No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
For King, Country, and Patron: The Despensers and Local Administration, 1321-1322
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 November 2023
Extract
As the royal government in England expanded from the twelfth century onward and touched more aspects of the economy and society, landlords tried to control the administration and to protect their interests by retaining royal officers as their private clients. Simultaneously, lords built their own administrations to manage their estates and households. As clients, administrators could move easily between the royal government and baronial administrations and serve two or more masters, thereby compromising their loyalty and impartiality. The problem of “double allegiance,” as it has been called, therefore worried moralists and became an important characteristic of English government and politics in the fourteenth century.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The North American Conference on British Studies, 1983
References
1 N. Denholm-Young, Seignorial administration in England (Oxford, 1937); idem, The country gentry in the fourteenth century (Oxford, 1969), pp. 38-40; idem, “The authorship of the Vita Edwardi Secundi,” English Historical Review, 71 (1956), 95-96 (hereafter cited as EHR); R.B. Pugh, “The king's government in the middle ages,” in Victoria county history of Wiltshire, vol. 5, eds. R.B. Pugh and E. Crittall (London, 1957), pp. 7-10, 15,19; G. Lapsley, “Buzones,”, EHR 47 (1932), 193; P.D.A. Harvey, A medieval Oxfordshire village: Cuxham, 1240 to 1400 (Oxford, 1965), pp. 104-12; F.R.H. DuBoulay, The lordship of Canterbury (London, 1966), pp. 264-76; E. Searle, Lordship and community: Battle Abbey and its banlieu, 1066-1538 (Toronto, 1974), pp. 242-46. “It has been pointed out that through men of double allegiance … the baronage could indirectly influence the administration.” (Denholm-Young, “Authorship,” p. 202). J.C. Davies called this “divided allegiance,” (Davies, Baronial opposition, p. 315. Full citations for this and many other abbreviations of sources and works are listed in the notes to the tables, below, p.57) Davies also described the household system of government as “ … a perfect machinery for a strong-minded and able favorite to work his will in the government of the time.” (p. 75).
2 J.R. Maddicott, ‘Law and lordship: royal justices as retainers in thirteenth- and fourteenth-century England,” Past and Present Supplement, no. 4 (1978); Nigel Saul, Knights and esquires: the Gloucestershire gentry in the fourteenth century (Oxford, 1981), esp. chapters 2 and 3. For the Despensers’ role in the administration, see: Davies,Baronial opposition, pp. 71-72, 93, 96-99, 102-05; Tout, Place, pp. 136-56; Fryde, Tyranny, pp. 27-36, 83-84, 101, 103-04, 110-12.
3 CCR, 1318-23, pp. 492-5, quote at p. 493. The process is also printed in W. Stubbs, ed. Gesta Edwardi de Carnarvon auctore canonico Bridlingtoniensi in Chronicles of the reigns of Edward I and Edward II, Rolls Series 76 (London, 1883), 2:66-7 (hereafter cited as Bridlington); A. Luders, et. al., eds., Statutes of the Realm, Record Commission (London, 1810-28), 1:182-3. For the background to the process, see: Fryde, Tyranny, pp. 45-49.
4 The terms client, clientele, and clientage are preferred here because in the majority of the cases no formal indentures survive between the Despensers and their retainers, as can be seen in the tables. The tables provide the basic references to an individual's service, and those references are amplified in the notes to the text when necessary. All of the clients referred to in the text are listed in the tables.
5 For examples of how such contacts could be made, see below, n. 9 and 19.
6 J.R. Maddicott, Thomas of Lancaster, 1307-1322 (Oxford, 1970), p. 229; Tout, Place, pp. 46, 144, 180-81, 281, 298, 304, 307.
7 Pinkenny: CPR, 1321-4, pp. 406, 431: 1327-30, p. 330; CIPM, 7:324-5 (no. 458); CCR, 1318-23, p. 402. Wateville: CFR, 3:80, 84, 167; CCR, 1318-23, p. 602; CPR, 1321-4, pp. 62, 210, 403; Games, Baronial opposition, pp. 339-40; WSS, pp. 152-54, 157, 232. Wateville remained loyal to his lord to the very end, for in the autumn of 1326, he was among those charged with the defense of England from Isabella and Mortimer. Wyther: CFR, 3:116, 155, 183; CMR, p. 67. Wyther had also been associated with Thomas of Lancaster and Aymer de Valence: Maddicott, Lancaster, pp. 54, 61, 274; J.R.S. Phillips, Aymer de Valence, Earl of Pembroke, 1307-1324 (Oxford, 1972), p. 304. For the Despensers’ use of recognizances as instruments of power, see: Davies, Baronial opposition, p. 36.
