^{page 53 note 01} Constitutional history of England, ii (1906 edn.), 320.Google Scholar

^{page 53 note 02} ‘The commons' privilege of free speech in parliament’, in Tudor studies, ed. Seton-Watson, R. W., pp. 257et seq.Google Scholar

^{page 54 note 01} Generous use has to be made of this assumption. There were thirty-four parliaments in the period 1373–1407; in only ten of these do the rolls record that lords were either asked for or assigned to confer with the commons (1373; 1376; January and October 1377; 1378; 1381–2; February 1383; April 1384; 1402 and 1407; Rotuli Parliamentarism, ii. 316, 322, 363Google Scholar, and iii. 5, 36, 100, 145, 167, 486 and 610). To presume clerical negligence on this scale is surely a desperate course. It should be noticed that nearly all the recorded conferences of this type belong to the period 1373–84 and the rest to the reign of Henry IV. Nor is it without interest that in 1378 the commons' request for one was refused by the lords themselves, a fact which makes it difficult to believe that the procedure was designed to enable the magnates to influence opinion and direct action in the other house. In 1383 the king asserted his right, though he did not exercise it, to choose other lords than those named in the commons' petition. In 1402 Henry IV took much the same line, protesting ‘q'il ne le vorroit faire de deuete ne de custume, mais de sa grace, especiale a ceste foitz’ and not only ordered this protestation to be put on record in the rolls, but sent his secretary and the steward of his household to the commons to make his position clear to them. The signs are that the initiative in this as in other matters came from the commons and that the lords were hardly more enthusiastic than the king in welcoming the novelty. It should also be observed that in January 1404 the commons asked that some of their own body should be allowed to go and confer with the lords-and that this was granted (Rot. Pari., iii. 523).Google Scholar

^{page 54 note 02} Neale, , op. cit., pp. 261–3.Google Scholar

^{page 54 note 03} John of Gaunt and the parliamentary representation of Lancashire, reprinted from the Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, xxii (1938).Google Scholar

^{page 54 note 04} Ib., pp. 27 and 46.Google Scholar

^{page 55 note 01} Cam, H. M., ‘The relation of English members of parliament to their constituencies in the fourteenth century: a neglected text’ in L'Organisation corporative du Moyen Age à la fin de l'Ancien Régime. Études présentées à la Commission Internationale pour l'Histoire des Assemblées d'États, Louvain, iii (1939), 152Google Scholar. I am at a loss to understand how the passage in ‘Richard the Redeles’ (Mum and the Sothsegger, ed. Day, M. and Steele, R., Early Eng. Text Soc., 24–6)Google Scholar helps Dr. Cam's argument. Until I read her article, I had supposed it to give some slight support to the exactly opposite view, and that still seems to me the more satisfactory interpretation. One does not expect a medieval satirist to weaken his case by admitting any merit in his victims; but this one does—by accident. For he attacks those who

‘… to þe kyng wente,

And formed him of foos þat good frendis weren,

Þat bablid for þe best and no blame serued

Of kynge ne conceyll ne of þe comunes, noþer,

Ho-so toke good kepe to þe culorum’ (iv. 11. 57–61).

So there were good men in the commons! Then first place is given to those who only pretended to guard the interests of those they represented (iv. 11. 44–52). If that was the worst they could be accused of, their constituents were not badly served. Medieval satire generally tries to prove too much, and the present example seems no exception. The author should have stopped short after accusing the members of ineffectiveness and pusillanimity. But he goes on to describe (iv. 11. 71–82) some as hotheads whose intemperance has to be restrained by the influence of the lords. What is meant to be a bitterly scornful description of Richard II's ‘privy parliament’ suggests—to me at any rate—that an apologist for the commons would have had an easy task. And after all what parliament from that day to this has not contained men of the types satirised by our anonymous poet?

^{page 55 note 02} Richardson, H. G., reviewing the Études cited above: Eng, Hist. Rev., lvi (1941), 125.Google Scholar

^{page 55 note 03} Stubbs, , op. cit, iii (1903 edn.), 424–5.Google Scholar

^{page 56 note 01} References are to pages in J. Gairdner's library edn. of 1904.

