R. xxxiv. 209-224 (1919). From
internal evidence I rather incHne to the view that it was drawn up, not before
1340, but probably not very long afterwards.
140 CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS oh. ix
a chance, as the partisan of the claims of John de Montfort,
to revive the war in France without ostensibly violating the stiU
abiding truce. It looks as if he availed himself of this to secure
the goodwill of the more miUtant section of the baronage, always
more anxious to fight abroad than to carry on political warfare
at home. In any case, he seized the opportunity. On October
1, 1341, he sent letters close to aU the sheriffs, declaring that,
after taking council with earls, barons and other skilled council-
lors, he had resolved to revoke the " pretended statutes " of
the late parUament. He had never agreed to their terms ; he
had only consented to them because, had he not done so,
parliament would have broken up in disorder and left him
without supplies. " We have, therefore," he declared, " dis-
simulated as was ovir duty, and allowed the pretended statute
to be sealed." He now annulled it " because it seemed to the
aforesaid earls, barons, and men learned in the law that it was
nuU, because it did not proceed from our spontaneous goodwill,
and was contrary to Enghsh law and the king's prerogative.
Nevertheless, aU that part of the statute which was consonant
with English law must still be observed." ^
There was little murmuring against this outrageous breach
of faith, and the statutes of 1341 went unlamented the way of
the 1311 ordinances. When, after a two years' interval, parha-
ment was once more assembled in 1343, it accepted meekly the
violent act of the crown and repealed the offending statutes.
Again the stoHd conservatism of fourteenth century England
had frustrated in turn both the attempts of the king to ride
roughshod over the traditions of the constitution, and the efforts
of the magnates to set up a premature Whig ohgarchy to which
the king was to stand in the position of a doge. The two great
political elements of the Enghsh nation, the monarchy and the
baronage, remained much as they had been before. Neither
undiluted household administration, nor frank and full baronial
constitutionahsm of an ohgarchic sort, were found in practice
to be possible. The two antagonistic elements went on, for
two more generations, side by side. They lived happily enough
together, so long as a common national enemy and common
^ Foedera, ii. 1177. The letters close were warranted "per ipsum regem et
concilium."
§ m EDWARD REPUDIATES HIS CONCESSIONS 141
social and economic aims kept up a rough good feeling between
them.
Yet the result of the years of struggle was not altogether
neghgible. The strain and stress of purposeless discord taught
king and nobles ahke not to insist upon their respective claims
too far, but to come to some sort of mutual understanding.
Military success abroad gave a further justification to a policy
of hve and let live at home. The lesson of the years of conflict
between 1338 and 1341 is writ large in the poUtical history of
the next generation. After a period of constant revolutionary
experiment, there followed many years of general tranquiUity.
Edward had his reward in the increasing support which his
subjects gave to his foreign ambitions ; the fighting classes
found careers of glory and plunder beyond sea, and the trading
classes grew prosperous on the profits of exploiting a national
effort. The sharpness of contrast between antagonistic parties
was gradually cut away. The household officers became more
conservative and prudent ; the ministers of state took up an
attitude hardly to be distinguished from that of the men of the
household. The actual triumph was with the barons, and it
is fairly evident that Edward thoroughly learnt the lesson of
his failure. It was clear to him that, if he wanted to fight
the French, he must keep both the warrior and the wealth-
producing classes on his side. For the future he was always
wilKng, at a pinch, to purchase supplies by concessions.
Thus barons and commons stepped into their own. Two
parallel ministries passed out of mind, and there was achieved
some sort of unity of administration under a national king,
such as England had not seen since the days of Edward I. In
such an atmosphere the household system gradually adapted
itself to changed conditions. Accordingly, the historian of
administration, who has been bound to follow meticulously the
poHtical history of the first twelve years of the reign, can now
proceed at a more rapid pace through the comparative admini-
strative monotony of the years to come. For him, as for the
contemporary chronicler, battles and diplomacy loom largest
on the scene ; and with these he has very Httle concern, the
more so as the war experience of past years had already suggested
the general methods of organising and financing new campaigns.
142 CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS oh. ix
Even the deeper movements of the next generation make but
a partial appeal to him. The commercial problem, notably the
question of the staple, required some administrative readjust-
ments ; but these were mainly on conservative Unes. The
social and economic problem, so pressing after the Black Death,
needed more drastic treatment. Closely associated with it was
the problem of internal peace, but already the way of salvation
had been found in the local royal officers of justice who were soon
to be called justices of the peace.^ Good work was done along
all these Unes, but the main feature of the time was the absence
of strife at home, following on the suspension of the diarchy
which had disputed the governance of England in the days of
the warfare between Kilsby and Stratford.
1 See for the early use of this phrase. Prof. B. H. Putnam, Early Treatises on
the Practice of the Justices of the Peace, pp. 191-193 (Oxford Studies in Social and
Legal History, vii.).
App THE WALTON ORDINANCES 143
APPENDIX TO SECTION III
THE WALTON ORDINANCES
Issued July 12, 1338
Two contemporary texts of these ordinances are extant. One is the
roll sent to chancery on July 12, preserved among the Chancery
Warrants {C.W. File 248, No. 11238 B), together with the covering
letter under the privy seal directed to the chancellor {C.W. File
248, No. 11238 A). The other is the enrolment of the ordinances
in a memorandum on the dorse of the Close Roll for 12 Edward IIL,
Part II. (C.R. 161, m. 19d : C.C.R., 1337-39, p. 525), with which
were also enrolled the privy seal letter received by the chancellor,
memoranda indicating where the writ and roll were filed and that
the ordinances were later sent to the exchequer, and the writ which
accompanied the ordinances to the exchequer in September 1338.
This last writ is also enrolled in Memoranda Roll, K.R. 115 (breu.
dir. bar., Mich. t. m. 3d.). There the date of the writ is September 7,
though in the Close Roll it is September 6. The ordinances had
been sent to the chancery under the privy seal, and the chancery
sent them to the exchequer " sub pede sigilh." For the significance
of the phrase, generally translated as " under the half seal," see
Maxwell Lyte's Great Seal, pp. 304-309. The Close Roll copy of the
ordinances, and the related writs and memoranda enrolled with it,
are printed in Foedera, ii. 1049-1050, and therefore have been avail-
able for historians for some two hundred years ! Yet the only writer
who has devoted attention to them is Miss Dorothy Hughes, in her
London M.A. thesis, A study of social and constitutional tendencies
in the early years of Edward III. (1915), pp. 45-72. Miss Hughes
unfortunately has been misled into regarding these ordinances as
promulgated " for the guidance of the exchequer " (pp. 46, 48),
presumably by the careless wording of the descriptive phrase in the
Calendar of Close Rolls, " certain ordinances for the regulation of
the exchequer " {C.C.R., 1337-39, p. 525), for which there is no
authority either in the Close Roll or in the actual roll of the ordi-
nances. That error, and one or two other misconceptions, such as
that " treasurer of the household " and " treasurer of the wardrobe "
144 THE WALTON ORDINANCES ch. ix
were different personages (pp. 50-51), and that fifteenth, and sixteenth
century developments were in operation in the fourteenth century-
exchequer (p. 52), detract somewhat from the value of Miss Hughes'
otherwise able and interesting piece of work. Stubbs, as Miss Hughes
points out, refers to the Walton ordinances only in a footnote, where
he misunderstands their scope, regarding them as a concession from
the king in return for the parliamentary grant of wool made earlier
in the year {C.H. ii. 399, n. 3). The roll sent to the chancery has
no heading, but it is divided into ten paragraphs, each with a marginal
title, which is useful in an attempt to understand the content and
import of the ordinances. These titles are omitted from the Close
Roll enrolment, and the general heading De ordinacionibus subscriptis
obseruandis substituted. The orthographical differences between the
ordinance roll and the Close Roll enrolment of it are in themselves
unimportant, but they illustrate the fact that an enrolment need
not be — and probably rarely was — an absolutely faithful copy of the
original; and that spelling was a matter of indifierence. Hence I
have thought it worth while to print here the roll of the ordinances,
indicating in footnotes the variant spellings of the Close Roll enrol-
ment. The paragraphing of the roll has been retained, though for
convenience of printing and reference, the left hand marginal titles
have been numbered and put at the head of each paragraph in
small capitals. Punctuation and capitals have been slightly
modernised. The meaning of some portions is quite dark to me,
notably a large part of section 7. Yet the enrolling clerk seems to
have copied the apparently meaningless sentences sent into chancery
from the privy seal office. It did not seem necessary to print the
original letter of privy seal, as the Close Roll enrolment of it,
printed in Foedera, deviates from it only in one or two trivial
details of spelling. It may perhaps be permitted to point out that
pemblete of the Foedera ought to be peniblete. The letter also
contains a reference to the wool grant which had been made some
time before. For similar reasons the writ sent with the ordinances
to the exchequer has not been printed here.
Chancery Warrants, File 248, No. 11238 B.^
1. La forme de faire garantz.^
Desore nulles dettes, auxibien de temps passe come de temps
auenir, obligacions, assignementz, paiementz, douns, ou regardz
quecumqes ne soient faitz, assignez ^ ne paiez en nulle manere, si
noun * primes par suffisantz ^ garantz du priue seal faitz par assent
^ The roll, consisting of two membranes, measures 6 ^"-7" wide x 47" long.
^ The headings are written in the left hand margin of the roll.
' assignes. * sonoun. ^ sufBsauntz.
App. THE WALTON ORDINANCES 145
du roi, et de vn homme sage sufl&sant, par li a ceo ^ assigne, si ceo ne
soit les fiedz qi sont touz iours en certein, issint toute ^ foitz qe
mesmes ^ les garantz facent expresse mencion de la cause pur quel
celles dettes, obligacions, assignementz, paiementz, douns, ou regardz
sont faitz. Et qe mesmes * les garantz en nulle manere ne facent
pas mencion desore qe le roi eit rien pris vers lui mesmes pur ses
secres busoignes, ou qe tiel ou tielx eient paietz certeines sommes
pur secres busoignes, auxibien par dela, come par decea, des queles
sommes il voet qe nul ne soit charge. Et tons ^ les garantz auantditz
soient enroulles par vn certein clerk a ce assigne et jure ® en breues
paroles,' cest assauoir tiel iour, lieu et an, est issu vn tiel garant,
pur tiele busoigne, purportant tiele somme. Et soient les auantditz
garantz contreroullez par lauisement de vn hom ^, sage suffisant et
conisant, qi le roi voudra a ceo ^ assigner, par vn certein clerk de la
chambre nostre dit seignur a ceo ^® assigne et lure, dont celuy qi
serra issint assigne par le roi, come desus est dit, eit les contresommes.
Et au bout de chescun an, les chamberleins del escheqier, en presence
du tresorier ^^, acomp'eront ^^ deuant vn euesqe,^^ vn baneret et vn
clerk, sages et conisantz, deuant queux celui qe le roi auera issint
assigne, come desus est dit, oue le clerk qe ^^ porte ^^ le priue seal,
et le clerk de la chambre ^^ le roi qi auera contreroullez ^' les dit ^^
garantz, ferront venir vn ^^ contrerouUe souz lour seals demeisne, et
souz le priue seal, des auantditz garantz, par tesmoignance de quel
roulle ^" et lacordance des garantz auantditz, les ditz chaumberleins ^^
prendront allouance et autrement nient. Et en cas qe le roi face nul
voiage ou alee ^^ nulle ^^ part deinz son roialme ou dehors et ameyne
oue lui ^* son priue seal, et en ^^ le men temps il busoigne de
tenir vn conseil, ou deux ou plus ou meyns, en diuerses places, et les
busoignes tretees en mesmes les conselx demandent paiement ou
execucions de diuerses busoignes le roi, ou autres choses necessaries
demandantz garantz, adonqes celi ^^ ou ceux, qi ^'^ serra ou serront
gouernours et chiefs des ditz conseilx, ferra ou ferront billes souz
lour sealx propre en noun de roi en lieu de garantz a ceux as queux
il appartient dauer garantz, ^^ issint totefoitz ^^ qe les busoignes le
roi par cause dabsence de li et de son priue seal ne soient defaitz,
et qe les dites billes facent expresse mencion en la fourme susescrite.^^
^ ce. ^ tote. ' meismes.