8 Phillips, Valence, p. 257. Lovel received the younger Despenser's aid in contracting a marriage with the widow of Henry de Valence in 1322. Valence was also in the Earl of Pembroke's retinue, (CPR, 1321-4, p. 141; Phillips, Valence, pp. 116, 255, 258, 261, 302) Lovel acted as a mainpernor for Wateville in 1322: CFR, 3:167. Cromwell's association with the Despensers dated from at least 1322, when they entered into a series of land transactions that involved life grants to Cromwell with remainders to the Despenser family, (CAD, 4:420 (A9399); CCR, 1318-23, pp. 344, 346, 358-59, 368; CPR, 1321-4, p. 324). After that, Cromwell can be found witnessing Despenser charters, (CAD, 5:44 (A10.769); CPR, 1324-7, p. 52; CCR, 1323-7, p. 327). Such an association might have developed because Cromwell had long served in the household and royal administration as a bannaret, steward and constable of the Tower of London. As steward, Cromwell witnessed a royal grant with Hugh junior in 1315, and the two accompanied one another to Scotland in 1322 as royal familiares, (Tout, Chapters, 2:237, 302 n.2; 6:42; Davies, Baronial opposition, pp. 142, 168, 174, 212, 226, 360, 427, 431; Phillips, Valence, pp. 44-45, 122, 125, 149, 305, 313; Fyrde, Tyranny, pp. 131, 167). Finally, Master John de Shorditch went to Gascony on the king's service in 1324 in the company of Valence and Constantine de Mortimer, (CPR, 1324-4, p. 427).
9 Other men who served as attorneys only once, but who cannot otherwise be identified were Robert Graunsak, clerk, and Philip de Hertrugge, (CAD, 4:45, 528 (A6488 and A10, 260). Some clients acted jointly as the Despensers’ attornies: Cliff and Camoys, or Cliff and Belers, (CPR 1317-21, p. 449; 1321-4, p. 189).
10 Information for the retinues of Lancaster and Valence can be found in: Maddicott, Lancaster, pp. 40-66 and Phillips, Valence, pp. 253-68, 291-311. Maddicott concludes that Lancaster's retinue numbered about 50 to 55 knights in 1318-19, (p. 45) though this number does not include administrative clients or other servants. Similarly, Phillips calculates that Valence's military retinue fluctuated between about 40 and 100 (p.254). He lists a total of 128 men known to have been associated with Valence at some point in his lifetime, (pp. 295-305, excluding sub-retinues). From these, I have selected 76 (including some officials) active around 1321-22, to compare with the Despensers’ clientage, (Abel, Addingsley, Bagot, J. Bassingburn, M. Bassingburn, Bayhouse, Baynard, N. Beche, W. Beche, Bendyn, Berkeley, Brickendon, Carew, Castle-Goodrich, Cleydon, Cressoner, Cromwell, J. Darcy, R. Darcy, H. Dene, J. Dene, H. Drayton, S. Drayton, Elys, Ergun, E. Gacelyn, J. Gacelyn, Glyn, Hashtorp, Hastings, Holewell, Huntingfield, Insula, Keu, Lavenham, Leaumes, Lodewyk, Loryng, Lovel, Mareschal, Mortimer, Merlyn, Milksop, Moriz, R. Munchensy, W. Munchensy, Olney, Oseville, J. Pabenham, J. Pabenham, J. Pabenham, Panton, Paveley, Paynel, Peyvre, Plaiz, Pollicott, Priour, Ryver, Sackville, Simeon, Simond, Stackpole, Stapleton, Twenge, Umfraville, Valence, Walkingham, FitzWalter, Waterville, West, Wollaston, Wyther, A Zouche, J. Zouche, W. Zouche). The most striking difference between the Despenser group and the others is the military quality of Lancaster's and Valence's retinues. The difference can perhaps be explained by the fact that different sources were used in compiling the lists, yet it is notable that the Despensers had very few military retainers.
11 Maddicott, Lancaster, pp. 48-51.
12 The process against the Despensers singled out Basset, Camoys, and Inge as those whom the Despensers placed on judicial commissions. G.O. Sayles, however, concluded that “ … so far as the king's bench is concerned, there is no evidence at all to support Tout's argument (Place of Edward II; p. 144) that Hugh Despenser had “packed’ the court with his dependents before he was driven into exile in 1321.” (G.O. Sayles, ed., Select cases in the court of king's bench under Edward II, (Selden Society Publications, 741 (London, 1955), Introduction, p. xiii n. 13).
13 Maddicott, Lancaster, p. 63: “These activities are only what might be expected of any of the country gentry and lesser barons at this period.” Saul's study of the Gloucestershire gentry fully supports this conclusion, (Saul, Knights, pp. 106-67). Because of the form in which Phillips presents the evidence for Valence's retinue, the royal and private services of his retainers cannot be correlated.