^{page 56 note 02} Pastan Letters, ii. 174.Google Scholar

^{page 57 note 01} Ib., ii. 176Google Scholar

^{page 57 note 02} Gresham, James to Paston, John, circa 10 1450Google Scholar (ib., ii. 180–1)Google Scholar: ‘it was told me that my master Calthorpe had writing from my lord of York to await on him at his coming into Norfolk to be one of his men, and that no gentleman of Norfolk had writing to await on him but he; and some folk ween that it is to the intent that he should be either sheriff or knight of the shire, to the furthering of other folks &c.’ William Calthorp was neither sheriff nor M.P. in 1450. But it is interesting to find that the greatest duke in England was believed to be paying compliments to a mere esquire.

^{page 57 note 03} Ib., ii. 182Google Scholar

^{page 57 note 04} Ib., ii. 176Google Scholar

^{page 57 note 05} Ib., ii. 184Google Scholar

^{page 57 note 06} Ib., ii. 184–5.Google Scholar

^{page 58 note 01} Returns of members of parliament (Pari. Papers, 1878, vol. lxii), pt. i, P. 345.Google Scholar

^{page 58 note 02} Pastan Letters, iii. 34Google Scholar. ‘Menial’ has not here acquired its modern meaning.

^{page 58 note 03} Ib., iii. 38Google Scholar; 24 June 1455.

^{page 58 note 04} Ib., iii. 39Google Scholar

^{page 59 note 01} Ib., iii. 239–40.Google Scholar

^{page 59 note 02} ‘A Norfolk parliamentary election, 1461’ by Williams, C. H., Eng. Hist. Rev., xl (1925), 79–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar, where the sheriff's return is printed. The opportune presence of Norfolk's servants is significant.

^{page 59 note 03} Pastan Letters, iii. 36.Google Scholar

^{page 59 note 04} i.e. in accordance with the votes of those qualified to take part in the election.

^{page 59 note 05} i.e. of the shire-court of 15 June.

^{page 59 note 06} Ib., iii. 284Google Scholar It is dated Sunday only, but it must have been written after the meeting of the shire on Monday 15 June and before Dennis's murder on 4 July, that is on either 21 or 28 June.

^{page 60 note 01} Ib.

^{page 60 note 02} Ib., iii. 290Google Scholar

^{page 60 note 03} In view of his remarks about a contest and a count, the phrase is not inappropriate.

^{page 60 note 04} Ib., iii. 297;Google Scholar

^{page 60 note 05} It is necessary to emphasise its ex parte character as compared with the familiar letters of the Pastons, since Mr. Williams seems inclined to regard them as of equal value. Howard was making a case against an enemy in the king's court; the Pastons had no motive for deceiving one another and were not writing ‘for posterity’.

^{page 61 note 01} Ib., iv. 2Google Scholar He received a pardon on 6 February 1462 (Scofield, C. L., The life and reign of Edward the Fourth, ii. 380 n., citing Pardon Roll 1–6 Edw. IV, m. 43).Google Scholar

^{page 61 note 02} According to Mr. Williams, (op. cit., 86 n.)Google Scholar the case reappears on the Corarn Rege Roll of Michaelmas Term, 4 Henry VII.

^{page 61 note 03} Paston Letters, iv. 25 and 27.Google Scholar

^{page 61 note 04} See ib., iv. 66Google Scholar, for evidence that he was being considered as a candidate and ib., pp. 74–6 and 121–8Google Scholar, for evidence that his visits to London coincided with the sessions of parliament.

^{page 61 note 05} Ib., v. 89Google Scholar

^{page 62 note 01} This letter (ib., v. 159–61)Google Scholar is dated ‘Thursday next before St. Katherine’ and is assigned by Gairdner to 19 November 1472. But the parliament of that year began on 6 October (Interim report of the Committee on House of Commons personnel and politics, 1264–1832, 1932, pp. 86–7)Google Scholar and it was obviously written before the opening of the first session. On the other hand a reference to the manor of Gresham connects it with letter no. 792 (v. 126–7) which in view of its mentioning Sir Robert Harcourt's recent murder, can be dated 1 December 1470; for Harcourt was slain 14 November of that year (Wedgwood, J. C., ‘Harcourt of Ellenhall’ in Staffordshire Collections, William Salt Archaeological Soc. (1914), 203).Google Scholar

^{page 63 note 01} Paston Letters, v. 149–51.Google Scholar

^{page 63 note 02} Ib., v. 148–9.Google Scholar

^{page 63 note 03} Returns, pt. i, pp. 360–2.Google Scholar

^{page 63 note 04} Paston Letters, v. 178Google Scholar. This letter is fully dated.

