Appendix C1: The composition of the Merciless Parliament (Feb. 1388)

Introduction

It would be entirely possible, given the wealth of information contained in the 3,173 biographies of Members of Parliament from the period 1386-1421, to produce a systematic analysis of the Membership of each of the 32 Parliaments covered, one by one. Since constraints of time and space make this exercise impracticable within the scope of these volumes, it has been attempted for just seven of the assemblies involved. The Parliaments of 1388 (Feb.), 1388 (Sept.), 1397 (Sept.) and 1399 form a coherent group with a common theme, considering the strength of the political opposition to Richard II, as mustered first by the Lords Appellant and then by Henry of Bolingbroke, together with a summary of the Members of the Commons upon whom the King might well have relied to help put through his retaliatory measures in 1397. The appendices regarding the composition of the Commons of 1410, 1411 and 1413 (May) likewise share a theme: the extent of support in the Lower House for the party and policies of Henry of Monmouth both before and immediately after his accession to the throne.

In the lists supplied below the following abbreviations have been used:

APPENDIX C1

The composition of the Merciless Parliament

(February 1388)

The wording of the writs of summons issued on 17 Dec. 1387 reflected Richard II’s fear that his opponents, the Lords Appellant, would pack the Commons in their interest, thereby facilitating the destruction of the King’s friends, for it was stipulated that those elected should be persons who had not taken sides in the current disputes (‘in debatis modernis magis indifferentes’). Following the defeat at Radcot Bridge of the forces led by his favourite, Robert de Vere, Richard was forced on 1 Jan. to authorize fresh writs, leaving out this unique directive.1J.S. Roskell, Introductory Survey, above, p. 57. The question nevertheless remains as to how many of the elected Members might have come to the House with open minds, prepared to be impartial in the responsible tasks they would be required to undertake, or whether, as the Commons’ compliant endorsement of the Appellants’ brutal attack on the court party suggests, they were predominantly partisan. It would appear that the electors in most constituencies made a deliberate decision to send to this particular Parliament men who had represented their communities before. As many as 187 of the 259 Members (72%) were already acquainted with the workings of the House. More significantly, no fewer than 65 of them had sat in the assembly immediately preceding, where they had borne witness to the creation of the parliamentary commission which effectively placed the government in the hands of a council beyond the control of the King. This commission Richard had understandably regarded with extreme mistrust, and his judges considered it to be unlawful and contrary to the royal prerogative. Indeed, a remarkably large number of places—15 in all—re-elected both their representatives from that Parliament of 1386, in which the duke of Gloucester and the earl of Arundel had asserted their dominance. It is very likely that those 65 Members, if not many more of their companions, were quite capable of making a viable contribution to a debate on the political and constitutional issues now at stake. The number of apparent newcomers to the House (72) was unusually low for the period, making up just 28% of the total, yet it is of interest to note that at least nine of these novices were committed adherents of one or another of the Lords Appellant, and included such figures as Sir William Bagot, counsellor to Warwick, Derby and Nottingham, and Thomas Coggeshall, who was probably already in the service of Gloucester.

The tables below provide information about the comparatively few Members whose circumstances might have led them to sympathize with the King’s favourites now facing trial by appeal, and about those who probably sided with the Appellants. Lists of Members considered by Gloucester and his fellows as trustworthy enough to administer the oath endorsing the acts of the first session, and of those who directly benefited from the change of government in terms of grants of land or offices, supply further details relevant to the question of the Members’ political persuasion. It should be appreciated that the limitations of the sources (in particular the loss of the estate papers of the duke of Gloucester and the earl of Nottingham) leave large gaps in our knowledge. There can be no doubt of the Commons’ pliancy with regard to the excesses of the assembly, as evidenced by their agreement with the appropriation to the Appellants of £20,000 from the subsidy voted by the Parliament. However, it will be clear from a cursory perusal of these lists that the same individuals sometimes appear in more than one camp. A more detailed study of their biographies may go some way to explaining the apparent contradictions.