14 John Abel, baron of the exchequer, (Davis, Baronial opposition, p. 315; Tout, Place, pp. 300 n.3, 304, 306, 323). William de la Beche, valet and knight of the household, (Davies, pp. 146, 222). John de Cromwell, steward of the household, etc. Robert Darcy, served in the household, (Davies, p. 384). John de Dene, household knight, (Davies, p 222). John de Paynel, chamberlain of Chester, (Tout, Place, p.348).
15 It should be noted that the high percentage of Despenser clients in royal service can perhaps be misleading. The evidence is weighted in favor of that conclusion, for the information is largely taken from royal sources and therefore tends to single out those serving the king and to exclude any acting in a purely private capacity.
16 Tout, Place, pp. 130 and n. 2, 316; Murimuth, p. 33; Chronica monasterii de Melsa, ed. E.A. Bond, Rolls Series, 43 (London, 1866-8), 2:337-8; John Trokelowe, Annales, ed. T. Hearne, Rolls Series, 28 (London, 1866), p. 107. Controllers: Baldock (1320-3); Holden (1323-6); Huggate (1326-7). Also see below, p.30 and n. 29.
17 In 1311, Welles was described as a royal clerk, and was appointed as keeper of the bishopric of Durham and controller of the chamberlainship of Scotland, (CFR, 2:85; CPR, 1307-1313, p. 381). He served thenceforth in various positions, both in the central administration and on local commissions, (CFR, 2:213, 248; CCR, 1313-18, p. 234; CPR, 1313-17, p. 326). In 1316, he married the widow of Robert Clifford and then worked on behalf of his new stepson, (CPR, 1313-17, p. 551; 1317-21, p. 433). Nevertheless, in the years 1321-25, he worked assiduously in the central government and probably formed his ties with the Despensers during that period, (CPR, 1321-4, p. 425; 1324-7, p. 100; CCR, 1318-23, pp. 430,438,456; Public Record Office (hereafter cited as PRO), Exchequer various accounts, E.101/381/6, wardrobe account for 20 Edward II; Exchequer warrants for issues, E.404/1/8, 16 Edward II: “nostre cher bachelor… .“).
18 CPR, 1313-17, p. 320; Parliamentary writs and writs of military summons, ed. F. Palgrave, 2 vols. in 4, Record Commission (London, 1827-34), 2:2:90 (Saham); PRO, Plea rolls of the king's bench, KB.27/271, m. 105 (Tewkesbury); CPR, 1321-4, pp. 153-54, 257, 368 (assault). Aside from Aylmer, Croyser and Inge seem to have served both father and son at different points in their careers.
19 Davies,Baronial opposition, pp. 89-90,89 n.10; CCR, 1318-23, p. 385; Rot.pad., 1:352a.
20 Rot. pad., 2:385 (steward in Worcs., Gloucs., and Staff.); CCR, 1323-7, p. 532 and CPR, 1324-7, p. 206 (witness to charters); CPR, 1324-7, pp. 252, 318 (tenant of lands granted to abbot and convent of Tewkesbury in mortmain); CChW, p. 542 (yeoman). In 1312, Botiller paid £6. 13s. 4d. (or ten marks) to be respited from knighthood for two years, (CFR, 2:157). It should be noted that Despenser and, before him, the Clares had a close association with the abbey of Tewkesbury. See: W. Dugdale, Monasticon anglicanum, new ed., eds. J. Caley, H. Ellis, and B. Bandinel, 6 vols in 8 (London, 1817-30), 2:55.
21 CCR, 1318-23, pp. 518, 541; 1323-7, p. 142 (clerk); CChW, p. 450; CFR, 3:71 (king's clerk).
22 PRO, Justices itinerant, Just.1/1037, m. Id. (Foxcote: “senescallus domini Hugoni …”); Rot. pad., 2:37 (Tesdale: valet), 431 (chamberlain); CCR. 1323-7, p. 532 (witness); CFR, 3:74 (yeoman); Rot. pad. ined., pp. 144, 191.