^{page 64 note 01} Sir Richard Harcourt might be counted an exception, since his lands lay for the most part elsewhere; but he had recently married a de la Pole who was the widow of Sir Miles Stapleton (M.P., Suffolk 1439–40, Norfolk 1442, 1449–50 and 1450–1; Returns, pt. i, pp. 333, 339 and 345Google Scholar; Wedgwood, J. C., History of Parliament, Biographies of the Members of the Commons House, 1439–1509, pp. 804–5)Google Scholar and was in possession of the Stapleton place at Ingham at the time of his election (Wedgwood, , op. cit., p. 419).Google Scholar

^{page 64 note 02} John of Gaunt, &c., p. 33.Google Scholar

^{page 64 note 03} For example, in the parliament of 1399, four knights were sitting for the 6th time, two for the yth, three for the 8th, one for the gth, one for the 10th, two for the 12th (Sir Robert Neville of Hornby and Robert Urswyk) and one for the 19th (Sir William Bonville). These figurēs are derived from the Returns, pt. i, passim.

^{page 65 note 01} Speaker in the parliaments of 1378 and February 1383, he was M.P. for Westmorland in 1362, 1365, October 1377, 1378, 1379 and October 1382, for Cumberland in 1368 and for Yorkshire in February 1383, November 1384, September 1388, November 1390 and 1397–8 (here and elsewhere, unless otherwise stated, the elections are taken from the Public Record Office copy of the Returns). He accompanied William of Windsor to Ireland in 1369 and was, as ‘chief justice of the pleas following the lieutenant and the principal person of his secret council accused by the Irish of corruption, extortion and malversation (Clarke, M. V., Fourteenth-century studies, 186, 206, 220–9 and 231–2)Google Scholar. Thereafter until the end of the century the Chancery rolls abound with his commissions and appointments. See also the D.N.B. and Lewis, N. B., ‘Re-election to parliament in the reign of Richard II’, Eng. Hist. Rev., xlviii (1933), 394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 65 note 02} Sturmy or Esturmy (Wylie, J. H., History of England under Henry the Fourth, ii. 71, n.1)Google Scholar is not in the D.N.B. Speaker in the parliament of October 1404, he was M.P. for Hampshire in April 1384 and November 1390, for Wiltshire in January 1390, 1393, 1399, 1401, May 1413, November 1414, 1417 and 1422, and for Devon in November 1391 and October 1404. He was frequently Henry IV's envoy to the German princes between 1401 and 1407. For information about him and about all others who sat in the parliament of 1422 I am deeply indebted to Mr. J. S. Roskell's Oxford D.Phil. Thesis, ‘the Personnel of the House of Commons in 1422’.

^{page 65 note 03} Speaker in the parliaments of 1407, 1410, 1411, November 1414 and May 1421, he sat for Oxfordshire in 1401, 1402, 1406, 1407, 1410, 1411, May 1413, November 1414, May 1421, 1422, 1426, 1427, 1429–30 and 1431. He was chief butler to Henry IV, Henry V and Henry VI, and after various employments was appointed a councillor in 1423 (Rot. Parl., iv. 201)Google Scholar. He died in 1434 (D.N.B.; see also Krauss, R., ‘Chaucerian problems: especially the Petherton Forestership and the question of Thomas Chaucer’Google Scholar in Three Chaucer studies by R. Krauss, H. Braddy and C. R. Kase).

^{page 66 note 01} ‘Incomes from land in England in 1436’, Eng. Hist. Rev., xlix (1934), 620–1.Google Scholar

^{page 66 note 02} Rot. Parl., iii. 648–9Google Scholar; Inquisitions and assessments relating to feudal aids, 1284–1431, vi. 391–501 and 503–51Google Scholar. These returns may not give us the real value of a man's lands to him, but so long as they are only made a basis of comparison between one landowner and another, their absolute trustworthiness is immaterial.

^{page 66 note 03} For a list see Appendix, pages 74–9 below.

^{page 66 note 04} Harbin, S. W. Bates, M.P.s for the county of Somerset, 71–2Google Scholar; Register of Henry Cinchele, ed. Jacob, E. F., ii. 677.Google Scholar

^{page 66 note 05} Harbin, Bates, op.cit., pp. 65–6Google Scholar. M.P. for Dorset, 1368, 1381, May 1382 and October 1382; for Somerset, February 1383; for Dorset, October 1383, April 1384, November 1384 and 1385. Ob. 1385 or '86.Google Scholar

^{page 67 note 01} M.P. for Warwickshire, October 1383; for Wiltshire, November 1384; for Dorset, September 1388, January 1390, 1391 and 1393; for Somerset, 1394; for Dorset, 1395, January 1397, 1399, 1401, January 1404, 1406, 1407 and 1410.