* meismes. * toutz. * iure.
' paroules. ^ homme. ^ ce.
^^ ce. ^^ tresorer. ^^ acompterent.
" euesqz. " q'. ^^ port.
^* chaumbre. " contreroules. ^* ditz.
^* vne. ^° roule. ^^ chaumberleines,
" ale. 23 jjyi_ 24 iyy_
Omitted from C.i?. ^e ^eluy. " q>
aara.nt- ^^ tnntftfnitz. '" an
2® garant. "^ toutefoitz. '" susescriptz.
VOL. in
146 THE WALTON ORDINANCES ch. ix
Et les ditz chiefs gouernours des auantditz conselx a lor primere
venue au roi apporteront a li ■*• transescritz ^ des dites billes qil
aueront issint fait en absence du roi, queux transescriptz serront
veu et diligeaument examine et puis monstre au roi par celi qi le
roi auera assigne come desus est dit, et par le clerk du priue seal et
du clerk de la chambre ^ le roi a ce assigne, et puis soient enroullez *
et contreroullez ^ come desus est dit, et sur ceo soit faite ^ lettre du
priue seal a ceux qi '^ aueront receu les dites billes en lieu ^ des
garantz, reherceant mesmes les billes, quelles par les dites lettres du
priue seal soient duement allouez.^ Et les ditz acomptes ^° issint oi,
soit le roi et son conseil auise en la plus breue manere come homme
poet, comebien les issues de sa terre, come de profitz de cbescune
place, custumes, gardes, mariages, forfaitures, aides come de x^^ ^^
et xv^^ ^^ et autres tieux aides et profitz semblables li aueront rendu.
Et sur ceo soit monstre ^^ au roi et son consail lestat de sa tresorie
distinctement par leuesqz, baneret et clerk susditz en la plus breue
manere come horn ^* poet.
2. COMENT VISCONTES ET AUTRES FOREINS MINISTRES ACOMPTABLES
SERRONT FAITZ.
Item qe desore touz les viscountes ^^ de cbescun counte ^^ soient
eslieuz ^"^ de an en an par les bones gentz des contez ^^ tieux pur queux
mesme les gentz des ^^ contez ^^ voudront respondre a lour peril
auxibien au roi come as parties. Et les nouns de ceux soient presenter
au chaunceller par les bones gentz susditz. ^^ Et sur ceo soient lour
commissions faitz.^^ Et qils ne soient mye ^^ remuez ^^ tancqe ^^ vn
an acompli, et Ian fini, aillent a lour acompte. Et touz les autres
grantz ministres des contes,^^ et auxint les coustumers de chescune
ville la ou port ou custume sont, soient eslieutz par les bones gentz
des villes, pur queux les villes voudront respoundre. Et les contre-
roullours ^' auxibien des mines la ou ils sont, come des custumes
soient eslieutz ^^ en plein contee,^^ des plus loiaux et plus suffisantz ^^
^ lui.
^ transescriptz.
^ chaumbre.
* enroulles.
^ countreroullez.
« fait.
'q'.
8 lu.
* alloues.
" acomptz.
" dismes.
^* quinzismes.
^^ mustre.
^* homme.
•^^ viscountz.
^^ ccuntee.
^" eslieus.
^^ countes.
" de.
^^ countees.
^^ susdites.
^^ faites.
^^ mie.
^* remues.
25 tantq'.
^^ countz. The readings are clearly " ministres des contes," and " ministres
des countz," yet these " ministers of the shires " are, according to the texts,
to be elected, like the customers of each town, by the towns. This is ridicu-
lous, for counties elected county officers, and boroughs, borough officers,
and 60 on. It looks as if some words had been omitted.
2' countreroullouTs. "^ eslutz. ^^ counte. ^^ suffisauntz.
App. THE WALTON ORDINANCES 147
du conte ^ a ce ^ faire bien feffes de laite a respondre ^ au roi, et
soient les nouns presentez * au chanceller ^ par les dites bones gentz,
et sur ce ^ lour soit fait commission, issint en nulle manere qe nul
contreroullour '^ soit a terme de vie. Et si nul soit, soit repelle.
Et qe en mesme la manere soient les taxours eslieuz ^ des meillours
plus loiaux ^ et plus suffisantz ^° des countez.^^
3. Repel de coustumes.
Item qe totes les lettres faitz as diuers gentz qi qils soient destre
quites des custumes, taillages, x^^, xv®^, et autres contribucions,
soient generalment repel! ez.
4. Des estallementz des dettes et des billes de la garderobe.
Item qe nul estallement soit fait a nul qi soit de grant dette ou
petite en nulle manere, tancqe ^^ le roi soit hors de dette ne ^^ nul
respit fait ^^ de dette du et encore ne dacompte puis le temps le roi
qore est. Et si nul estallement ou respit soit fait du dit temps soit
repelle, et soit paie et rendu au ^^ plus tart ^^ deinz deux ans.^'^ Et
qe nulle anciene ^^ dette hors du temps le roi qore est, come des
billes de la garderobe, et autres dettes semblables ne soit paie tancqe ^^
le roi soit hors de dette.
5. Des fyns pur dettes des progeniturs le roi.
Item quant as dettes dues a nostre seignur le roi le piere et a
ses progenitours, si nul dettour voudra faire fyn, cest assauoir a
doner pur la liuere ^^ de la dette entiere, vne somme meins ^^ qe la
certeine ^^ dette amounte, soit parle et auise oue le consail,^^ et fait
outre ce qe semble pur le profit le roi.
6. De charge des escheturs.
Item qe les eschetours soient chargez ^* estroitement qe desore ne
returnent nulles estentes des terres qe le roi dorra ou lessera en
allouance des dettes, ou baudra en value de certeines retenances.
Ne des gardes et mariages qe ^^ deuient estre venduz ou donez, si
noun bones, verroies et resonables sur le peril, etc.
^ counte. ^ ceo. ^ respoundre.
* presentes. ^ chaunceller. * ceo.
' countrerouller. * esluz. * loialx.
^° suffisauntz. ^^ countees. ^^ tantq'.
" de. 1* faite. " a.
" tard.'
" anz. The C.R. does not end the sentence here.
" ancien. ^^ tantq'. ^^ Hure.
^^ meinz. ^^ certeyne. ^^ conseil,
^ charges, ^^ q.'
148 THE WALTON OKDINANCES ch. ix
7. Des douns et grantz qe le roi fera.
Item en cas qe certeines gentz qecumqes^ demandent du roi
baillies ou offices sanz meins rendre qils ne soleient ^ en temps de
ses auncestres annueltez, terres, rentes, gardes, mariages, eschetes,
forfaitures ou autres possessions quecumqes,^ ou deners ou pardoun
des dettes, soit auise ceo * qe le roi lour ad fait deuant soit ce ^ pur
bon seruice, ou de sa bone^ grace et volente,'' et sils eient plus
deserui, adonqes soient plus regardez ^ couenablement, et sil semble
au roi qe le primer regard' ^ lour doit suffir' ^® encore,^^ adonqes soit
respoundu qe le roi en couenable temps les regardera bonement.
Et des cboses qe li serront issint demandez puet le roi regarder
autres qi laueront deserui qe nul tiel regard' nen ont ^^ en ou del
retenir' a son oeps demesne, tutefoitz si le roi donne baillie, ou face
regard' des tieles ^^ choses susdites, qil sace ^^ primes la veroie ^^ value,
dont ^^ soit leschetour par mont chargeant serment ^'^ et peril charge
qe nulle feinte enqueste et procurement soit fait, sicome desus est
dit, et qe auant qe le roi face son grant, qil soit enfourme de la
value des dites choses par estente, ou par bone certificacion de son
chanceller ^^ et tresorier ^^ ou autre ministre a qi il appartient,^" et
voie qe ceux ^^ as queux il voet faire tiele ^^ grante le vaillent ou
leient ^^ deserui, issint tutes ^^ voiez,^^ qe nul grant regard' ne soit
iammes fait, sanz grant et bon consail et auis et especialment par
bon suffisant et expres ^6 garant souz le priue seal enrouUe ^^ et
contreroulle ^^ en cele place en la forme ^^ susdite, issint tutes foitz
qe rien ne passe hors de la chauncelerie ^° sanz especial et expres ^^
garant du priue seal, salue chose qe touche la ley et loffice de chaun-
celler tantsoulement,^^ mes de chose qe touche especiale grace, ou
chose qe soit contre ^^ les ordinances susescriptes, nient. Et sur ceo
soient les roulles ^* de la chauncellerie, les garantz, et les contre-
roulles ^^ des garantz, veuz et examinez ^^ par vn euesqe,^' vn baneret,
et vn clerk, en presence de celuy qe le roi auera issint assigne come
desus est dit, et du clerk du priue seal et [du clerk] de la chaumbre
de quarter en quarter, etc.
^ quecumqz. ' soleint. ' quecumqz. * ce.
* ceo. * bon. ' volunte.
^ regardes. ® regard. ^^ suffire.
^^ vncore. ^^ ount. ^' tiels.
^* facez. ^' verroie. ^* dount.
^' serement. ^* chaunceller. ^^ tresorer.
20 apartient. " eux. ^^ tiel.
^^ leuent. ^* toutes. " voies.
^* expresse. 2' enroule. ^^ countreroule.
^* fourme. ^° chauncellerie. '^ expresse.
^2 tantsoulment. ^^ countre. ^* roules.
^* countreroules. ^* examines. ^' euesqz.
App. THE WALTON ORDINANCES 149
8. La forme des paiementz de guerre et des solempnes
MESSAGES ENUOIEZ OUTRE MIER,
Item quant le roi enuoit vn son tresorier a despendre son tresor ••■
come en sa guerre Descoce et aillours, soit le roi auise qe celuy ^
tresorier,^ soit il lai * soit il autre, qil soit suffisaument ^ rente de lai
fee si qil soit suffisant de respoundre ® au roi. Et '^ qe des tutes
choses qil paiera en cele ^ guerre pur son temps, il ne fait rien santz ^
lettre de garant de cheiueteyn ^° souz le roi de cele guerre, le quel
cheftein, son temps fini qil auera demure, aporte au roi a sa venue
vn roulle^^ endente antra luy^^ et le dit tresorier ^^ souz son seal,
contenant en la plus breue ^* manere qe hom ^^ poet, les garantz qil
auera faitz au dit tresorier,^^ queu roulle ^' soit veu et examine
deuant le consail et puis enuoie a lescheqier souz le priue seal, et
sur ceo eit le dit tresorier ^^ due allouance sur son acompte. Et
issint soit fait en autres lieux come en Gascon V^ Irland',^® Alemaine
et aillours en la plus breue manere qe len poet bonement sicoma
auant est dit. Et semblablement en solempnes messageries, mons-
trent les messages outre lour certeines gages ies autres mises et
foreins ^^ coustages qils yaueront mys,^^ par quele tesmoignance et
par lour lettres, aueront due allouance ceux as queux il attient par
reson.