23 CMR, p. 250 (no. 1833, auditor); Fryde, “Deposits,” p. 349.
24 CPR, 1307-13, p. 582 (1313); 1317-21, p. 449 (1320); 1321-4, p. 188 (1322).
25 Fryde, Tyranny, pp. 9, 48, 74 (Inge); Davies, Baronial opposition, pp. 128, 176, 338, app. no. 94; Tout, Chapters, 2:144 n. 2 (Brom). The cohesion and interrelationships of these Despenser servants are visible in the commissions on which they served together during the years of the younger Hugh's prominence. Bek: with Aylmer (1323), Botiller (1323), Aylmer and Botiller (1323), Botiller (1324), Aylmer and Botiller (1324), (CPR, 1321 -4, pp. 263, 311, 443,449; 1324-7, p. 64). Brom: Inge and Aylmer (1321), (CFR, 3:69-70). Kingston: Dunstaple (1321), Dunstaple and Aylmer (1322), Inge (1322), Dunstaple (1322), Aylmer and Botiller (1325), (CChW, p. 526; CFR, 3:79, 101, 114, 115; CPR, 1321-4, p. 108; CCR, 1323-7, p. 408). Cliff: Basset, Foxcote, Dunstaple, Brom, and Belers, (CPR, 1321-4, pp. 189, 324, 343; CFR, 3:193; CCR, 1318-23, pp. 490, 518. Ingham: Inge and Swynburn, Travers and Leyburn, Croyser, Vaus, (CCR, 1318-23, p. 723; CFR. 3:118, 172-3; CIM, 2:240 (no. 965)).
26 For the pardons and accusations, see: CPR, 1327-30, pp. 20, 76, 80, 81, 100,101, 285. For Aylmer and the effort to release Edward II, see: CPR, 1327-30, p. 156-7; CCR, 1327-30, p. 158; Foedera, conventiones, litterae, ed. Thomas Rymer, 3rd. ed., ed. George Holmes, (The Hague, 1745), 2:2:195; Fryde, Tyranny, p. 224; T.F. Tout, “The captivity and death of Edward of Carnarvon,” in idem, Collected Papers, (Manchester, 1932-4), 3:157-63.
27 Camoys: CPR, 1317-21, pp. 170, 179, 300, 467, 542, 548, 602, 608 (etc.). Aylmer: CPR, 1313-17, p. 320; 1321-4, pp. 64, 153-4, 254, 311, 380, 443, 449, 452. Botiller: CPR, 1324-7, pp. 191, 231. Foxcote: CPR, 1317-21, p. 541.
28 CPR, 1313-17, p. 349 (1315, Dunstaple);Rot. pad., 1:354(1315, Aylmer); CFR, 2:313 (Aylmer).
29 Davies, Baronial opposition, pp. 141, 525; List, p. 1; CFR, 3:21, 67, 130, 202.
30 This discussion of the Despensers’ holdings is taken from Fryde, Tyranny, pp. 27-36, 228-32.
31 The distribution of the elder Despenser's lands can be seen, roughly, in his accusations against those who ravaged his property in 1321, (CPR, 1321-4, p. 168). The complaint thus shows that he had 17 manors in Wilts., 12 in Gloucs., 5 in Hants., 6 in Bed. and Bucks., and others scattered over several counties.
32 CAD, 1:108, 109, 111 (A 927, 931, 932, 934, 943, 946, 947, 948, 955).
33 Vita, p. 114.
34 Fryde, Tyranny, pp. 106-18; Fryde, “Deposits,” p. 348; Tout, Place, p. 138-39; Davies, Baronial opposition, pp. 95, 97-98.
35 R.R. Davies, Lordship and society in the March of Wales, 1282-1400 (Oxford, 1978), pp. 279-81, 285, 288; Edwards. Anc. cor. Wales, pp. 84, 219-20, 259-60; J.C. Davies, “The Despenser war in Glamorgan,” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 3rd ser., 9 (1915) 21-64, esp. pp. 25-49.
36 Davies, Lordship and society, pp. 100 and n. 41, 416; Griffiths, Principality of Wales, p. 258.
37 For the Ovedale lands, see: CIPM, 5:346 (no.538), tenants of the Earl of Gloucester; 6:178-9 (no. 310).
38 CCR, 1318-23, p. 223, 285; CFR, 3:41; CPR, 1321-4, p. 21; CMR, p. 150 (no. 959).
39 CCR, 1318-23, pp. 541-46. Trokelowe (p. 108) notes that attackers plundered the lands of the Despensers and “ … omnium eis aliquo foedere vel affinitate conjuctorum.“
40 Fryde, Tryanny, pp. 37-57. For a more comprehensive treatment of the events of 1321-22, see: Maddicott, Lancaster, pp. 259-317.
41 Fryde, Tyranny, pp. 69-86; S.L. Waugh, “The Confiscated lands of the Contrariants in Gloucestershire and Herefordshire in 1322: an economic and social study: (Ph.D. thesis, University of London, 1975), pp. 118-22.
42 Fryde, Tyranny, p. 49; CFR, 3:68-70. The order for the escheators by king and council is listed under 20 August, while the commitment of the lands to individual custodians is dated 16 August.
43 CFR, 3:67, 70, 71, 74, 75, 79; CCR, 1318-23, p. 442; CChW, p. 526, CPR.1321 -4, p. 108; Davies, Baronial opposition, pp. 89-90.
