[Back] [Blueprint] [Next]

Click on the footnote number and you will jump to it, then click that footnote number and you will jump back to where you were in the text [That line will be at the top of the screen].


From Illustrations of Chaucer's England, edited by Dorothy Hughes, M.A.; Longmans, Green and Co.; 1919.



C. THE KING AND THE OPPOSITION.

23.

[The years 1382 and 1383 were critical ones for Richard. During 1382 he was drawing towards de la Pole, and becoming more estranged from Arundel and his party. In March, 1383, the King asserted himself, and appointed de la Pole as his Chancellor; Arundel ceased to attend the Council. Later in the year an important question arose for the Government, concerning the truce with France; discussions had been opened after the failure of Bishop Despenser’s crusade, and in January, 1384, a truce was definitely signed, formal peace negotiations being suggested. The opposition was already inclined to attack de la Pole’s foreign policy. “Rolls of Parliament,” iii. 170. April, 1384. (French.)]

Item, touching the charge given to the commons in the Parliament as to the peace which shall be made, if it please God, between our lord the King and his adversary of France (of which certain articles newly made and appointed during the discussion about the said peace which has been held in the march of Calais . . . were delivered to the commons for their better information as to the said discussion and its effect), the commons made answer. . . . That for the outrageous perils which they see clearly on all sides, they cannot and dare not expressly advise their liege lord in one way or another, although if it should please God to grant 244 a peace honourable and profitable for their liege lord and his realm, it would be the most noble and gracious aid and comfort to them that could be devised in this world. And it seemed to them that the King may and should act herein as shall seem best to his noble lordship, as of a matter which is his own heritage, descended by direct royal lineage to his noble person, and not pertaining to the realm or crown of England. . . . And that, for the insupportable perils and mischiefs that might happen, the poor commons be discharged from giving their answer for the present.

Upon this they were charged by the King to say which of the two things they desire, namely, if they wished for peace or war with their French foes, for there was no other middle course, because the French would not now agree to a truce which should be good and profitable.

To this the commons replied, “that they desire very greatly that a peace good and honourable for the King and the realm might be made. But . . . they understand that certain land and lordships which our lord the king is to have now in Guienne . . . would be held of the King by France by homage and service; but they do not think that their liege would easily be willing to hold the town of Calais and other lands conquered by the sword . . . by such service, nor would the commons wish it thus to be done, if one could well do otherwise.

24.

[“Historia Vitae Ricardi II,” February, 1385. (Latin.)]

Our lord the King ordained to hold a Council at Waltham after Christmas, to which the lords were summoned; among whom the lord Duke of Lancaster, as chief of the Council was invited to attend. But before he set out, he was told secretly to take care if he went to the Council, because some of those about the King were plotting his death, that he should be suddenly slain.

245

When the Duke heard this, feigning some hindrance of his coming, he sent to the King, entreating that he would hold him excused, if it might please him. But the King sent again, admonishing him, by his allegiance, that the should in no wise omit to attend. Then the Duke began to take counsel as to how he might save his allegiance, and not lose his life. Wherefore he was advised, that, to save his allegiance, and preserve himself from death, he should go with a strong band of retainers. And according to this counsel, he came to the place with a large armed company, telling the King that he must not wonder at the manner of his coming, because he was in fear of being slain. The King excused himself with oaths, saying that he knew nothing of these plots. Then the Duke afterwards had the less faith in that behalf.

In the following Lent, the lord William Courtenay, Archbishop of Canterbury, urged and induced by certain lords, as it was said, rebuked the King as pertained to him, for his insolence and ill government, asserting that unless he would permit himself to be directed otherwise, this ill government would shortly tend to the subversion of himself and his realm. The King, greatly angered by this rebuke, would have struck the Archbishop, if his uncle, lord Thomas of Woodstock had not prevented it; and he addressed many scandalous reproaches to him, and conceived great indignation against him. So the Archbishop withdrew, and betook himself to a distance.