V,
9. De sauoir en quel estat le roi est des dettes qil doit et
du tresor qil ad.
Item regarde le grant tresorier ^^ combien le roi doit ^* as diners
grantz marchantz seueralment a chescun, et des autres grantz dettes,
et combien le roi ad desore prest a leuer de soi acquit' et meintenir
son estat, par estimacion, et certefie ^^ au roi.
10. Del houstel le roi.
Item qe le tresorier ^^ del boustiel neit nulle allouance de f oreine
cliose qe ne soit proprement des despens del houstel, ^'^ sanz bons ^^ et
expres ^^ garantz du priue seal, qe soient enroulles ^° et contreroullez,^^
come deuant est dit. Et qe les contresommes des despenses del
^ tresore. ^ celui. ^ tresorer.
* lay. * suflBciaument. ^ respondre.
' The C.R. does not begin a new sentence here.
* celle. * sanz. ■^" cheueteyn.
" roule. ^^ li. ^* tresorer.
^* bref. ^^ homme. ^* tresorer.
" roule. ^* tresorer. ^' Gascoign '.
^^ Irlande. ^^ foreinz. ^^ mis.
^^ tresorer. ^* deit. ^^ certifie.
^' tresorer. " houstiel. ^^ bones.
^* expresses. ^° enroules. ^^ countreroullez.
150 THE WALTON ORDINANCES ch. ix
houstiel demurgent vers le clerk de la chaumbre par veuwe et ex-
aminement de celui qe le roi auera assigne, come desus est dit. Et
qe nul prest soit fait hors de la garderobe as f oreins ^ gentz ad
restituend' ^ les deners sanz especial comandement de la bouche le
roi, et par garant, sicome deuant est dit, Et qe les despenses soient
veues de symaigne ^ en symagne ^ et de moys en moys ^ et contre-
sommes, etc.
^ foreinz.
^ I have preferred not to change the Latin expression " ad restituend ' " of
the manuscripts, to the French equivalent.
^ simaigne. * simagne. * mois.
/
§ IV MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY 151
SECTION IV
Wae and Financial Embarrassment, 1341-1360
After the storms came a calm. Content with his successful
repudiation of the legislation of 1341, Edward III. did not concern
himself overmuch with pressing the poHcy against which the
statute of his last parhament had been a protest. It was
suiiicient to retain for a time the new ministers whose appoint-
ment had brought affairs to a crisis. As they were removed,
men of less accentuated partisanship assumed office in their
stead. But the return to the normal was very gradual, and was
hardly completed before 1345.
Personal changes among ministers were fairly frequent, and
at first the king was mindful to appoint laymen to some of the
offices which, before 1340, had commonly been held by clerks.
The careful provision in the statute of 1341 that ministers, event
when of clerical status, should be answerable for their acts to the i
king, after the accustomed manner, took away the sting of r
Edward's resolution to refuse office to clerks who were not
" justiciable " in the royal courts. But so long as Stratford
remained active, there were obvious motives for keeping the
chancery in lay hands. Consequently the ban on clerical
chancellors lasted for nearly five years in all.
During this period knightly chancellors rapidly succeeded
each other. Sir Robert Bourchier only held office for ten months,
and soon resumed his military career in Brittany. He was
succeeded, on October 28, 1341, by Sir Robert Parving, transferred
from the treasury.^ There was a short break in the continuity of
Parving's tenure of the seal, though this would hardly be worth
recording but for the further illustration it affords of the laicisation
^ Foedera, ii. 1180. Bourchier surrendered the seal at Westminster on
Oct. 27, and it was kept, for the night, under seal by Darcy, the lay chamberlain,
instead of by the clerical treasurer of the wardrobe, its traditional temporary
custodian. Next day Edward gave it to Parving at the bishop of Winchester's
house at Southwark. The place itself, and the magnates present, queen
Isabella, her old confidant Robert WyviU, bishop of SaUsbury, and Bartholomew
Burghersh show how the king was still surrounded by champions of household
interests.
152 WAE AND FINANCIAL EMBARRASSMENT ch. ix
of the chancery. On May 15, 1342, Parving returned the seal to
the king, who then delivered it to the earls of Derby and North-
ampton. They thereupon sealed with it certain charters of
pardon, without enrolhng them in the rolls of chancery or
receiving any fee for them, and returned the seal immediately
to the king, who restored it at once to the chancellor.^ When
Edward went to Brittany on October 4, 1342, Parving sur-
rendered the seal to him, but received in its stead the seal of
absence with which he sealed writs while the king remained
beyond sea.^ The duke of Cornwall was again appointed regent,
and tested the writs issued by Parving between October 1342 and
March 1343.^ It is curious that the first formal recognition of
the chancellor's customary right to present to livings in the king's
gift, worth less than 20 marks a year, was embodied in the patent
defining the powers of the regent.^ Perhaps this was to safeguard
the right of a lay chancellor to confer clerical preferment.
At the same time the great seal, as in 1338 to 1340 and again
in 1340, accompanied the king abroad, and, in strict consonance
with recent precedents, was in the care of the keeper of the privy
seal, now John Ofiord, Kilsby's successor.^ Thus the real great
seal was again in clerical hands, even though the chancellor was
a layman. However, on the king's return to Westminster on
March 4, 1343, Parving once more resumed its custody and
remained chancellor until his death on August 26, 1343.6 It
was, perhaps, a sign of some reversion to clerical tradition, that,
when sickness prevented Parving executing in person his duty as
1 Foedera, ii. 1194. 2 /^ ii. 1212.
* lb. ii. 1220. The patent roU of the period of the king's absence is exclu-
sively devoted to writs issued in England under the regent's testimony ; C P E
1340-43, pp. 528-558, and 559-594 ; lb., 1343-45, pp. 1-12, 66-78 and 80. They
are intermixed with a few writs tested by the king but belonging to dates when
Edward was in England, e.g. ib., 1340-43, pp. 530-531, 537-558. One writ
" teste rege " (ih. p. 561) is enroUed, dated Grandchamp, Nov. 27, with the note,
" be it remembered that these letters are Ukewise enrolled on the roll of Brittany
of the present year. ' ' This ' ' roU of Brittany, ' ' is not included in the calendar of
patent rolls, nor does it appear among the Treaty (French), or Gascon rolls.
Where is it ?
* Foedera, ii. 194, 1212. See for this question B. Wilkinson's " Chancery
Writs under Edward III." in B.J.R.L. viii. 121-122 and 125-127. It was a
claim which in substance had been much earher recognised. See, for instance,
Rot. Pari. ii. 41, for its recognition in favour of clerks of chancery, exchequer
and the two benches in 1330, and the prevalence of a similar custom in the
English government of Scotland in 1308-09 in ib. i. 278.
* Foedera, ii. 1212. 6 ^^ ^ J220, 1231.
§ IV THE LAY CHANCELLORS 153
"jr chancellor, lie made Thoresby, now keeper of tlie rolls, and
Brayton, another chancery clerk, act on his behalf, and that,
between his death and his successor's appointment, they continued
to keep the seal in association with John of Saint-Pol,^ who thus
appears to have been restored to something of his ancient position.
Yet the new chancellor, appointed on Michaelmas day, 1343, was
a layman, being Sir Robert Sadington, who now finally abandoned
the exchequer.
Sadington served as chancellor for more than two years,
until October 26, 1345. Between July 3 and 26, 1345, Edward
went to Flanders, to hold his final conference with James van
Artevelde. Sadington remained in England, using a seal of
absence under the authority of Lionel of Antwerp, keeper of
England for the first time, because Edward of Cornwall on this
occasion accompanied his father.^ As usual now, the great seal
went with the king under the custody of Thoresby, keeper of the
privy seal,3 Sadington was the last of the knightly chancellors,
for his successor, John OfEord, was that faithful household clerk
who had succeeded Kilsby at the privy seal.*
The lay chancellors had clearly not fulfilled all the expectations
formed about them. Yet from the point of view of their depart-
ment, one advantage at least seems to have been gained. All of
them, except Bourchier, were professional men, legal or financial
experts, who made their official work their chief concern, and were [
not diverted from it by the distractions of conflicting duties toijc
their churches, or even by the call of pohtics. They were able,
therefore, to give such personal attention to their work that
temporary keepers of the seal were seldom needed. They also
took a more active personal part in the routine duties of their
office. For instance they received attornments personally,^
and acted constantly as judicial commissioners, holding pleas of
oyer et terminer in various shires, but normally setthng down in
I London or Westminster to their daily task, notably when the king
went beyond sea without them. So close was their attention
^ lb. ii. 1236. The presence of secular magnates and the momentary
custody of the seal by Thomas Beauchamp, earl of Warwick, who sealed with
it five charters of pardon, kept up the more recent practice.
2 lb. iii. 50, 53. » lb. iii. 53. * lb. iii. 62.
5 C.P.R., 1343-45, pp. 224, 225, 258, 373, 374 and 449 ; C.P.R., 1340-43,
p. 509.
154 WAE AND FINANCIAL EMBAERASSMENT ch. ix
to the daily task that it was recorded in the rolls when writs
emanated from chancery without their knowledge. Although from
such active officials detailed improvements in procedure might
be expected, there were not many administrative reforms of
moment during this time of warfare and financial embarrassment.
Yet one important change in the seaMng department happened to
coincide with the period of lay chancellors, and may have been
the result of their more intimate acquaintance with the needs and
difficulties of their office. Up to then, the " original WT:it," which
initiated a lawsuit in the higher courts, and the " judicial writ,"
which embodied the judgment terminating it, were ahke supposed
to be writs under the great seal. Exceptions to the rule had
long existed. For exchequer pleas, the exchequer seal, itself a
reduphcation of the great seal,^ was accepted as sufficient. On
eyres, assizes, commissions of trailbaston, oyer et terminer, and
other pleas heard locally, a writ of judgment was regarded as
adequate, if sealed with the personal seal of the judge presiding
in the court.^ Even in the two benches, the seal of a justice
was similarly accepted.^ But seaUng was a fruitful source of
revenue, and easily accessible revenue was scarce in wartime.
It was natural, then, that such officers as the clerk of the hanaper
of chancery and the chancellor of the exchequer, anxious lest
this custom should divert fees from their departments to the
cofiers of the two benches, should complain to the king of the
general acceptance by sherifis of the objectionable practice.*
Meanwhile, the " profits of the seal " had already made the
hanaper so lucrative a source of revenue that Edward III., in
his distress, turned greedy eyes upon its large excess of income
over expenditure. Accordingly, he entered into contracts with
some of his foreign financiers to lend him money on the security
which the hanaper revenues afforded. In 1344, when Sadington
was chancellor, he agreed to allow Matthew Canaceon, merchant
of Asti, to collect the profits of the writs of the two benches for
a term of years, and to facilitate this, the king promised to cause
a seal to be made in each of the benches for sealing its judicial
writs, the fees for which were still to be paid into the hanaper.^
1 See above, i. 143-147. ^ Rot. Pari. ii. 229 (1351).
^ lb. ii. 99. This was already customary in 1338. * lb. ii. 99.