44 For Brom, see above, n. 27. Thunnyk and York: CMR, pp. 67, 94, 122, 247 (nos. 474, 716, 870, 1814). Wigeton had at one time been controller of the wardrobe, (Tout, Chapters, 2:242, 245, 272, 297-8). The previous keepers—Dunstaple, Kingston, and Cotesford—were appointed to audit the accounts of the keepers and bailiffs of the Despensers’ lands, on 14 November, iCFR, 3:79).
45 CFR, 3:94. For the king's efforts to purvey grain and other victuals in this region during the civil war, see: S.L. Waugh, “The profits of violence: the minor gentry in the rebellion of 1321-1322 in Gloucestershire and Herefordshire,” Speculum, 52 (1977), 851-53.
46 CFR, 3:100 (baronial courts); PRO, Just.1/1037, m. Id. (seizures). John de Dufford, knight, had also taken a horse, 3 oxen, a bull, and 8 quarters of wheat belonging to one of the rebels and turned them over to Despenser for the king's use, (Just.1/1037, m. 1: “ … quae deliberavit Hugoni le Despenser ad opus regis….”)
47 CFR, 3:97, 151; PRO, Exchequer memoranda rolls, (LTR), E.368/95, m. 119; Exchequer miscellaneous accounts, E.358/16, m. 17; Ministers’ accounts, SC.6/1145/9.
48 CMR, p. 236 (no. 1731); CFR, 3:122.
49 CPR, 1321-4, pp. 112, 118.
50 CFR, 3:101, 119, 121; CCR, 1318-23, p. 603; 1323-7, pp. 220,393; 1327-30, p. 64.
51 Beauchamp: CFR, 3:70, 86, 100, 120. Inge: CFR, 3:143, 306; PRO, Rentals and surveys, SC.12/8/18. Ingham: CFR, 3:102-3. Tesdale: CFR, 3:397; CMR, pp. 258-59, 323 (nos. 1958, 2177(a)). Travers: CFR, 3:118, 126, 140, 148, 150, 173, 222, 223; CPR, 1321-4, p. 161; CCR, 1318-23, pp. 537, 539, 541, 571-73, 576.
52 CFR, 3:149, 225, 226; CCR, 1318-23, pp. 442, 454; E.358/14, m. 6.
53 CFR, 3:101, 114, 115; CCR, 1323-7, p. 408; CPR, 1321 -4, pp. 311, 443, 449, 452; 1324-7, p. 64.
54 CPR, 1321-4, pp. 102, 148, 149, 311, 380, 443, 449, 452; 1324-7, pp. 191, 231; CCR, 1323-7, p. 422; Pad. writs, 2:2:277.
55 CPR, 1321-4, pp. 77, 206, 254; 1324-7, pp. 229, 286; CCR, 1318-23, pp. 492-93, 673; 232,3-7, pp. 203, 289. For L'Ewer's rebellion, see: Fryde, Tyranny, pp. 153-54.
56 Most of the commissions relating to the forfeiture and custody of the Contrariants’ lands can be found on the fine rolls: CFR, 3:76-120. The one Valence retainer who assumed a prominent role in the administration was Nicholas de la Beche. He received a number of commissions to keep Contrariants’ lands, (CFR, 3:76, 81, 84, 107, 427).
57 CPR, 1321-4, p. 132; PRO, Chancery extract rolls, C.59'9, 10; KB.27/271, m. 105. William de Aylmer had illegally seized Oxendon in March, prior to turning it over to Foxcote.
58 CFR, 3:181; PRO, E. 358-15, m. 45. A place was marked for Despenser's accounts, but it was left blank. Edward granted him other forfeited lands and goods in GIOUCR. as well, (CPR, 1321-4, pp. 128, 129, 132, 189; PRO, C.59/9, 10).
59 CChW, p. 152-53; PRO, E.368/94, m. 100: “Hugo le Despenser junior ponit loco suo Ricardum de Foxcote ad reddendum compotum pro eodem de exitibus maneriorum … de toto tempore quo idem Hugh habuit custodiam dictarum terrarum ac etiam ad compotum pro eodem de operibus castri Bristol in custodia eiusdem… .“