25

[In July, 1386, Lancaster set out on his expedition to Portugal, where he remained until 1389. This gave opportunity to the Duke of Gloucester, who joined the Earl of Arundel in a definite campaign of opposition to de la Pole. During the autumn of 1386, the French were preparing an invading fleet, and the excitement prevailing in London when Parliament met on 1 October helped 246 to forward Gloucester’s plans. Continuator of Knighton, 1386. (Latin.)]

The King held his Parliament at Westminster on Monday the morrow of St. Jerome, and ended it on the Feast of St. Andrew. The Earl of Oxford, Marquis of Dublin, was made Duke of Ireland on the Feast of St. Edward the Confessor.

The King stayed for the greater part at Eltham during the Parliament; therefore the lords of the realm and the commons sent word to him, with common consent, that the Chancellor and Treasurer must be removed from their offices, because they were not profitable to the King and the realm; and also, they had such business with Michael de la Pole, as they could not transact with him so long as he remained in the Chancellor’s office. The King, in anger, commanded them to say no more about this matter, and to make haste and proceed with the business of Parliament, saying that he would not remove the meanest servant of his kitchen at their request. (For the Chancellor had asked in the King’s name for four “fifteenths” to be paid in one year, and as many “tenths” from the clergy, saying that the King was so greatly indebted that he could not otherwise be relieved from his debts and other burdens. . . .)

By common accord the lords and commons returned answer to the King that they could not, nor certainly would not, proceed in any business of Parliament, nor despatch the smallest point, until the King should come and show himself to them in his own person in Parliament, and remove Michael de la Pole from his office. But the King sent back the command that they should send forty knights to him, of the most skilled and able of the commons, to set before him the wishes of all. Then they feared greatly for their own safety; for a dark rumour had reached their ears that he was scheming 247 their destruction. For it was said that when they went to their interview with the King, an armed band would attack and slay them. . . .

Therefore acting upon sound advice, with the common consent of the whole Parliament, they sent the lord Thomas of Woodstock, Duke of Gloucester, and Thomas Arundel, Bishop of Ely, to the King at Eltham, to greet him from the lords and commons of his Parliament, reporting their wishes in words to this effect — Lord King, the lords and all the community of your Parliament with most humble subjection, commend themselves to your royal excellency . . . and on their behalf we declare to you the following matters — We have an ancient statute and praiseworthy custom to the effect that our King is to call the lords and nobles of the realm and the commons once a year to his Parliament, as to the highest court of the whole realm, wherein all justice ought to shine without blemish as the noonday sun, where rich and poor may seek infallible refuge for the refreshment of tranquillity and peace and the removal of injuries; where the errors of the realm may be reformed, and there may be discussion as to the state of the realm and government. . . .

They say also, that they have another ancient statute, to the effect that if the King wilfully withdraw from his Parliament without infirmity or other necessary cause, and wantonly absent himself for the space of forty days, as though heedless of the vexation and grave expense of his people, then it is lawful for all and sundry . . . to return to their own homes. . . .

And now for a long time you have absented yourself, and refused to come to them, for what cause they know not. The King replied — “Now we think indeed that our people are plotting to resist and rise up against us; and in such case, it seems that we cannot do better than 248 appeal to our kinsman the King of France, and ask his counsel and aid; and rather submit ourself to him than yield to our own subjects.” “That is no sound plan,” they returned, “but tends rather to inevitable ruin; for the King of France is your mortal foe, the greatest enemy of your realm, and should he set foot in your land, he would rather strive to despoil you, seize upon your Kingdom, and drive you from your throne, than lend you helping hands. . . .”

There remains one thing more for us to show you on behalf of your people. It is permitted by another ancient statute — and this was unhappily seen in very deed not so long ago — that if the King shall alienate himself from his people by malignant counsel, foolish contumacy, contempt, or wanton waywardness; and shall be unwilling to be governed and guided by the laws and statutes of the realm, with the wholesome advice of the lords and peers, but stubbornly, in his evil counsels, exercise his own singular will — then it shall be lawful for them, with the common consent of the people of the realm, to depose him, and place on the throne some near kinsman of the royal house. . . .