5 C.C.R., 1343-46, pp. 327, 476 ; E.A. 212/3. Other arrangements foUowed.
Thus, on Apr. 23, 1346, Walter of Yarmouth made indenture with the king to
§ IV THE NEW JUDICIAL SEALS 155
The result was a further extension of the principle of reduplica-
tion of the great seal, first acted upon in the twelfth century
in the interests of the exchequer, and now again followed to
safeguard the rights of the chancery.^ Henceforth, there were
two new royal seals, one appertaining to each bench and accepted
as equivalent to the great seal for " judicial writs," ^ though the
" original writ " still required the authentication of the great
seal itself. The hanaper accounts of the next generations show
how considerable were the sums in question.^ The burden on
suitors was the heavier, since they also had to pay a fee for the
justice's seal, which conservatism still required to be employed
as well as the new seal, and since ingenious extensions of the
system of judicial fines further increased the revenue derived
from the law courts. The hanaper continued to control judicial
writs, though it no longer sealed them. When farming out was
abolished, the hanaper still received the fees from such writs,
and the benches were responsible for them to it. But gradually
the details of collection were devolved on special hanapers of
the benches. Thus an important change in the sealing system
followed.
The motives for these changes were practical, being con-
ditioned by the crown's necessities, rather than the convenience
of suitors. Yet there was some gain in the further departmental-
isation of the common law courts. There was even further
security for suitors, who, if they had to pay more, could now
get judicial writs more readily from the benches than from the
pay 250 marks a year into the hanaper for the right of levying " the fees of all
seals of judicial writs " ; and was made king's attorney in chancery, exchequer,
and law courts for the purpose; C.C.R., 1346-49, pp. 76, 89. E.A. 212/4
shows that Yarmouth duly fulfilled his obHgations. The foreign merchants
were now transferring their burdens to EngUshmen. See C.C.R., 1346-49,
p. 260, where W. Chiriton and G. Wendlingburgh took up in 1347 the obliga-
tions of Canaceon, already transferred to the Peruzzi.
^ The seals of the benches were still called " great seals " ; Rot. Pari. ii. 170.
* These writs " de utroque banco," first appear as a separate item in R.
Thoresby's hanaper account for 1346-47 ; E.A. 212/4. In 1344 seals for the
two benches were also instituted for Ireland ; C.F.R. v. 387.
^ The profits of the hanaper were increased after the change. Thus in
1358-59 these were £1717 ; in 1366-67, £926 ; and in 1375-76, £1441 ; E.A.
212/9, 11, 14. After Richard II.'s accession, the hanaper accounts are described
as " de exitibus magni sigiUi ac sigillorum regis utriusque banci " ; ib. 213/2.
These accounts, 1377-78, show a profit of £1994. Of this, £888, a third of the
total receipt of £2635, came from fines.
156 WAR AND FINANCIAL EMBARRASSMENT ch. ix
overburdened chancery, and enjoyed the authority of a royal
seal where they had had to be content earlier with the personal
seal of a justice. This is one of the few occasions where the
immediate interests of the king and the wishes of his subjects
combined to bring about a useful, though somewhat costly,
administrative improvement. The further development of the
hanaper as a sub-office of chancery was in nowise arrested by
the changes.^
In other ways the lay chancellors had disappointed expecta-
tions. Even successful lawyers and high treasury officials had
not the wealth, housing or status of the episcopal chancellors,
and they found it impossible to support themselves and their
establishments on the meagre pittance of £500 traditionally
allowed for the purpose. ^ This sum was the less adequate
since war had brought about, then as in our own days, a very !
considerable rise in prices. From the first, extraordinary pro- U
vision had to be made for the lay chancellor's support. This j
began when Bourchier, who had previously been attached to
the service of Hugh Audley, earl of Gloucester, was compen-
sated by a grant from the hanaper of the same amount as the
wage which he had received from his former master.^ A month
later that allowance was supplemented by a grant of £500 a
year, " in consideration of heavy charges incumbent on him in
keeping up the household of the chancery and by reason of his
office, beyond that which other chancellors before these times
have sustained." ^ When the king prepared for his Breton
^ I have learnt much from a more detailed account of the origin of the seals
of the benches, by Dr. B. Wilkinson, which he was good enough to show me
before its publication in E.H.R. xUi. 397-401. I am particularly indebted to
him for calling my attention to Year Books 21-22 Edward I. p. 161, and ib.
30-31 Edward I. pp. 275-277, which show that while " original writs " were
" teste me ipso," " judicial writs " were tested by the judge concerned. Both
aUke were normally sealed by the great seal. Pollock and Maitland, Hist, of
Eng. Law, i. 194, apparently antedate the seals of the common law courts.
^ C.C.R., 1343-46, p. 318. Of this £80 was for robes, and £420 " for the
table of the said household."
2 C.P.R., 1340-43, p. 75. The amount was £100 a year, and the date of the
grant Dec. 20, 1340, six days after he was made chancellor.
* Ib. 1340-43, p. 84. Of this £300 was " beyond the usual fee," and £200
towards purveyances of plate and other things necessary for the office. Bourchier
was, however, prosperous enough to found three months later a college of
secular clerks at Halstead in Essex ; ib. p. 166. Compare C.C.R., 1341-43,
p. 57, another grant of ferms of alien priories, considering that he had great
§ IV DIFFICULTIES OF LAY CHANCELLOKS 157
expedition, he made a further grant to the chancellor of over
£400 for the wages of himself with his comitiua of seventy men-
at-arms and one hundred archers, who were to accompany
Bourchier in attendance on the king beyond sea.^ But the
effect of this was only to divert Bourchier from administrative
to military activity. Parving, a successful lawyer, was less
impecunious than his martial predecessor, but he also had
Bourchier's grant of £200 from the hanaper " beyond the ancient
fee," for purveyance of plate, and that he might be able to
maintain himself more fittingly in his office. ^ Moreover, Sadington
clearly received the same allowance.^ The extra support was
the more necessary since the lay chancellors personally under-
took, after a brief delay, the burden of maintaining the household
of the chancery.^ Their dignity necessitated a larger mansion
than they had occupied as private persons, and it is significant
that the accommodation required was most easily found in the
town houses of the bishops, who were willing to rent them to
the chancellor for that purpose.^
We can imagine that the lay chancellor did not find it the
easiest thing in the world to get on with his " household " of
expenses for the household of chancery, and considering Robert's estate and
the fact that a lesser household would have sufficed him, had he not been in
that office.
^ C.P.R., 1340-43, p. 267 ; he had also in October a grant of the custody of
a minor's lands (p. 297).
2 C.C.R., 1341-43, p. 301.
' lb., 1343-46, p. 318. This mandate to the exchequer of May 4, 1344,
clearly assumes that Sadington received the money, but I have not found any
fresh grant.
* Thus Thomas Evesham, who also had the custody of the chancery rolls,
kept the household of the chancery from Dec. 1, 1340, to Jan. 1, 1341, when
Bourchier, appointed chancellor on Dec. 14, began to hold that household ;
C.C.R., 1341-43, p. 206. Parving undertook the household on Oct. 28, that
being the very day of his appointment ; ib. p. 302. Sadington, made chan-
cellor on Sept. 29, 1343, began to hold it on Oct. 5 ; ib., 1343-46, p. 204.
* Bourchier lived in the house of the bishop of Worcester, " near the Stone
Cross in the parish of St. Mary le Strand, outside the bar of the New Temple,"
and left the seal there until his return, when he visited the king at Norwich in
Feb. 1341 ; Foedera, ii. 1151. Evesham, keeper of the rolls, had, however, a
" hospicium " of his own to which the seal was transferred. Parving, when
first chancellor, hved in his own house in Aldermanbury ; ib. ii. 1180. This
house, though big enough to have its private chapel, in which the seahng of
writs was effected, was, by Dec. 1342, superseded by the house of the bishop
of Worcester, used by his predecessor; C.G.R., 1341-43, p. 691. Sadington
lodged in the London house of the bishop of Lichfield ; ib. p. 691.
158 WAR AND FINANCIAL EMBARRASSMENT ch. ix
clerks, for whose meals and robes lie was responsible, and whose
ideals clashed with those of the chancellor and his family.
Both chancellor and chancery had already ceased to go abroad
with the king, and during the royal journeys beyond sea the
chancellor and his clerks were generally stationed at Westminster
with the regency. Even when the king was in England the
chancery, under its working heads, now stayed more and more
in London. It met occasionally in various convenient places in
the city and suburbs,^ but its home was usually at Westminster.
The normal " place " of the chancery was already in 1345, and
probably in 1310, that portion of Westminster hall " where the
chancellor commonly sits, among the clerks of chancery, for
discharging the duties of his office." ^ A legally trained sedentary
chancellor, immersed in official routine, was even more welcome
to suitors than to the crown, and the development of chancery
as a law court may well, we believe, have been helped by this new
type of chancellor.
Not only the office but the officer increased in influence. The
chancery clerks became even more important than before as
agents of the state. The career of John Thoresby, the most
notable of the clerks who clave to the king in 1340, is an abundant
illustration of this. He began to act as keeper of the chancery
rolls as soon as he returned from the Netherlands,^ and only gave
up that post to become keeper of the privy seal,^ a promotion
^ The chancery was at the " domus conversorum " on Apr. 23, 1342, and
on Apr. 6, 1343 ; and at the convent of the Carmelites on Mar. 16, 1345 ;
C.C.R., 1341-43, p. 520, and ib., 1343-46, pp. 109, 551.
^ Foedera, iii. 53, " in magna aula regis apud Westmonasterium ubi idem
cancellarius communiter sedet inter clericos canceUariae pro officio suo exer-
cendo." It was the " placea canceUariae," ib. iii. 62, where the chancellor sat on
his marble chair, at a marble table. Stowe (ii. 118) says that in his time the
chancellor stiU sat in Westminster HaU " on the left hand or south-west corner,"
accompanied by the master of the rolls and the masters of the chancery,
" learned for the most part in the civil law." There were then three " judg-
ment seats " in the haU, at the upper end in the right hand or south-east corner
was the king's bench, opposite the chancery, and the common bench was
located at the entry on the right hand. For other courts there, see Stowe, ii.
118-120. For 1310, see Foedera, ii. 110, and C.C.E., 1307-13, p. 326.
^ C.C.R., 1341-43, p. 119. He took oath on Feb. 21, and received their
custody from Thomas Evesham, as soon as he arrived in London. Even when
he was sent to Avignon in Oct. 1344, he retained this office. For his earlier career,
see above, pp. 85-86, and for his later history, pp. ] 66-169, 206-207, 215, 219.
* He had acted as keeper on behalf of his predecessor, John OflFord, for
instance from June 4-24, 1342, when Offord began personally to take up the
office.
§ IV IMPORTANCE OF CHANCERY CLERKS 159
which takes us back to the days of Baldock and others, in a time
when the privy seal, now almost fully officialised, became a minor
state chancery, closely related through its chief to the leading
secretariat. By this time the keeper of the privy seal was fully
recognised as the third minister of the crown, the chancellor and
treasurer only taking precedence. ^
In such circumstances there is no wonder that the disgraced
clerks of 1340, like John of Saint-Pol, did their best to make peace
with the king. Edward was not slow in receiving them again
into favour, and even in promoting them to higher posts. Yet
they never quite regained their ancient position at the centre of
the administration. The fate of John of Saint-Pol is typical of
their subsequent fortunes. Edward never deprived Saint-Pol of
his keepership of the domus conversorum, granted to him for
life in 1339,^ and soon restored him to the chancery, but never to
his former prominence there. His ultimate promotion as arch-
bishop of Dublin and chancellor of Ireland ^ showed that he, and
others like him, had to look for substantial advancement far
away from the king and his court. But there were plenty of
good men to supply their places. Besides Thoresby, the leading
chancery clerks of the younger generation included such men as
David Wooler, who was to become one of the most important
chancery clerks of the latter part of the reign, and Andrew
Offord, doctor of civil law, brought into the office by his
brother John when he became chancellor. Hardly distinguish-
able from them in their political actions are the household clerks
of the newer generation, such as John Offord himself, Simon
Islip and their like.