60 CPR, 1321-4, p. 263. For the auditing process, see: PRO, E.368 93, m. 7.
61 Ibid, m. 56.
62 CPR, 1321-4, p. 443; 1324-7, p. 64.
63 CFR, 3:203; PRO, SC.6/1145/1; E.358/14, m. 51; E.368 96, mm. 112-112d.
64 Aylmer: PRO, KB.27/271. m. 105; Rot. part, ined., p. 158-59; CPR. 1327-30, pp. 80, 285. Botiller: Rot. parl., 2:385-6. Foxcote: CPR. 1327-30. pp. 75-76, 80, 81, 285. (Saul, Knights and esquires, p. 182-83, mistakenly attributes Foxcote's actions to the year in which the commissions of over and terminer were issued. The fact that Foxcote had been one of the keepers of the lands in question and the fact that the “crimes” involved the removal of goods and livestock, probably indicated that Foxcote and others acted while they had custody of the lands. His accusors—John de Wilington and John de Acton—had to wait until 1327/8 to bring their actions, because they could not have hoped to attain redress while Despenser and his men were still in power. Moreover, the language of trespass and the commissions of oyer and terminer make it appear that Foxcote had acted maliciously, yet it is possible that Wilington, Acton and others brought such actions in order to obtain compensation for confiscations that royal officers made under royal authorization during the civil war.) Botiller was linked with a John Golafre, for whom Foxcote acted as a pledge in a fine of £20 owed to the crown in 1327, (PRO, Exchequer of pleas, E. 13/54). Foxcote was also linked with Stephen Dunheved, (CPR, 1327-30, p. 80), with whom Aylmer was involved in the abortive attempt to rescue Ed).d II from Berkeley Castle, (above, n. 26).
65 After the fall of the Despensers, many individuals brought forth complaints against the former favorites, their adherents, and royal officials who had assisted them during the civil ).. Some of those complaints can be found in the rolls of parliament (see preceeding note for examples) and in the inquisitions miscellaneous, [CM, 2:232, 237-41, 246, 248-49, 253-55, 259, 315, 363 (nos. 933, 955, 958, 965, 969, 989, 992, 1000, 1020, 1022, 1024, 1291. 1485)). The complaints mention many Despenser clients, such aslngham,(no. 965), but also individuals for whom no other association to the Despensers can be established. Thus, John Bronyng (no. 988), John Hasselegh (no. 1024), William Staunford (no. 1024), and Thomas Waukelyn (no. 965) were all implicated in the Despensers’ depredations, though little else can be discovered about their private or public careers. For the Despensers’ harassment of landholders in these years, see: Fryde, Tyranny, pp. 109-118 (esp. p. 116 for Oliver de Ingham); G.A. Holmes, “A protest against the Despensers, 1326,” Speculum, 30 (1955), 210 n. 21.
66 For Cliff and Bousser, see: Holmes, “A protest,” p. 211. Walewayn: “ … per procuramentum et malivolenciam Hugonis … iunioris magister Johannes Wallewyn tune escaetor citra Trentam ipsos disseisiuit,” (Rot. parl. ined., p. 147). For Walewayn's career, see: Denholm-Young, “Authorship, pp. 202-05; Davies, Baron - ial opposition, pp. 355-56.
67 Ed).ds, Anc. cor. Wales, pp. 184, 219-21, 259-60; Davies, Lordship and society, p. 280 and n. 1; WSS, p. 233 (no. 201), Lymburgh to Despenser: “Et, surceste chose et autres que pur auscunes enchesons jeo lees de vous escrire, vous pleise doner foi et credence a Johan de Asphale, car, sur ma foi, jeo crei que vous lui trouveretz bon et loial et il vous seet overer ascuns secretz, sil soit bien examinez. Totefoitz, jeo meintenk’ ceo que jeo vous avoi avant dit del bien et de la loialte et la bone amour que mons’ Johan de Wisham porte a nostre seignur le roi et a vous….” Because of his position, Despenser easily confused his business with that of the crown. Yet, taking this distortion into account, these letters show how a lord could use royal officers to acquire valuable information and establish further connections.
68 Maddicott, “Law and lordship,” p. 40.
69 I.J. Sanders, English baronies: a study of their origin and descent, 1086-1327 (Oxford, 1960), p. 10; CAD, 2:165, 166 (A3202, 3204); 4:85-6 (A6814); 5:62-3 (A10910); CIM, 2:127 (no. 516). Wydeslade: CAD, 1:62 (A523).
70 Lovel: CPR, 1321-4, p. 141. Both Lovel and Valence served as retainers of the Earl of Pembroke, (Phillips, Aymer de Valence, pp. 116, 2,55, 258, 267, 302). Wateville: WSS, p. 157 (no. 147): “Il vous membre bien qe autrefoiz voliez qe je eusse este delivres de femme, queu cas, sire, me est ja avenuz; si vous requier, sire, qil vous plese recorder et sovenir de moi et de mon estat, si mariage nul chiete en court dont un povre bachiler come je sui em pusse estre eide, car surement, sire, coment que disverses paroles se volent, je masseure sovereinement de vostre bone seignurie et daver recoverir parmi vous, come vous lavez commence.“
71 Hugh senior assisted Haudlo in a marriage agreement with Maud Lovel, Hugh's daughter-in-law, and more directly offered Sancto Amando the hand of his daughter Margaret. Hugh junior promised to assist his retainer Ovedale in marrying Hugh's sister Isabel, but she married Ralph de Monthermer instead, (CAD, 4:85-6 (A6814), 252 (A8019), 525 (A10237); Sanders,English baronies, p. 8 and n. 4, 29 and n. 1; CPR, 1321-4, p. 203; CFR, 3:357). Hugh junior evidently also aided Edmund Bacon (who called himself Hugh's bachelor) in a disputed wardship, (PRO, Ancient correspondence, SC.1/49/112).
