Appendix C5: The composition of the Parliament of 1410

The composition of the Parliament of 1410

For several months before Parliament met in January 1410 Henry IV had been suffering from poor health; indeed, a particularly severe illness a year earlier had prompted him to draw up his will. This made it easier for the personal influence over the King exercised by Thomas Arundel, archbishop of Canterbury, to be challenged by the rising ambitions of the prince of Wales, Henry of Monmouth. In the autumn of 1409 competition for preference in the allocation of financial resources fuelled dissensions within the Council between Archbishop Arundel and the heir to the throne, who was determined to assert his own political leadership. The latter had tried in vain to put pressure on his brother, Thomas of Lancaster, to surrender the lieutenantship of Ireland and relieve the Household of the necessity of supporting his retinue, and for adequate funds to be properly assigned to the garrisons in South Wales, so that by November the Council had become seriously divided. The resolution of the struggle was marked by two resignations: that of Sir John Tiptoft* (the King’s protégé, closely identified with Arundel and his policies) from the treasurership on 11 Dec., and that of the archbishop himself as chancellor ten days later. But the conciliar revolution was only half complete when Parliament met on 27 Jan. 1410. In the absence of a chancellor, Henry Beaufort, bishop of Winchester, opened the proceedings, although four days later the great seal was given to his brother, Sir Thomas, who was probably more acceptable to the King. The Beauforts, hitherto not conspicuously aligned with Prince Henry, now offered him what he and his associates from the campaigns in Wales lacked: administrative, conciliar and diplomatic experience, contacts with the Court, and perhaps also the confidence of the Commons in Parliament, although that remained to be seen.1P. McNiven, ‘The problem of Hen. IV’s health’, EHR, c.747-72; G.L. Harriss, Cardinal Beaufort,49-52. To whom could the prince and his allies now look for support in the Lower House?

Unfortunately, the names of only 121 Members of the Commons of 1410 are now known, owing to the loss or destruction of many of the parliamentary returns. Yet out of the 121, who made up less than half the overall total, as many as 11 (nine per cent) were retainers of Prince Henry, some being officials on his estates and recipients of substantial annuities amounting to £40 or £50 by his gift. This group included such prominent figures as John Wynter, his receiver-general, Sir John St. John, a veteran of his campaigns in South Wales, and William Stourton, the steward of his principality. Significantly, too, ten more of the Members had close personal links with Bishop Beaufort and his influential cousin, Thomas Chaucer. The latter, re-elected Speaker of the House the day after Parliament opened, was doubtless primed to direct the proceedings in line with conciliar policy as now established by his kinsmen and the prince. It also looks very much as if he had been involved in a certain amount of electoral manipulation to secure the presence in the House of people on whom he could rely to support the programme, notably the representatives for Taunton (Thomas Bacot and Thomas Edward) and the outsiders elected for Lyme Regis and Wareham (the Chancery clerk, Thomas Haseley, and the London vintner, Thomas Walsingham). Followers of the prince’s colleagues, Thomas, earl of Arundel, and Richard, earl of Warwick, were in evidence, too, thus bringing the total number of Members whom we might expect to have willingly raised their voices in favour of the policies of Henry of Monmouth and his associates up to at least 25. Most of them were not newcomers to the House, and presumably would have been ready and able to lend Chaucer a hand in its management. By contrast, the only known adherents of Archbishop Arundel and Thomas of Lancaster recorded present were Bartholomew Brokesby and William Allington, and although both of them were highly capable (the one destined to be the archbishop’s steward and executor, the other already treasurer of the Irish exchequer and a trustee of Thomas of Lancaster’s estates), it seems unlikely on the face of things that they could have done much to muster a strong opposition to the prince of Wales. Of course, the King’s own retainers in the House, who may not be so readily assigned to either camp, may also have viewed with dismay the political changes which had recently taken place, but there is now no means of determining the response to be expected either from them or from the Members currently employed by the Crown in offices at the centre or in the localities. All we know is that in the event they proved unable to prevent the passage of ‘un certein article’ which placed some ‘restreint’ on the royal prerogative.2RP, iii. 658.

Even so, despite the presence in the House of a group of individuals predisposed to support the prince of Wales and his allies, the latter found themselves unable to command at will the co-operation of the Commons, who made no financial provision whatsoever for the defence of the realm and the marches of Wales during what was evidently a turbulent first session. Indeed, this session, lasting seven weeks, was chiefly remarkable for the introduction in the Lower House of a bill, ardently promoted by the lollards in their midst,3Their identity can only be guessed, but the supporters of the bill possibly included Sir Thomas Brooke. which advocated a detailed plan for the confiscation of the temporalities of the bishops and greater abbots. Only in the second session, meeting after Easter, did Thomas Chaucer’s leadership prove more effective, although the Commons remained critical of the government and tenacious in their demands, which they expressed in 18 articles presented on 23 Apr. These concentrated on certain issues: the safeguard of truces, naval defence, the provision of sufficient revenue for the Household and, most important for the furtherance of ‘good and substantial government’, the establishment of a new Council whose members were to be openly sworn in Parliament to give loyal advice and behave impartially. This Council, as eventually appointed on 2 May, was predominantly the preserve of the prince’s friends, but the Commons insisted on being notified in full of their names, and they were indeed publicly sworn in before Parliament was dissolved. Prince Henry’s first administration had been launched, but he was on probation from the standpoint of both King and Commons. The grant of one-and-a-half fifteenths and tenths finally conceded by the Lower House was only half what he had hoped for, and however partisan certain Members of the House may have been and however much they personally welcomed the prince’s de facto assumption of power, their enthusiasm clearly did not extend to the granting of further taxes. It is of interest to note, too, that specific appropriations of the wool subsidy to provide for the defence of Calais and the marches, in which the prince of Wales had an overriding interest as the newly appointed captain there, were not initiated by the Commons. Rather, they were separately recorded on the Parliament roll as an ordinance for which the Lords alone were responsible.4RP, iii. 627.

RETAINERS OF HENRY IV

* An annuity initially granted by Richard II but confirmed by his successor.

OFFICE-HOLDERS

ASSOCIATES OF HENRY, PRINCE OF WALES

ASSOCIATES OF THE BEAUFORTS

ASSOCIATES OF THOMAS CHAUCER, THE SPEAKER

ASSOCIATES OF THOMAS FITZALAN, EARL OF ARUNDEL

ASSOCIATES OF RICHARD BEAUCHAMP, EARL OF WARWICK

ASSOCIATES OF THOMAS OF LANCASTER

ASSOCIATES OF ARCHBISHOP ARUNDEL

APPOINTMENTS MADE DURING OR SHORTLY AFTER THE PARLIAMENT

GRANTS MADE DURING THE PARLIAMENT

The burgesses of Lyme Regis, Melcombe Regis, Truro and Winchester also received favourable responses to their petitions.10Ibid 637-41.