The younger generation of chancery clerks sought favour from
the king rather than from the chancellor, and acted on the
assumption that an official's business was to subject his will to
the state rather than to impress it upon his superiors. Stratford's
great effort to secure for clerical ministers exemption from
^ Cf. above, pp. 54-55.
^ By June 1341 a king's writ of aid was issued to him to force the tenants of
the house of converts to pay their rents ; C.P.R., 1340-43, p. 236. Two female
inmates of the house bore the name of Saint-Pol.
^ Archbishop of Dublin, 1349, by papal provision, chancellor of Ireland in
1350, died in 1362. C.P.R., 1348-50, pp. 435, 555. Askeby, the sometime
chamber clerk, preceded him as chancellor of Ireland, being appointed in March
1341 ; ib., 1340-43, p. 151.
160 WAR AND FINANCIAL EMBARRASSMENT ch. ix
accountability to the tribunals of the state had utterly broken '
down. Even the parliament of 1341 had implicitly accepted the
/ doctrine that officers of the crown, when ecclesiastics, were bound
to answer for their offices in the accustomed places despite all
privileges of peerage or clergy. When there was no longer any
danger of clerical ministers protecting themselves from royal
control behind their clergy, the plea of the king that he dare not
have ministers who refused to be responsible to him for their
official acts lost much of its force. That being so, the anti-clerical
movement, artificially fomented by ambitious ecclesiastics for
their own purposes, died a natural death.
The movement survived longest in the chancery, the most
clerical office of state, but it was never a reality in a department
which, even under a lay chancellor, remained entirely staffed by
clergy. Sadington proved the last of the lay chancellors. ^
His successor. Master John Offord, was a prominent king's clerk,
a diplomatist, an administrator, and doctor of laws.^ He had
for years been constantly by the king, except when sent on
embassies to Avignon, and, after two years at the privy seal, had
the reward of faithful service in his promotion to the chancery
on October 26, 1345.^ Offord had been archdeacon of Ely and
was now dean of Lincoln. Thus the first of the new series of
clerical chancellors was not a magnate until he was appointed
archbishop of Canterbury, towards the end of his career. Like
his predecessors, Offord was a working administrator. He
lived, like Sadington, in his suburban manor house, ^ but he
^ Murimuth, p. 177, says " Sicque officium cancellariae ad clericos, quod
prius per milites fere per septennium regebatur." It was less than five years in
fact. For the lay chancellors of the next generation, see later, pp. 276-278.
^ Offord was with the king in the Netherlands from 1338-40, attended by
a staff of clerks, for whom he was allowed two marks a day ; M.B.E. 203/268,
where " clerico, de consilio regis," must not be translated " clerk of the council."
In 1340 Offord was envoy at Avignon. In 1341 he was " occupied in the king's
business and staying constantly by his side " ; C.P.R., 1340-43, p. 222, and in
November of that year " charged by the king to stay continuously in London
for the general direction of the king's business with others of his council " ; ib.
p. 335. He was keeper of the privy seal between June 1342 and 1344, succeed-
ing Kilsby and preceding Thoresby. For this, see later, p. 162. For his mission
in 1343 to the curia, see Murimuth, p. 153. For his last years and death,
see later, p. 206.
^ Foedera, ill. 62.
* His house was at Totenhale, near St. Giles' hospital ; C.G.R., 1343-46,
p. 661. Offord after 1331 held the St. Paul's prebend of Tottenhale, now
Tottenham Court, and this house was certainly the prebendal manor house.
§ IV CLERICAL CHANCELLORS AND TREASURERS 161
worked with the clerks in Westminster Hall. With his accession
to office the last results of the crisis of 1340 expired.
In the exchequer, anti-clericalism had long died away. For
generations clerks and laymen had worked together harmoniously
in that office, and the most important of its lay officials, chief
baron Sadington, had already been acting as treasurer. The
appointment of Sir Robert Parving as treasurer, on December
15, 1340,1 brought no great change into the traditions of the
department, and, if it had, Parving only held that office for
ten months. On October 28, 1341, a few weeks after the king's
departure for Brittany, the garderobarius, William Cusance, who
had abandoned in the previous November the treasury of the
wardrobe, was appointed to the treasury of the exchequer.^
When Cusance gave up office in 1345, he was followed at the
exchequer by his successor in the wardrobe, William Edington.^
Edington's appointment as treasurer on April 10, 1345, marks
the end of the period of short-lived treasurerships that had
opened with Edward III.'s accession. Synchronising as this did
with Ofiord's chancellorship, it showed that normal conditions
once more prevailed. Ministers were again chosen from the
official class. When both the head of the office and his staff
had the training and outlook of permanent civil servants, there
was no reason for that constant change of personnel which had
characterised the years of strife. Edington remained treasurer
for nearly twelve years. In the preceding twelve years ten
treasurers had presided over the office. The striking contrast
shows that party strife had died down, and that the king was
now forced to regard efficiency, not politics, as the test of a
minister's worth.
The resumption of normality was further forwarded by the
disappearance from politics of the stormy petrel of curiality,
William Kilsby. The first sign that there were limits to his
But in 1347 he lived in St. Clement's Danes parish ; ib., 1346-49, p. 397. The
chancellorship perhaps involved the necessity of a larger or nearer house than
Tottenham Court.
^ Parving, like the chancellor, had an extra grant from the exchequer, but
only of £40 a year ; G.P.R., 1340-43, p. 273.
2 C.P.R., 1340-43, p. 298. For his career, see above, ii. 272, and later, iv.
106-110, 122-130.
' Edington ceased to act on Apr. 10, 1344. He was employed between
Apr. 11, 1344, and May, 1345, in arraying his account ; M.B.E. 204/166.
VOL. Ill M
162 WAR AND FINANCIAL EMBARRASSMENT ch. ix
power was the reversal of his policy in the Easter parliament
of 1341. The second was in the utter collapse of his quest of
the northern archbishopric. With the death of the timid
Benedict XII., in April, 1342, the last hope of Kilsby's prevailing
against William Zouch came to an end. The new pope, Clement
VI., felt strong enough to consecrate Zouch as archbishop
of York. Along with him another baronial claimant to the
episcopate, Thomas Bek, was consecrated to the bishopric of
Lincoln. It was a further token of Edward III.'s submission
to the inevitable, when he admitted to England these two
creatures of the new pope, and allowed them peaceable
possession of their sees.^ Before long Kilsby saw that the
game of ecclesiastical preferment was as hopeless as the game
of political wire-pulling. With admirable versatility he directed
his ambitions into another channel. Like Bourchier, the failure
as chancellor, Kilsby sought a new field for his energies in
warfare. When still keeper, he had served in the winter ex-
pedition against Scotland in 1341-42 at the head of sixty
men-at-arms.2 He abandoned, or was dismissed from, the privy
seal by June 1342, being replaced by the less assertive and less
violent curialist, John Ofiord.^ Kilsby prepared himself for
the Breton expedition, receiving a liberal grant of the king's
wool to equip his large comitiua. In July 1342, he promised
to fight in the Breton campaign as a banneret at the head of
fifty men-at-arms and one hundred archers.'* Going to Brittany
before Edward, he served under Northampton, being apparently
among the chief leaders of the expedition.^ Unsatisfied by
martial successes, he resolved next year to carry out a vow of
pilgrimage, formed so far back as 1339, when he had received a
1 C.P.R., 1340-43, p. 502. Letters of protection of Aug. 20, 1342, to
William Zouch and Thomas Bek, " said to have been consecrated archbishop and
bishop, returning from the Roman court."
^ M.B.E. 204/203, records that he was paid for one banneret, 7 knights and
63 esquires.
* Offord was already keeper on June 4, 1342, when he was sent on an
embassy to France, leaving Thoresby as his deputy; ib. 204/161. He also
served in Brittany, as a banneret, with a retinue of 20 esquires from Sept. 4,
1342, to Feb. 15, 1343 ; ib. 204/212. He negotiated the treaty of Malestroit.
* G.P.R., 1340-43, p. 415.
^ Geoffrey Baker, p. 76, mentions him after Northampton, Oxford, Hugh
Despenser and Richard Talbot, as among " singuUs prefectis magnis copiis
armatorum et sagittariorum." Murimuth, p. 125, gives a different account.
§ IV EESTOKATION OF NORMAL ADMINISTRATION 163
papal indult to visit the Holy Sepulchre and the shrine of St.
Catharine on Sinai, " he having a great devotion to that virgin
martyr." ^ On March "^4, 1343, he received a safe conduct for
his long deferred pilgrimage. ^ He was still called in the writ
the king's secretarius, or confidant, so that he was certainly not
in disgrace. Safely back from his perilous journey, he took
part, with his retinue, in the Crecy campaign,^ and died not much
later in the lines before Calais.*
Thus, by 1345-46, the administration of England had
once more begun to move on normal lines. The king, without
abandoning his pretensions, had found it prudent to abate hisi
claims in practice and to rule through ministers whom then
magnates were willing to accept. The aristocracy, still con-
vinced that they were the natural counsellors of the crown,
were content to remain quiet, as long as ministers were men not
violently antagonistic to the baronial standpoint. A further
proof of the lull in party strife can be found in the composition
of the regency for Lionel of Antwerp in July 1345. Side by
side with Henry of Lancaster, earl Warenne and the three
bishops of the house of Stratford, were ministers like Sadington
and Edington, household servants like Simon Islip, chancery
clerks hke Andrew Ofiord, and a promoted chamber officer,
Thomas Hatfield, now bishop-elect of Durham. ^ The note of
opposition, so far as raised at all, was sounded by the commons
rather than by the magnates.
The chief reason for the appeasement of ancient feuds is to
be found, not in the internal conditions of England, but in the
renewal of the great war. From 1340 to 1345 there was an
uneasy truce between England and France. This had been
broken in fact by the share which the kings of England and
France had taken in the war of the Breton succession. We
^ C. Pap. Reg. Let. ii. 546. The origin of this cult seems to have been that
queen Philippa had given him for life the custody of the hospital of St. Catharine
by the Tower ; C.P.R., 1338-40, p. 377. Kilsby's devotion to St. Catharine
is even more interesting than Stratford's to St. Thomas of Canterbury.
* C.P.R., 1343-45, pp. 15 and 20. The former patent gives an edifying Hst
of the seven prebends and three benefices of this failure in the race for ecclesias-
tical preferment. Stubbs, C.H. ii. 411, shrewdly suggests that Kilsby probably
went to Palestine to get out of the way.
3 Wrottesley, Crecy and Calais, p. 158, from M.R.K.R. 124, 22 Edw. III.
* See later, p. 169, n. 7. ^ Foedera, iii. 60.