72 CChW, pp. 450, 537; CPR, 1317-21, p. 37; CFR, 3:71. The patronage that the Despensers’ men received has been compared with that received by Pembroke's retainers: “ … the overall impression is that the patronage obtained by Pembroke's men and the lands he himself received at intervals from the crown were no more than might be expected in the case of a prominent and loyal magnate of Pembroke's standing. There is no evidence that he ever deliberately exploited his position in the way followed by favorites such as Gaveston or the Younger Despenser.” (Phillips, Aymer de Valence, p. 259). For a similar conclusion, see: Maddicott, Lancaster, pp. 47, 178.
73 CCR, 1323-7, p. 308. He was appointed in 1325, but removed the next year. The king customarily awarded the deanship of St. Martin's to trusted servants, (Victoria county history of London, vol. 1, ed. William Page (London, 1909), p. 559).
74 CPR, 1321-4, pp. 135, 181, 198, 239, 301, 416.
75 CFR, 3:74; CMR, pp. 17, 38 (nos. 69, 221, 227); Rot. pad., 2:431; Rot. pad. ined., pp. 114, 191.
76 Fryde, Tyranny, pp. 106-09; CPR, 1321-4, pp. 127 (Welles), 134 (Basset), 275 (Reading).
77 CIM, 2:240, 244, 246 (nos. 966, 982, 989); Fryde, Tyranny, p. 116.
78 CCR, 132S-7, pp. 203, 289; 1327-30, p. 71; CPR, 1321-4, pp. 206, 254; Calendar of the charter rolls, 1226-1516, 6 vols., HMSO (London, 1903-27), 3:469.
79 CFR, 3:97; The registers of Roger Martival, bishop of Salisbury, 1315-1330, eds. K. Edwards, C.R. Elrington, and S. Reynolds (Canterbury and York Society) (London, 1959-71), 3:62, 113, 114, 128, 135 (nos. 210, 400, 403, 455, 482); PRO, Exchequer memoranda rolls, (KR), E.159/97, mm. 23, 24;'99, m. 19, “… predictus Ricardus est in servicio Hugonis….”
80 PRO, E. 368/95, m. 119; E. 358/16, m. 17; Registers of Martival, 3:149 (no. 516).
81 PRO, E.368/95, m. 119: “Et memoranda quod ilia dua brevia liberantur eodem die Johanni de Molyns, valette Hugonis le Despenser junioris, ad deferendum ipsis quibus diriguntur per preceptum baronum….”; Fryde, Tyranny, pp. 149-50; G.R. Elvey, “The first fall of Sir John Molyns,” Records of Buckinghamshire, 19 (1972), 194-98; N. Fryde, “A medieval robber baron, Sir John Molyns of Stoke Poges, Buckinghamshire,” in Medieval legal records edited in memory of C. A. F. Meekings, eds. R.F. Hunnisett and J.B. Post, HMSO (London, 1978), pp. 198-99.
82 CFR, 2:157 (£6. 13s. 4d.); CCR, 1318-23, p. 424.
83 PRO. SC. 1/36/124, 127.
84 The treatise on the laws and customs of the realm of England commonly called Glanvill.ed. and trans., G.D.G. Hall (London, 1965), pp. 1-2; H. Bracton, De legibus et consuetudinibus Angliae, ed. G.E. Woodbine, revised and trans., Samuel E. Thorne, vol. 2 (Cambridge, Mass.; 1968), pp. 307, 309, and the notes on p. 307 for other references; Annales monasterii de Burton, ed. H.R. Luard in Annales monastici, ed. idem, vol. 1, Rolls Series, 36 (London, 1864), pp. 463-64 (letter from the nuncio to the Pope in 1258 explaining the reform movement and the ideals of justice espoused by the reformers); Documents of the baronial movement of reform and rebellion 1258-1267, ed. I.J. Sanders and R.F. Treharne (Oxford, 1973), pp. 134-35 (the ordinances of the magnates, 1259); The song of Lewes, ed. and trans. C.L. Kingsford (Oxford, 1890), passim; Rot. parl., 1:183b iordinatio de conspiratoribus, 1305: “Et ceux qui receivent gentz de pais a lour robes ou a lour feez pur meintenir lour mauveis enprises et pur verite esteindre auxibien les pernours come les donours. Et Seneschaux et Baillifs de grantz seigneurs qui per seigeurie, office, ou poeir, enpernont a meintenir ou sustenir pleez ou baretz pur parties, autres que celes que touchet l'estat lour Seigneurs ou eux mesmes….”).