[Richard promised to yield, and return to London.]

The King therefore came to Parliament as he had promised, and then the Bishop of Durham was removed from the office of Treasurer, and the Bishop of Hereford appointed in his place. The lord Michael de la Pole was removed in dire disgrace from the Chancellor’s office, and Thomas Arundel, Bishop of Ely, made Chancellor by consent of the Parliament. After this, Michael de la Pole was accused of many transgressions, frauds, deceits, and treasons, that he had committed to the grave prejudice and mischief of the King and realm, and convicted upon a marvellous number of the said articles; but they were unwilling to 249 punish him with death, or take from him the name of Earl, for honour of his knightly rank, but he was awarded to prison in Windsor castle. . . .

The lords and magnates of Parliament, seeing that by the greed of the King’s officers, the goods of the realm were wasted, that the King was very greatly deceived, the people impoverished by heavy burdens, the revenues and profits of the lords and magnates much shrunken, the tillage of poor tenants in many places abandoned to desolation — and amid all this the officers immoderately enriched — chose fourteen lords who should control the whole government of the realm, three of them from the new ministers chosen by Parliament . . . and they gave them power and permission to inquire, treat, define and determine concerning all business, and as to all causes and complaints, arising from the time of Edward III the King’s grandfather to the present, as well within the realm as in distant parts.

26.

[From the Commission of Reform. “Statutes,” ii. 39. The original is a long document, specifying the duties of the commissioners in minute detail. 19 November, 1386. Confirmed by Statute, 1 December. (French.)]

. . . And . . . by his royal authority, certain knowledge, goodwill and pleasure, and by the advice and assent of the prelates, lords and commons in full Parliament, in aid of good government in his realm, and good and due execution of his laws, and in relief of the estate of him and of his people in time to come; upon the full trust that he has of the good advisement, wit, and discretion of the honourable fathers in God the Archbishop and Canterbury, and the Archbishop of York, his dear uncles the Duke of York and the Duke of Gloucester, the honourable fathers in God the Bishops of Winchester and Exeter and the Abbot of 250 Waltham, and his well-beloved and faithful the Earl of Arundel and John lord Cobham, Sir Richard le Scrope and Sir John Devereux — has ordained, assigned and deputed them by his letters patent . . . to be of his great and continual council, from the eve of St. Edmund the Martyr for a whole year next following; to survey and examine with the great officers, to wit, the Chancellor, Treasurer, and Keeper of the Privy Seal, as well the state and governance of his household and of all his courts and places, as the estate and governance of all his realm, and all his officers and ministers. . . . And to amend and correct all faults, wastes, and excesses. . . . And to hear and receive all manner of complaints and grievances of all his lieges which will sue and complain to them, of all manner of duresses . . . which may not well be amended nor determined by the course of the common law of the land. . . .

Whereupon the King has ordained and established . . . that every one of his said lieges shall be attending and obedient in whatever touches the aforesaid articles . . .

And that no person . . . give to our lord the King, in secret or openly, counsel . . . whereby the King should repeal their power within the time aforesaid in any point, or do anything contrary to his grant.

[The penalty for giving such advice to be forfeiture of goods and property for the first offence, and for the second, loss of life.]

27.

[“Rolls of Parliament,” iii. 221. (French.) Parliament made a grant of “fifteenths“ and “tenths“ and increased the customs.]

. . . All the which grants the lords and commons have made at this time upon the following conditions — To wit, that if the power given by the aforesaid commission to the lords ordained to be of the continual council . . . be in 251 any manner repealed or undone, or if the said lords . . . be in any way disturbed, so that they cannot freely use or fully execute the power committed to them . . . whereby they cease utterly to do so, from that time the levy and collection of all that then shall remain to be raised, by colour of the said grants, shall cease utterly for ever.

(Ibid. p. 224.) Be it remembered that the King, in full Parliament, before the ending thereof, made public protestation by his own mouth, that, for anything that was done in the said Parliament, he would not that prejudice should come to himself or his crown; but that his prerogatives and the liberties of his crown should be preserved and kept.