164 WAR AND FINANCIAL EMBARRASSMENT ch. ix
have already seen, as a result of this, that the king was compelled
to be absent from England between October 1342 and March
1343, and that the administrative readjustments, consequential
on his passage, were on the lines of recent precedents. Thus
the Breton campaign was largely financed and administered by
the wardrobe under Edington's direction, as was the unimportant
Scottish expedition which had preceded it.^ After this experience,
Edington was ripe to become treasurer of the exchequer. His
skill was soon to be taxed in the new office when the state had
to face the enormous preparations of 1345, and the large-scale
warfare of the Crecy-Calais campaign and the other expeditions
of the year 1346.^ This state of tension continued between
1345 and the end of 1347, when another truce suspended for a
time direct warlike operations. The interlude was the longer since
the truce was followed by a crisis caused by the Black Death,
The ministerial history of these years shows few marked
changes either in personnel or in poUcy. The administrative
rearrangements adopted during the king's visits abroad were of
a conservative nature. Both in 1345 and in 1346-47 the admini-
stration was divided into two sections, one to follow the king
overseas and the other to assist the regency at home. The king's
brief absence in 1345 does not greatly concern us. But the
distribution of the government between king and regent during
the Crecy campaign and the long siege of Calais, is a matter of real
importance.
The king was away from England between July 5, 1346, and
October 12, 1347.^ As Edward of Cornwall, since 1343 prince of
Wales, accompanied his father, Lionel of Antwerp, a boy of eight,
was on June 25, 1346, appointed custos Angliae.'^ After recent
precedents, the chancellor, OfEord, and the treasurer, Edington,
remained at home, the former transacting English business by
means of the customary seal of absence.^ The council was again
divided, and at the head of the section left in England was
1 See later, iv. 110-112. ^ gg^ i^^er, iv. 114-118.
' Foedera, iii. 139. Edward landed at La Hougue on July 12.
* lb. iii. 84. He had already acted as regent in 1345 ; ib. iii. 50.
* Ib. iii. 85 describes the transfer of the seals in Fareham church on July 2,
1346. Offord took the seal of absence and used it " in hospicio ubi hospi-
tabatur, videhcet ad domum que quondam fuit Galfridi de Raunvil juxta South-
wyk." Thoresby took the great and privy seals beyond sea.
§ IV HOME ADMINISTRATION, 1346-47 165
archbishop Stratford, now approaching the end of his career. ^
The majority of chancery clerks remained with the chancellor,
and the tender years of the regent strengthened the growing
tendency to locate chancery and council at Westminster. The
exchequer was completely stationary in its regular quarters hard
by the king's palace, ^ and had its work cut out in supplying the
king with money to carry on his campaign. The great wardrobe,
which went abroad for the last time in 1338-40, continued its
work in London, following six years of precedent. The more
localised privy wardrobe in the Tower of London also stayed in
its regular home.
It had long been customary for a regent to issue, both by his
great and privy seals, the orders which the king, when in England,
could make by the corresponding royal seals. ^ But it was a new
thing that the seal of the regent should be put into the hands of
a royal clerk so experienced as Mr. Simon Islip. He was called
keeper of the seal of Lionel, the king's son, keeper of England.
Wages of 20s. a day were assigned to him, and were paid by the
exchequer as a government obhgation.^ Moreover, a special seal
for Lionel as keeper of England was made, and paid for on February
^ This I infer from the writs of privy seal from the king abroad, which
generally address Stratford before the chancellor and treasurer. See p.
166, n. 5.
* After its return from York in 1339 the exchequer remained at Westminster
for the rest of Edward III.'s reign.
^ C.W. £f. 1532-1536, are exclusively devoted to "regency warrants," and
show that, as far back as 1287, a keeper of England could issue chancery
warrants under his own privy seal. The greater part of file 1532 is occupied by
writs of Edward duke of Cornwall, dated 12 Edward III. and sealed by the
regent's privy seal on the dorse. These documents inspire writs described in
the chancery rolls as warranted " by the keeper." For instance, the file contains
four warrants of the keeper of various dates in 1338, each of which inspired a
writ summarised in C.C.R., 1337-39, pp. 447-458, 466 and 569. Each chancery
writ is of the same place and date as the warrant, and the " mention " in each
chancery writ is " by letter of the keeper." In all these examples we see that
the " letter of the keeper " was a writ under the keeper's privy seal. I am
indebted for this information to Dr. B. Wilkinson. There are other instances in
C W. ff. 1533 and 1534, belonging to the years 13 and 14 Edw. III., mostly in very
bad condition. C. W. f . 1536 contains many writs of Lionel as regent, but, unhke
those of his elder brother, there is no announcement of the seal used, though
there are still signs that they were authenticated by a seal of the privy seal type,
impressed on the dorse of the writs.
* I.E. 339 (21 Edw. III. Mich, t.) m. 33, records payment of wages from
July 11 to Aug. 19, and m. 38, from Aug. 20 to Sept. 27. For part of the
former period Ishp was away from Westminster between June 21 and July 20
on a mission " ad partes boreales " ; ib. m. 16.
166 WAR AND FINANCIAL EMBARRASSMENT ch. ix
17 by the exchequer,^ which also became responsible to the keeper
of the wardrobe for the parchment and wax necessary for " the
office of the keeper's seal." ^ Clearly, then, it was an official
privy seal, and Islip's wages were the customary stipend of the
keeper of the king's privy seal extra curiam. Ishp was, there-
fore, the official keeper of the privy seal of absence, if we may
venture on the phrase. It was weU that the seal was instituted,
since communication between the home and court administra-
tions was cut ofi by the advance of Edward up the Seine valley
after his triumphant march through Normandy to Caen and
the mutiny or flight of his fleet.^ It is not, indeed, impossible
that Islip had already acted in a similar capacity during the
king's brief absence in 1345, for we know that he was one
of the small council of twelve magnates and ministers ^ who
had acted in the name of the boy of six left in charge in England.
The chief clerks of the office of privy seal, however, accompanied
the keeper of the real privy seal, Thoresby, abroad.^ But that
office was now so completely a state department that we may
regard it as naturally following the example of the chancery in
being divided during the king's absence.
The position of a privy seal, removed from the king, yet
discharging governmental functions, is paralleled by a similar
1 I.E. 339 (21 Edw. III. Mich, t.) m. 35, Sat. Feb. 17, " In denariis solutis
pro fabricatione sigUli Lyonelli, custodis AngUe, per breue ipsius custodis inter
mandata de hoc termino."
^ lb. m. 35 records the payment of 33/2 to keeper Wetwang for parchment
and wax necessary " pro officio sigiUi ipsius custodis."
^ The writs in C.W. S. 313, 325, well illustrate this. There was an enor-
mous output of writs on the eve of the king's departure, one hundred
chancery warrants alone on f. 313 being sealed at Porchester, Yarmouth and
Freshwater, between June 27 and July 9. Then there was one dated La
Hougue on July 15. There were a few at Caen between July 28 and 31. There
are no others, save one dated Crecy on Aug. 26 (f. 314/17810), until the series
" juxta Calesiam " begins. This ranges from Aug. 28 (f. 313/17799) to Sept. 30,
1347 (f. 314/17811, f. 325/18921). There are EngUsh dated writs between
Sept. 23 and Nov. 11 at Westminster, and one on Oct. 1 at Langley (ib. 19000/
19022). It is clear that, except for a brief space at Caen, there was no relation
between privy seal and chancery from the king's departure from La Hougue until
after the victory at Crecy. * Foedera, in. 50.
* The mass of administrative correspondence, sent by the king from abroad,
was under the privy seal, and, when not directed to the chancellor, was more
formally addressed to the archbishop of Canterbury, the chancellor and treasurer,
" et autres de nostre conseil de Londres " ; see the interesting examples printed
in the appendix of Chronique de Jean le Bel, ed. Viard et Deprez, ii. 337-352.
There are other instances in C.W., from which these writs were taken.
§ IV THE DIVISION OF THE MINISTKY 167
division of the household offices themselves. From the king's
chamber the majority of the chief officers went with the king,
and among them Robert Burton, receiver of the chamber.^ His
EngUsh work was discharged by deputy ; and the keeper of the
privy wardrobe at the Tower, Robert Mildenhall,^ by acting as
heutenant of the receiver, retarded the tendency towards complete
separation of Tower wardrobe and king's chamber. The
administration of the estates reserved to the chamber necessarily
remained in England along with auditors, stewards and clerks.
However, PhiHp Weston, the chief steward, who, six months before
the king sailed, had been " charged with other business beyond
seas and within," was in France with Edward all the time, so
that his deputy, Henry Greystock, had ultimately to be nominated
as his successor. 2 It seems that it was now, or soon after, that
the adequate conduct of the local chamber work in England
necessitated a fixed abode for it, first at the Tower and later at
Westminster.
The directive forces controlling these various bodies were the
chancellor, treasurer and others of the council of the keeper,
officially described by Edward as " those of our council remain-
ing in London," ^ where the council permanently sat and
warranted a large proportion of the executive acts embodied
in the chancery writs. The general location of the chancery at
Westminster or London during the period must also be regarded
as proved. For the little regent to be in the capital was the
exception rather than the rule, and to this fact we must ascribe
the circumstance that chancery writs, except for a brief period
in the winter, are seldom dated at London. Yet the appearance
of persons to do business in the chancery at Westminster or
London on the very same days in which writs are dated elsewhere,
and the absence of any single mention of such appearances
save at the normal seats of government, go far to suggest the
1 See later, iv. 258.
2 See later, iv. 258-260.
^ C.P.R., 1345-48, p. 299. The date was May 31, 1347, Reading, and it was
warranted by privy seal. His commission included the examination and enrol-
ment of letters under the griffin seal. He had been appointed deputy by
Weston before Jan. 26, 1346 ; C.P.R., 1345-48, p. 431. He was stiU Weston's
deputy on Aug. 15, 1346 ; C.C.R., 1346-49, p. 151.
* The dispatch in C.W. 314/17803 is addressed "A nos chere foialx chaun-
cellor, tresorer et autre de nostre counseil, demorantz a Londres."
168 WAR AND FINANCIAL EMBARRASSMENT ch. ix
permanent establishment of the chancery, or at least of the
bulk of its staff, in Westminster or London. So also with the
council, which is seldom described as meeting anywhere else.^
In the same way the parliaments of the period were held at
Westminster. 2 This was the more necessary when the establish-
ment of the king before Calais made communication between
the two administrations both possible and frequent. The first
result of the king's settlement there was the mission from Calais
of household officers, headed by Bartholomew Burghersh, Darcy
the chamberlain, and Thoresby, keeper of the privy seal, to the
parliament of Westminster of September 11, 1346. To this
assembly the emissaries announced the king's victory of Crecy,^
and succeeded in extracting handsome subsidies in return for
large concessions.
^ My argument as to the chancery and council is mainly based on the examin-
ation of the calendars of chancery writs. We find that, after the king's depar-
ture, the writs of the summer and autumn were chiefly dated at Windsor, and
those of the winter at Westminster. The writs for the first half of 1347 were
issued from Reading, until, between August and October, the court moved on a
progress in the west, ranging from Bristol to Worcester, to Northampton and
Thame. There is no sign of chancery or councils in any of these places. On the
contrary, the chancery was in London between Feb. 17 to 20, 1347, though on
both these days writs were dated at Reading ; C.C.R., 1346-49, pp. 237, 239,
cf. pp. 184, 247, 258-259. So, too, on Oct. 6, writs were dated at Thame, and
chancery was at Westminster ; ib. pp. 393, 394. There are references to councils
in London ; ib. pp. 155, 251, 361, 370. For the chancery " London " sometimes
means Offord's house in the parish of St. Clement's Danes in the Strand {ib. p.