85 Vita, p. 91: “Verum tamen quod offertur ex gratia licenter recipi potest, set cum mensura, quia a nemine accipere est ualde inhumanium, set passim et indifferenter, turpissimum.”
86 Bracton, 2:303-4 (f. 106b): “Ab omni tamen munere non est abstinendum, quia licet ab omnibus et passim avarissimum sit accipere et villissimum, a nemine tamen accipere erit inhumanum, ut si amicus recipiat ab amico solo intuitu amicitiae et amoris.”
87 Rot. parl., 1:394; Maddicott, Lancaster, p. 20. For legislation against maintenance and corruption, see: B. Wilkinson, Constitutional history of medieval England, 1216-1399, vol. 3 (London, 1958), pp. 204-05.
88 English historical documents, 3:532, cap. 20.
89 Statutes of the realm, 1:174-5; Saul, Knights and esquires, pp. 108-09, 164; Maddicott, Lancaster, pp. 180-82; Davies, Baronial opposition, pp. 408-24, 524-27.
90 G.L. Haskins, “The Doncaster petition, 1321,” EHR, 53 (1938), 484.
91 Rot. Part, 1:10b, 12,166b; G. A. Hoi mes, “Judgement on the younger Despenser, 1326,” EHR, 70 (1955), 288, for similar arguments.
92 Rot. pad., 2:52; translation,English historical documents, vol. 4: 1327-1485, ed. A.R. Myers (London, 1969), p. 53. One Mortimer client who can be identified followed a career remarkably similar to those of the Despensers’ clients. Richard de Haukeslowe served the king in Worcestershire in various capacities, (PRO, Exchequer receipt rolls, E.401/251; CPR, 1321-4, p. 224; CCR, 1330-4, p. 127; CFR, 4:114). Yet he also acted as Mortimer's steward and benefitted from his lord's rise to power after 1327. The king appointed him chirographer of the bench for life in 1327, while dismissing the incumbent, and then named him sheriff of Worcs., (CPR, 1327-30, pp. 2, 229; CFR, 4:15). On Mortimer's fall in 1330, however, Haukeslowe lost both offices and was the object of a parliamentary petition by villagers in Worcs. who complained of his corrupt activities on behalf of Mortimer during his tenure as sheriff, (CPR, 1330-4, pp. 36, 281, 308; Rot. part, ined., pp. 204, 284).
93 Vita, p. 26. The author also points out that Piers had been responsible for raising the status of many men while he was in power: “For many owed much to him, and some he had promoted from the stable to the chamber, of whom some go about as knights who never thought to have been knighted… .” (p.29).
94 N. Machiavelli, The prime, ed. and trans., R.M. Adams (New York, 1977), pp. 47-48; passage cited in D.H. Wrong, Power: its forma, bases and uses (Oxford, 1979), p. 81.
95 Denholm-Young, “Authorship,” pp. 202-05.
96 For Belers, see above, n. 7; WSS, p. 243 (no. 213); CPR, 1324-7, pp. 102, 131,180; CCR, 1323-7, pp. 463-64; CFR, 3:392, 393, 395, 398, 403. 407, 4\4;AnnalesPau/ini in Stubbs, Chronicles, 1:314; H. Knighton, Chronicon, ed. J.R. Lumby. Rolls Series, 92 (London, 1889-95), 1:431-2.
97 Fryde, “Deposits,” p. 352 n. 1; R.M. Haines, The church and politics in fourteenth-century England: the career of Adam de Orleton (Cambridge, 1978), pp. 177 n. 88, 180 n. 105,182 n. 12; m. McKisack, The fourteenth century (Oxford, 1959), pp. 96, 102, 115, 152. In 1327, Edward III granted Simon Croyser a ship in consideration of his service to Edward's mother and late father, (CPR, 1327-30, p. 187). Ralph Basset was also associated with Mortimer in a commission of array in 1330, and John de Fresyngfeld acted as Mortimer's attorney in Ireland beginning in 1329, (CPR, 1327-30, pp. 367, 395, 564).
98 See above, n. 9; Saul, Knights and esquires, pp. 70, 89, 91, 94; Jones, “An indenture,” p. 392; British Library, Egerton roll, 8724 (inventory of Badlesmere's muniments). Foxcote went on to serve the Hospitallers for an annual pension of £30, (Saul, pp. 86, 149).
99 Murimuth, pp. 254-57.
100 W.A. Morris, “The sheriff,” in the The English government at work, 1327-1336, vol. 2: “Fiscal administration,” eds. W.A. Morris and J.R. Strayer (Cambridge, Mass.: 1947), p. 49.
101 Tout, Chapters, 2:217-8.