28.

[Richard determined at once to reverse the triumph of the opposition, releasing de la Pole, and gathering round him a band of supporters whom he could trust. He made what preparations he could to resist the commissioners, and approached the Justices to secure opinions that might justify him in this. At Nottingham, in August, 1387, he obtained from five Justices the following opinion touching the behavior of the opposition in 1386. Continuator of Knighton. “Rolls of Parliament,” iii. 233, 357. “Statutes,” ii. 102. (Latin.)]

Questions addressed by the King to the Justices, at Nottingham Castle, on 25 August, 1387.

First they were asked, Whether the new statute, ordinance, and commission made and issued in the last Parliament at Westminster are derogatory to the royal power and prerogative of our lord the King? Whereto they replied with one accord — that they are derogatory, especially in that they are made against the King’s will.

Item, they were asked, How they who procured the aforesaid statute, ordinance and commission to be made, should be punished? To which question they replied — that they deserve to be punished with capital penalty, to 252 wit, of death, unless the King shall be willing to pardon them therein.

Item, they were asked, How they should be punished, who urged the King to consent to the making of this statute, ordinance, and commission? Whereto they replied with once accord — that unless the King shall pardon them, they ought deservedly to be punished with capital penalty.

Item, they were asked, What penalty do they deserve who compelled or constrained the King to consent to the making of the aforesaid statue, ordinance, and commission? Whereto they replied with one accord — that they deserve to be punished as traitors.

Item, they were asked, How also they should be punished, who prevented the King from exercising the powers pertaining to his royal prerogative? Whereto they replied with one accord — that they also should be punished as traitors.

Item, they were asked, If, in the assembled Parliament, after that the business of the realm and the cause of the meeting of the Parliament shall have been set forth and declared by the King’s command, and certain points shall be defined by him, upon which the lords and commons should proceed, they shall insist upon treating of other articles, refusing in any wise to proceed upon those appointed until sufficient answer shall first have been given by the King to the points put forward by them, notwithstanding the King’s command to the contrary — whether the King ought to have the rule of the Parliament therein, and indeed direct, to the end that they shall proceed upon the articles first defined by him, or whether the lords and commons first ought to have answer from him upon their articles, before proceeding further? Whereto they replied with one accord — that the King ought to have rule and control therein, and so continuously in all points touching the Parliament, until the end thereof; and if any should 253 take action contrary to this, they should be punished as traitors.

Item, they were asked, Whether the King may dissolve Parliament whenever it shall please him, and command the lords and commons to withdraw, or no? Whereto they replied with one accord — that he may; and if any afterwards against the King’s will proceed as in Parliament, he ought to be punished as a traitor.

Item, they were asked, Since that the King may remove his justices and officers whenever it please him, and judge and punish them for their offences, whether the lords and commons may, against the King’s will, impeach the said justices and officers in Parliament for their offences, or no? Whereto they replied with one accord — that they may not; and if any acted to the contrary, he ought to be punished as a traitor.

Item, they were asked, In what manner ought he to be punished who moved in Parliament that the statute, whereby Edward, great grandfather of the present King was adjudged in Parliament, should be sent for, by the inspection whereof the aforesaid new statute, ordinance, and commission were contrived? Whereto they answered with one accord, that as well he who made that motion, as the other who, by pretext thereof, brought that statute to Parliament, ought deservedly to be punished as criminous and traitors.

Item, they were asked, Whether the judgment given in the last Parliament against the Earl of Suffolk was erroneous and revokable? Whereto they replied with one accord, that if that judgment were now to be given, they . . . would into give the same, because it seemed to them that the judgment might be repealed as erroneous in every part.

254

29.

[During September, King and commissioners were preparing for mutual resistance. But by the middle of November, failing to secure the armed support of the Londoners, Richard submitted to a reconciliation with Gloucester and his friends, who had the general support of the country. His real hope lay in the force which the Duke of Ireland was collecting in Chester, but it was defeated on 20 December, at Radcot Bridge. The “Appellant” lords then summoned Parliament, and put forward the following among other articles. The Appeal was made late in December, 1387, and Parliament met on 3 February, 1388. There were 39 articles, in most of which Tressilian and Brember were also included. “Rolls of Parliament,” iii. 230. (French.)]