397), and sometimes St. Clement's church itself ; ib. pp. 174, 178, 243. A
" strong horse " could carry the rolls of chancery that attended the court in its
wanderings ; ib. p. 244. Such a horse was provided in March 1347 by the
abbot of Thame, in Nov. by the abbot of Meaux, and in 1348 by the abbot
of Stoneleigh (ib. 244, 404, 591). In the next reign, three abbeys, Thame,
Warden and Woburn, were ordered to provide a horse apiece at the same time ;
ib., 1377-81, p. 487. The records and the clerks, I suspect, remained in London,
and a few clerks, with a minimum number of the necessary documents, itinerated
with the court.
^ Besides the parhament of September 1346 mentioned later {Rot. Pari. ii.
157-163; Members of Parliament, i. 140-142), there was also a parliament in
Jan. 1347 {Rot. Pari. ii. 164), and a council, strengthened by a representative
element, in March ; ib. p. 142. The chancery warrants issued at Westminster
and Langley between Sept. 4 and Oct. 1, before the king's return on Oct. 12,
seem to have been the work of Thoresby after his return to England. It is a
clear case of the privy seal being used when far away from the kins. See also
C.lf. f. 325. ^
^ Rot. Pari. ii. 157-158. The other member of the delegation was John
Carlton, a veteran clerk of the privy seal, who had acted since 1316, and had in
May 1346 been made a member of the council beyond the seas ; C.P.R., 1345-48,
p. 80.
§ IV MINISTERS ABROAD WITH KING 169
The retention in England of representatives of every office
but one did not prevent the king from being adequately served
abroad. The strong position of Thoresby, at once keeper of
great and privy seals, ensured representation of the chancery
point of view. With him were the chief clerks of the privy
seal, William Bolton, Adam Newbold, Henry Ingleby and
John Winwick.i As before, the household offices gave the king
their support. The wardrobe as a whole was, of course, with
him, and an accidental fire is said to have consumed the greater
part of its lodging during the siege. ^ The presence of a larger
portion of the king's chamber staff helped the wardrobe clerks to
administer and pay for the campaign. The chamber was represen-
ted by Robert Burton, the chief receiver,^ Thomas Bramber,^ his
future colleague, Philip Weston^ the chief auditor, and by
such veterans as the three previous receivers, William Trussell
of Kibblestone,^ William Kilsby,'' and Thomas Hatfield, now ^
bishop of Durham.^ Soon we hear of the " king's chamber in
the parts beyond the sea," ^- and gradually the administrative
staff abroad was further reinforced. To meet the needs, both
of the greatest of Edwardian armies and of the officials appointed
to rule army and realm, a temporary capital arose in the marsh
of Calais, with the rich tents of the magnates forming streets
and squares which suggested to a Westminster chronicler the
establishment of a new London.^"
^ Wrottesley, Crecy and Calais, pp. 206, 208.
2 See later, iv. 116.
* Wrottesley, p. 89, shows from French Roll, 20 Edw. III., that Robert of
Burton, archdeacon of Winchester, received letters of protection. Was he
identical with Robert Burton, clerk, one of the council and retinue of the earl
of Sahsbury ? C.P.R., 1345-50, p. 140.
* Wrottesley, pp. 86, 89. ^ lb. p. 110.
« lb. pp. 100, 135, 158.
' Kilsby was ahve and before Calais on Sept. 7, 1346, when he was described
as " demorant ovesqz nous en nostre seruice es parties ou nous sumes " ; C.W.
314/17814. But he must have died almost at once, as his death was known
at Avignon on Sept. 30 ; C. Pap. Reg. Let. iii. 237, and by Jan. 1347 his goods
had been seized by the crown as security for his debts and accounts to it ; C.P.R.,
1345-48, p. 242.
* Wrottesley, pp. 194, 205.
* C.P.R., 1345-48, p. 641. This was on June 8, 1347, before Calais.
^° John Reading, p. 104, " ubi obsidentes, ad modum ciuitatis Londoniarum
in vicis et plateis de tentoriis ac papilionibus dominorum, populares vero de
marisco, villam et mansiones construxerunt." Compare Froissart, iv. 1-2, ed.
Luce.
170 WAR AND FINANCIAL EMBARRASSMENT ch. ix
We know that by the summer of 1347 there was " a roll of
the chancery made in the parts beyond the sea of the time when
the king stood at the siege of Calais."^ The long list of patents
enrolled in it shows that business was already brisk, even when
the court was still in temporary quarters and busily employed
in the siege. ^ With the entry of the English into the town,
there was a period when the new conquest was the seat of govern-
ment even more completely than had been the city of huts and
tents outside the walls, from which Edward had long directed
the government of his kingdom. There must have been a
number of chancery clerks in the Calais camp to write and enrol
so many writs. Thoresby himself, officially described as
" keeper of the privy seal and also of the great seal at Calais,"
formally accounted for the " office of the hanaper at Calais." ^
His extensive chancery experience admirably qualified him for
such work, and Andrew Ofiord was throughout the campaign
in attendance on the king.^ By August 1347, the " chancery
at Calais " was so fully organised that suitors might acknowledge
bonds there after the fashion usual when the chancery was
sitting at Westminster.^ At the same time a lively correspon-
dence under the privy seal kept up relations between the king
outside Calais and the chancery and council in England.^
The chief administrative activity of Edward during the
campaign of 1346-47 is reflected in the wardrobe records of
those dates. We shall have to recur to these later, but we may
observe here that they illustrate war and politics as well as
1 G.P.R., 1345-48, p. 568.
^ The roll is calendared in lb. pp. 473-577, and forms Part IV. of the patent
roll of 20 Edward III. It is entitled " Rotulus Normannie," though only five
items, dated La Hougue, Caen and Lisieux are of Norman provenance. These
are warranted " per regem," and C.W. f. 313 shows that none of them were
authorised by writs of privy seal. Entries in the roll only became numerous in
Oct. 1346. It was then that the privy seals, filed in the Chancery Warrants,
also became copious. A continuation of the Norman roll is "rotulus f actus in
partibus transmarinis de anno . . . vicesimo primo," summarised in C.P.R.,
1345-48, pp. 518-570, commonly called " the Calais roll." This is Part IV. of the
patent roll of 21 Edward III.
* E.A. 390/12, p. 84, " de magistro J. de Thoresby, nuper custode priuati
sigilli et eciam magni sigUli coram Cales', viz. de denariis prouenientibus de officio
hanaperie ibidem etc."
* Wrottesley, pp. 89, 206.
* C.P.R., 1345-48, pp. 566-570. Three debtors acknowledge on Aug. 9 a
bond drawn up on Aug. 2.
* See above, p. 166, n. 5. '
§ IV AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE MINISTRIES 171
household management, and show the wardrobe at the height
of its activity.
A comparison between the conditions of division in 1338-40,
and those prevaihng during the Crecy-Calais campaign, shows a
remarkable contrast in respect to harmony and efficiency.
During the Flemish campaigns the ministry with the king sought
to dominate the ministry left behind to govern England, and
faihng to do this, the utmost confusion ensued. Waste and
incompetence resulted in failure abroad and strife at home, until
those extreme dissensions culminated in the ministerial crisis
of 1340-41. In 1345-46 there was an essential agreement of
policy between the two administrations, with the result that the
campaign was successfully and harmoniously conducted, with
lessened expenditure and greater efficiency.
By this time Edward III. had learnt that he could not carry
out campaigns abroad while waging war with the great barons
and bishops at home. Accordingly, without withdrawing any of
his pretensions, the king prudently kept them in the background.
He undertook costly expeditions only when he was assured of the
substantial support both of the fighting and of the tax-paying
elements among his subjects. At all costs he had to avoid that
union between discontented ministers, reluctant magnates and
angry commons, which in 1341 had compelled him, when
apparently victorious, to abandon the fruits of his high-handed
action. The national eagerness to prosecute the war with France
made this poHcy easy for him. His claim to voice the wishes of
his people disguised the greatness of the concessions which he
made to pubKc opinion. He did not now send his courtiers and
dependents to ride roughshod over the aristocracy. A prince of
twenty years' experience, Edward was no longer open to the
reproach of being a Rehoboam.
As a result, the sharp hne which had divided the court and
constitutional parties became obhterated, and with it the deep
distinction between the household ministers of the crown and the
responsible ministers of the nation. The survivors of the old
ministerial generation, whom Edward had seven years before
rudely driven from power, devoted their dechning years to
carrying out, in co-operation with the leaders of the court party,
an agreed national policy. Archbishop Stratford and his brothers
172 WAR AND FINANCIAL EMBARRASSMENT ch. ix
now stood by the crown, strengthened the regency by their
counsel and aid, and declared the royal wishes to assembled
parhaments. The heads of the baronial opposition, like Henry of
Lancaster, vied with the newly made earls of courtier origin, in
holding the great military commands and co-operating in the
common cause. While Edward and his eldest son led their
armies through northern France, Lancaster undertook the
government of Gascony, and for the first time in the reign revived
there the royal authority and enlarged the bounds of the diminish-
ing inheritance of Eleanor of Aquitaine. The mutinous nobles of
the north, headed by the king's old enemy, archbishop Zouch, won
over the Scottish invaders the decisive victory of Neville's Cross.
The wonderful triumphs of 1345-46 show the results of this
substantial unity between the king and people. In each stage
parhament and the nation responded to the appeals made by
their rulers. In the dark days of the winter of 1346-47, when
there was the utmosTdlfficulty in persuading the soldiers to remain
at the siege of Calais, Edward was able to obtain enough men and
money to capture the beleaguered town. His special argument
was that parliament had sent him to France, and that parhament
therefore was bound to see him through. But parhamentary
patience had its hmits, and supphes were rarely conceded until
the king had accepted petitions curtailing his power, notably
as regards the eternal grievances of prises and purveyances for
his household and those of the royal family.
The difficulty experienced by parliament in procuring the
execution of their demands may well have brought home to them
the insincerity of the king's attitude. Even in January 1348
there were no supplies forthcoming for a further raid in France.
It was in vain that Edward urged once more that the war had been
" undertaken by common consent of all the magnates and
commons given in divers parliaments." ^ The prudent commons
showed reluctance even to give advice, lest a fresh recommenda-
tion of forward poHcy involved an obligation to pay for it.
" We are so ignorant and simple that we dare not give advice.
We therefore pray the king's lordship to excuse us. May it
please him to ordain in this matter, by the advice of the great and
1 Rot. Pari. ii. 165, " par commune assent de touz les grantz et communes
de sa terre susdite en diverses parlementz."
§ IV FAILURE OF PEACE PLANS 173
wise men of the council, what seems best for the honour and profit
of the realm. AVhatsoever shall be thus ordered by him and the
aforesaid magnates, we will agree to hold established." ^ The
coyness of the commons was the more remarkable since Henry of
Lancaster had informed them that the king had no desire to take
any new taxes from them.^
Later on, the Black Death made impossible fresh parliaments,
and therefore fresh grants. Nor was money readily obtainable
in the years following the pestilence. This may have been one
reason why Edward agreed to a prehminary treaty of peace,
negotiated through papal intervention in 1354. Burghersh, the
chamberlain, described the state of the negotiations before the
parhament of April 1354, and declared that the king would not
accept the truce without the assent of the magnates and commons.
To this the commons with one accord repUed that whatsoever
issue pleased the lord king and the magnates would be agreeable
to them. When the chamberlain pressed them for a direct
answer to his question whether they would accept a perpetual
peace, if it could be obtained, a general shout of " Yes, yes "
showed clearly that the war spirit had abated. The reply of the
commons was embodied by a notary in a " public instrument,"
as formal evidence of their wishes. ^
The peace treaty broke down. Edward was willing to drop
his claim to the French throne, but the French would not yield
the ample provinces demanded by him in return for this
concession. The result was five more years of active, though
interrupted, warfare between 1355 and 1360. These renewed
hostilities bore but lightly on administrative history. The methods
of expansion for war emergencies had now been so well explored
that few novelties could be expected. The unity of the
administration, so well preserved in 1345-47, was still sub-
stantially maintained. It was still almost impossible to discern
any clear evidence of party rivalry, and the critics in parliament
were satisfied with a negative attitude which hardly questioned
^ 76. p. 165. Compare also Stubbs, G.H. ii. 417.