POSSIBLE SYMPATHIZERS WITH THE KING

* Granted by Edward III or the Black Prince; only confirmed by Richard II

HOLDERS OF OFFICES IN THE CROWN’S APPOINTMENT

ASSOCIATES OF THE LORDS APPELLANT

* Associated with Henry of Bolingbroke’s father, John of Gaunt, duke of Lancaster

THOSE ASSIGNED TO ADMINISTER IN THE LOCALITIES THE OATH IN SUPPORT OF THE APPELLANTS, 20 MAR. 1388

The remaining 25 so appointed at the close of the first session of the Parliament were not Members.

MEMBERS OF THE MERCILESS PARLIAMENT APPOINTED TO CROWN OFFICES BEFORE THE APPELLANTS RELINQUISHED POWER IN MAY 1389

* Appointments made before the dissolution of the Merciless Parliament on 4 June.

MEMBERS BENEFITING DIRECTLY FROM GRANTS MADE IN CHANCERY AND THE EXCHEQUER WHILE THE APPELLANTS WERE IN POWER

In his opening speech to the Parliament of September 1397, summoned after Gloucester, Arundel and Warwick had been charged with high treason, the chancellor announced that Richard II, having considered the many misdeeds committed by various people against their allegiance, nevertheless wished to show lenience, and proposed to grant a general pardon. Fifty persons were formally excluded from the King’s grace, and, since the names of those thus left to the rigours of the law were not published, a number of men, doubtless out of feelings of either guilt or insecurity, sued for pardons straight away. The first individual charters of pardon were granted on 18 Oct., at the forefront of the supplicants being Sir Giles Mallory and Sir Nicholas Lilling, prominent retainers of the now exiled earl of Warwick. The general pardon, as eventually issued in January 1398 at Shrewsbury, in direct response to the Commons’ unprecedented generosity in granting the King for life the customs subsidies on wool, still excepted all persons who had risen against him in 1387-8. These unnamed men were then required to seek the King’s grace individually, the deadline for doing so being initially set at 24 June 1398, but later extended to Michaelmas following. Several of the exempted persons were made to appear before the Council and pay heavy fines before their pardons were issued, and some were obliged to purchase a second one for good measure.2RP, iii. 347, 359, 369. The pardons are discussed by C.M. Barron in ‘The Tyranny of Richard II’, Bull. IHR, xli. 1-18. A few (including the notorious trio Sir William Bagot, Sir John Bussy and Sir Henry Green, former adherents of the Lords Appellant, but now entrenched among the King’s most trusted supporters), were fortunate enough to secure that their letters of pardon were given extra weight by enrolment on the patent rolls of the Chancery. Of the many pardons granted in the year beginning October 1397, some 600 referred specifically to the recipients’ treasonable association with the Appellants. It was stated that these particular individuals had adhered to Gloucester and Arundel when they assumed the royal authority in 1386 by commission under the great seal ‘in derogation of the King and his crown’, or when those lords had drawn after them others including the earl of Warwick into insurrection at Harringay and elsewhere, and that, having come to the King in his palace at Westminster, had plundered, imprisoned and killed many of his loyal subjects (this last being a direct allusion to the deeds of the Merciless Parliament).3C67/30 mm. 2, 3, 19, 31 mm. 2, 12, 13; CPR, 1396-9, pp. 184, 331, 340-1.

The following is a list of those Members of the Merciless Parliament who successfully sued for pardons in 1397-8. Those pardons specifically relating to the recipients’ adherence to the Appellants are marked *; those enrolled on the patent roll, rather than on the supplementary pardon rolls, are marked †. Not all the Members of the Merciless Parliament were still alive in 1397-8, able to face the consequences of their participation in the momentous events of ten years earlier; at least 34, and perhaps several more, of the 259 had died in the meantime. But of the survivors 46 (21% of the total) received pardons, 15 of them for the active support they had offered to the Appellants.