1. First Thomas Duke of Gloucester, Constable of England, Henry Earl of Derby, Richard Earl of Arundel and Surrey, Thomas Earl of Warwick, and Thomas Earl Marshal appeal and declare, that Alexander Archbishop of York, Robert de Vere, Duke of Ireland, and Michael de la Pole, Earl of Suffolk, false traitors and enemies of the King and realm, seeing our lord the King’s tender years, and the innocence of his royal person, made him to understand as truth so many false matters imagined and contrived by them against good faith and loyalty, that they caused him utterly to give them his affection, faith and credence, and to hate his loyal lieges, by whom he ought rather to have been governed. And also, accroaching to them, royal power, depriving the King of sovereignty, impairing and diminishing his royal prerogative and regalie, they made him submit so far, that he was sworn to be governed, counselled, and led by them. By the virtue of the which oath, they have so long held him in submission to their false offences, ill-deeds and contrivings, that the mischiefs . . . contained in the following articles have befallen. . . .

3. Item, with the assent and counsel of Robert Tressilian, false justice, and Nicholas Brember, false knight of London, by their false covyne, they would not suffer the 255 great men of the realm, nor the King’s good counsellors to speak to the King nor approach him, to give him good counsel, nor the King to speak to them, save in the presence and hearing of [themselves] or at least two of them, and then according to their plan, and such thing as they desired.

4. Item1 . . . by their false covyne and accroachment, they led and ill-counselled the King, by their false wickedness, so that whereas he ought as of duty to show his presence to the great lords and to his liege people, and make answer to the grace and justice that they may ask, he did not do so, save according to their will and design, turning the King from his duty, against his oath, and the hearts of the great lords and the people from their liege lords; compassing to withdraw his heart from the peers of the land, to have the government of the realm among themselves along. . . .

7. Item . . . by the assent and counsel of the said Nicholas Brember, false knight of London, accroaching to them royal power, they caused the King to give them great sums of gold and silver, as well of his own goods and jewels, and of the goods and treasure of the realm, as “fifteenths” and “tenths” and other taxes granted in divers Parliaments to be spent for the safeguard of the realm and otherwise, which sum amounts to 100,000 marks and more; as to the said Robert de Vere, Duke of Ireland, and others in divers ways. And beyond this, they have hindered many good ordinances and purposes made and ordained in Parliament, as well for the wars, as for the defence of the realm.

14. Item . . . they have caused that whereas some of the lords and other loyal lieges of our lord the King, having great fear and dread for the ruin of the realm, by 256 reason of the said mischiefs, moved in divers Parliaments for good governance to be had about the King . . . our lord the King was so sorely stirred against them that he commanded some to depart from his council, and from Parliament, so that they dared not speak of the matter, nor touch upon good governance of the King and realm, for fear of death. . . .

[The Appellants give their version of the Parliament of 1386, and mention a plot, according to which the Mayor of London was to raise a force in the City, fall upon the Parliament, and kill the members; upon his refusal the King was withdrawn to Eltham. From this time, they say, the accused determined to pursue the commissioners as traitors.]

19. Item . . . with the assent and counsel of the said Robert Tressilian and Nicholas Brember. . . . they caused the King to go with some of them throughout his realm, for the greater part, and into the parts of Wales; and to summon before him the magnates, knights, and squires, and other good men of the said parts, as well of the cities and boroughs as of other good places, and caused them to be bound, some by their obligations, and some by their oaths, to our lord the King. to be with him against all men, and to accomplish his purpose; which purpose was at that time to carry out the will and designs of the aforesaid malefactors and traitors. . . . The which sureties and oaths were made contrary to the good laws and customs of the land, and to the King’s oath. . . .

20. Item, by force of such bonds and oaths, the whole realm was stirred to great murmur and disturbance, . . . and in peril of suffering divers unbearable mischiefs.