2 Rot. Pari. ii. 200.
^ lb. u. 262. Was this because neither parliament nor the commons had
a seal ? Statutes were normally promulgated by letters patent under the
great seal. But statutes were royal acts, and resolutions of the commons
were not.
174 WAE AND FINANCIAL EMBAEKASSMENT ch. ix
the king's choice of ministers. The harmonious co-operation of
the old court and country parties continued, and promotion from
office to office was normal, after a fashion that suggests little
of departmental conflicts. Such administrative changes as there
were, were on traditional lines. Though the war continued
costly, expenditure never soared so high as in 1338-40, or
in 1346-47.
The increasing years of the king made him less frequently
take a personal part in overseas expeditions. The brunt of the
fighting fell on the prince of Wales, who, making Gascony his
main field of operations, had the resources of Gascony and of
his own inheritance to fall back upon. Henry of Lancaster
was similarly responsible for the chief efiorts of 1355-56 in
northern France. The campaigns, in which Edward himself
proposed to take part, were, with one exception, short-lived or
abortive. Thus, in 1355, the king's great preparations to invade
France resulted in nothing more than a raid of a few days in
late October and early November. It was only at the end of
1359 that Edward with his son conducted in person the last
great campaign of the war.
In these circumstances the burden of finance was shifted
more and more on to the exchequer, and on to the machinery
set up, under its control, to administer the subsidies and other
special war grants. This was partly due, we must believe, to the
growing measure of parliamentary control. The years 1355-56
also saw the withdrawal from the chamber of its landed estate
and a consequential restriction of its operations. The nature and
causes of this reform will be studied in detail later, but it is
desirable, even in a general view, to note the fact, and to indicate
that one of the greatest limitations on personal authority
witnessed during the reign, was brought as an administrative
reform from within. The failure of the chamber lands may
have been a symptom of the failure of household government,
but they fell with the king's approval, and not in response to
popular or aristocratic request.^
The development of the privy seal was inverse to that of
the chamber. While the importance of the chamber grew as
1 See for the collapse of the chamber estate later, pp. 204-205, and iv.
305 et seq.
§ IV ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES 175
household administration flourished, and diminished when it
became suspect and unpopular, the privy seal owed its increasing
authority to its gradual emergence from the household system
and its development as a subordinate office of state. From the
days of Bury's keepership the keeper of the privy seal had
acquired both a confidential character and an assured official
rank. Yet Bury regarded the keeper as holding an office in
the household. In 1331 it was a privilege for a clerk of old
standing in the office to be allowed to withdraw from the house-
hold and return when he pleased,^ and ten years later the normal
clerk was still attached to the household, " staying continually
with the king." Before long, however, we find an organised
hospicium privati sigilli outside the court and normally in London,
in which the clerks lived together. The keeper had become so
great a man that he was frequently unable to preside over that
establishment, so that one clerk emerged from his fellows as
keeper of the household of the privy seal, in his absence. Moreover,
the wages of the keeper of the seal, originally given only during
absence from court, became ultimately payable in all circum-
stances, whether the keeper were in court or not.^ A further step
towards emancipation was taken when the wages of keeper and
clerks were paid by the exchequer, though still credited to the
wardrobe.^ Gradually we can find in the issue rolls an increas-
ingly complete record of the periods of service of each successive
keeper of the privy seal, and of his chief clerks. All this was
part of the development which made the keeper the third
minister of the crown.^ The importance of his office was further
enhanced by his charge of both the great and the privy seal,
when accompanying his sovereign beyond the seas. In dealings
with foreign powers he was not only in fact but in name the
king's chancellor. No wonder foreigners, so early as Kilsby's
time, called him chancellor, and that even records did not
scruple to give him that title. At last, keeper Winwick was
^ C.P.R., 1330-34, p. 224. Grant of Dec. 8, 1331, to John Carlton for long
service of daily wages, whether at court or away from it ... " that he may
withdraw from the household, return thither again and stay there at board, as
he pleases."
* See later, vol. v. ch. xvi.
* See also vol. v. ch. xvi.
* See £(.bove, pp. 54-55, and later, vol. v. ch. xvi.
176 WAR AND FINANCIAL EMBARRASSMENT ch. ix
called cancellarius regis Anglie in the treaty of Bretigni.^ Thus
the public character of his office was proclaimed to the world.
The next century described this process as the discharge of the
privy seal from the king's household.^ At a later stage we
shaU work out the details of the development.^ We may note now
that the keeper of the privy seal of these years was well on the
way to highest promotion in church as well as in state. Between
1342 and 1360 two ex-keepers became archbishops of Canterbury,
one of them through the chancery and the other directly from the
privy seal. One became bishop of Durham, another went through
the chancery to the sees of St. David's, Worcester and York, and
another ascended the episcopal throne of London without any
intermediate step.
The reorganisation of the finances of the chamber, with the
consequent disappearance of the griffin seal, and the development
of the privy seal out of court, showed that the old household
system of government was becoming obsolete. Yet some com-
pensation to the personal authority of the crown came through
the evolution of new methods of household administration, for
the capacity of the household system to send out fresh ofishoots
was not exhausted. Notable in this relation is the growth of an
ordered secretariat of the secret seal, which, from having been
an occasional function of the officers of the chamber, was now
becoming a special charge under a clerk of the secret seal with his
own staff of writers.^ Such a department was wanted the more
in the latter days of Edward III., when the privy seal had become
substantially officialised. Accordingly the future of household
administration was bound up with the development of the secret
seal. The process was accelerated when the secret seal, after a
period of diversified experiments, became permanently known as
the king's signet.^ It gave rise to a new secretarial department
within the court, and gradually its keeper came to be distinguished
as the king's secretary, presiding over a group of writers who
constituted the office of the signet. But this movement was only
^ See also above, p. 100, for evidence that Win wick was similarly styled in
1339, and that Petrarch caUed Bury chancellor in 1335. For 1360 see also
later, p. 226.
^ Liber Niger, in Ordinances of the Household, 1790, p. 19.
^ For the details of the history of the privy seal and the authorities for the
above statements, see later, vol. v. ch. xvi.
* See later, vol. v. ch. xvii. ^ See later, vol. v. ch. xvii.
§ IV RESTRICTION OF HOUSEHOLD OFFICES 177
in its infancy during our period. The king's secretary still
normally meant the king's confidant and sometimes specifically
the keeper of the privy seal, who was still particularly so described
in correspondence with the papacy and other foreign powers.
Yet we have here already an official secretary, and the
beginnings of the office may well be discoverable by the end of
the period now under review, though not until the reign of
Richard II. can a regular succession of official secretaries be traced.
Thus the word secretary, hitherto used vaguely in the sense of
confidant, acquired for the first time a special meaning. In
origin the private secretary of the king, the drafter, sealer and
custodian of the monarch's personal correspondence, the secretary
was soon to follow the example of the chancellor and of the keeper
of the privy seal. He was to grow into a secretary of state, a
public minister. From the office of the king's secretary sprang
in modern times the chief departmental ministries. With curious
conservatism the secretaries still keep the title which they first
received when they were the king's private clerks. The seals of
office, which they receive and resign on entering and leaving office,
represent the signet which the secretary of Richard II. once kept
for his master.
The old household offices of the wardrobe were similarly
restricted. The king's wardrobe was not uninfluenced by the
strong tendency to concentrate administration at Westminster,
and so early as 1345 it was worth while to build a house for the
" office of the controller of the wardrobe" within Westminster
palace.^ In a text of some ten years later the treasurer of the
wardrobe is actually described as "keeper of the king's wardrobe
at London." ^ With the growth of a literate laity the sharp line
drawn, until the middle of the century, between the clerical and
the knightly aspects of the household, between garderoba and
hospicium, became gradually blurred. The treasurer and con-
troller were as often described as " of the household," as "of the
wardrobe." The wardrobe or household accounts became more
and more limited to the domestic concerns of the king, and less
and less a supplementary source of information concerning state
1 See later, iv. 77, cf . p. 88.
^ C.P.R., 1354-58, p. 289. This was John Buckingham, who was, in June
1355, keeping either the wardrobe, or at least its money, in his own house in the
parish of St. Benet, Woodwharf, in the city.
VOL. Ill N
178 WAE AND FINANCIAL EMBARRASSMENT oh. ix
administration and finance. The great years of the wardrobe
ended with the swollen accounts of Wetwang for the Crecy-Calais
campaign. The later years of the war up to 1360 are indeed
reflected in a larger wardrobe turnover than in the period of truce.
In the six years of truce, pestilence and distress, between 1348
to 1353, the wardrobe receipts averaged about £18,500 per annum.
Between 1354 and 1360, during another six years, this time chiefly
occupied with war, the average yearly receipt mounted up to
nearly £70,000, the maximum of over £160,000 being reached in
the year November 1359 to November 1360. In this period
there took place the last great campaign in France, in which
the king was personally present, the march from Calais to
Burgundy, and thence down the Seine to Chartres, and the
consequent negotiations at Bretigni and Calais, culminating in
the definitive treaties negotiated at these places. This was the
last occasion in the reign when the wardrobe accounts reflected
the expenses of a great campaign as well as those of the king's
domestic household.
The same tendency towards rigid limitation which the history
of the wardrobe shows during these years, comes out in the
history of the great and privy wardrobes. Not even the French
war brought about any overwhelming increase in the volume of
business of these subordinate oflSices, though the great wardrobe
was still to a considerable extent an army clothing department,
and the privy wardrobe was acquiring an independent position as
a storehouse and factory of arms and armour. The details of
these processes will be considered later, ^ but a few remarks here
on the position of these offices at this time, and their relations to
the general administrative scheme, may be useful.
For the great wardrobe we have mainly to record its final
establishment in a house of its own in London on its return from
Brabant in 1340. But even so, its sphere contracted rather
than expanded. Its history for the next few years is only
important as exhibiting another indication of the impulse
to concentrate the offices of the government in London or
Westminster. We learn how the great wardrobe shifted its
quarters from one place to another, how it migrated from Milk
^ See vol. iv. for the great wardrobe, ch. xiv., and for the privy wardrobe,
ch. sv.
§ IV THE WARDROBES 179
Street to Lombard Street and from Lombard Street to the
Tower. At last, in 1361, it found a permanent abiding place in
the parish of St. Andrew's, near Baynard's Castle, in the extreme
south-west corner of the city of London within the walls. Here
it remained until its destruction by the great fire of 1666. At
the same time, as the wardrobe proper was becoming merged
in the Jiospicium, the great wardrobe came to be commonly
described as the wardrobe. Danger of confusion between the
two spread even into official circles, when a curious piece of
reaction between 1351 and 1360 subordinated not only the
great wardrobe but the king's butlerage to renewed account-
abihty to the keeper of the wardrobe of the household.^
The privy wardrobe, the third and least important office to
which the name of wardrobe was given, gradually acquired
independence of the great wardrobe, and of the chamber, from
which it had slowly emerged. Its importance was never great,
but its separate existence is due to the needs of the French war.
John Fleet, the fi 