21. Item, to afforce their said traitorous purpose [they] often caused the King to withdraw himself into the most distant parts of the realm, in order that the lords assigned by the aforesaid ordinance, statute, and commission might not take counsel with him upon the business of the realm, 257 to the hindering and undoing of the purport and effect of the said ordinance. . . .

24. Item, the said traitors . . . caused the King newly to make great retinue of divers people, and to give them divers signs, otherwise than was wont to be done in former times by any of the King’s his forefathers, to the end that they might have power to perform their aforesaid false treason. . . .

[They assure him that the opposition meant to depose him.]

28. Item, after this false and traitorous information . . . the said malefactors and traitors counselled him to strengthen himself by all possible means, as well by the power of his French enemies and others, to destroy and put to death the aforesaid lords and all others consenting to the making of the said ordinance. . . .

30. Item . . . to accomplish this high treason of treachery and murder, they made the King promise the French king to give up and surrender. . . the town and Castle of Calais, and all other castles and fortresses in the March of Picardy and Artois, and the castles and towns of Cherbourg and Brest. . . .

33. Item, the said Nicholas Brember, false knight of London, with the assent and counsel of the aforesaid . . . caused that some of them should come to London . . . without the knowledge and consent of the King, and there openly, in the King’s name, made all the Crafts of the City of London to be sworn to hold and perform divers dishonourable matters, as is contained in the said oath, that is of record in the Chancery. And among others, that they would hold and maintain the King’s will to their power against all rebellious or contrary to his person or his regalie, and be ready to live and die with our lord King Richard, against all who have purposed . . . treason against him in any manner. And that they would be 258 ready, and speedily come to their Mayor . . . whenever they should be required, to resist all those who purpose . . . against our liege lord. . . . At which time by the evil information of the said malefactors and traitors, and by the false answers of the justices, the King firmly held that the said lords, and others who were of assent to make the said ordinance . . . were rebels against him, his enemies and traitors; the which information was at that time unknown to the people of London. And so altogether, with such dark words in the said oath, the intent of these malefactors and traitors was to stir up the people of London, to do their power to destroy the aforesaid loyal lords.





NOTES


1   Here, and in Nos. 14 and 21, Tressilian and Brember are also specified.

30.

[“Rolls of Parliament,” iii. 236. (French.) February, 1388.]

At which time the justices, sergeants, and other sages of the law of the realm, and also the sages of the Civil Law, were charged by the King to give their loyal counsel to the lords of Parliament, as to proceeding in due manner in the cause of the aforesaid Appeal. And they had deliberation, and made answer to the said lords of Parliament, that they had seen and well understood the tenor of the Appeal, and that it was not made or affirmed according to the form required by the one Law or the other. Whereupon the lords of Parliament took counsel and deliberated, and it was declared, with the assent of our lord the King, and by their common accord, — that in such high crime as is alleged in this Appeal, that touches the King’s person, and the estate of his whole realm, committed by persons who are peers of the realm, with others, the cause shall not be prosecuted elsewhere than in Parliament, nor by other law than the law and course of Parliament. And that it pertains to the lords of Parliament, and to their franchise and liberty, by ancient custom of Parliament, to be judges in such case, 259 and to adjudge such case, by the King’s consent. And that thus it shall be done in this case, by the award of Parliament; because the realm of England was not before this time, nor, according to the intent of the King and the laws of Parliament, ever shall be, ruled or governed by the Civil Law; and also their intent is not to rule or govern such high cause as this Appeal . . . by course, process, and order used in any lower court or place within the realm, which courts and places are but executors of the ancient laws and customs of the realm, and of the ordinances and establishments of Parliament. And it was the opinion of the same lords of Parliament, with the assent of our lord the King, that this appeal was well and duly made and affirmed, and the process thereof good and effectual, according to the laws and course of Parliament. . . .

[The appellants proceeded to pass judgment of execution or exile upon the accused, and upon others among the King‘s supporters. The “Merciless Parliament” lasted until 4 June.]







[Back] [Blueprint] [Next]
Valid CSS!