^{page 67 note 02} April 1414, November 1414, 1417, 1419, 1420, May 1421, 1422, 1426, 1427 and 1432. Ob. 1442Google Scholar (Chichele Reg., ii. 620–4 and 677Google Scholar; Wedgwood, J. C., Staffordshire parliamentary history, William Salt Archaeological Soc., i. (1917), 165–6).Google Scholar

^{page 67 note 03} , G. E. C., Complete Peerage, iv (1916), 327–8.Google Scholar

^{page 67 note 04} £596 exclusive of Staffordshire lands made over to Sir Humphrey the younger (Feudal Aids, vi. passim).

^{page 67 note 05} £618–6–8 (Ib.).

^{page 67 note 06} 1399, 1401, January 1404, October 1404, 1406 and 1407; 1422 and 1427. Ob. 1429Google Scholar (Cal. Fine Rolls, xv. 236Google Scholar; Cal. Inq. post mortem, iv. 121Google Scholar; Chichele Reg., ii, 408–9 and 669).Google Scholar

^{page 67 note 07} Harbin, Bates, op. cit., 67–8Google Scholar: 1386, February 1388, 1391, 1393, 1395, January 1397, 1397–8, 1399, 1402, January 1404, 1407, 1410 and May 1413. Ob. 1417Google Scholar (Cal. Fine Rolls, xiv. 196).Google Scholar

^{page 67 note 08} 1417, May 1421, 1422 and 1427. Harbin, Bates, op. cit., pp. 84–5.Google Scholar

^{page 67 note 09} , G. E. C., Complete Peerage, iii (1913), 346Google Scholar; Hist. of Parl., Biogs., pp. 115–16.Google Scholar

^{page 68 note 01} D.N.B.

^{page 68 note 02} The parliament of May 1382 had at least three (de la Mare, Hungerford and Waldegrave); so did those of October 1382 (de la Mare, Pickering and Waldegrave), February 1383 (de la Mare, Gildesborough and Waldegrave) and September 1388 (Hungerford, Pickering and Waldegrave).

^{page 68 note 03} Son of Sir Thomas Hungerford (speaker, January 1377, M.P. for Wiltshire, 1357, 1360, 1362 and January 1377; for Somerset, 1378; for Wiltshire, 1379. January 1380 and November 1380; for Somerset, May 1382; for Wiltshire, October 1383; for Somerset and Wiltshire, April 1384; for Wiltshire, 1386; for Somerset, September 1388; for Somerset and Wiltshire, January 1390; for Somerset, November 1390; and for Wiltshire, 1393. Ob. 1397Google Scholar(Cal. Fine Rolls, xi. 268Google Scholar; Cal. Ing. post mortem, iii. 217).)Google Scholar M.P. for Wiltshire, 1401, October 1404 and 1407; for Somerset, 1410; for Wiltshire, May 1413 and April 1414 (speaker). Summoned to the lords, 1426. Treasurer of England, 1427–32. Ob. 1449Google Scholar (D.N.B.).

^{page 68 note 04} M.P. for Salop, 1417, 1419, 1420, May 1421, 1422, 1425, 1427–8, 1429–30, 1431, 1432, 1433, 1435, 1437 (speaker), 1439–40, 1442, 1445–6 (speaker), 1449–50, 1450–1 and 1455–6. Ob. 1459Google Scholar. His great-uncle was Sir Simon Burley, victim of the Lords Appellant in 1388. His father, John Burley, was M.P. for Salop, 1399, 1401, January 1404, October 1404, 1410 and 1411. (Weyman, W. T., ‘Shropshire members of parliament (1325–1584)’ in Trans. Shropshire Archaeol. and Nat. Hist. Soc., x and xi, nos. 89 and 98Google Scholar; Hist, of Parl., Biogs., pp. 139–40Google Scholar; D.N.B.).

^{page 68 note 05} Sir Bonville, William (c. 1340–1408)Google Scholar, M.P. for Somerset, 1366; for Devon, 1371, 1376, 1378, 1379, November 1380, 1381–2, May 1382 and October 1382; for Somerset, October 1383; for Devon and Somerset, April 1384; for Somerset, November 1384, 1386, February 1388, 1393 and 1395; for Devon, January 1397 and 1397–8; for Somerset, 1399; and for Devon, 1402. (Harbin, Bates, op. cit., pp. 54–5).)Google Scholar His grandson and heir, Sir William, was M.P. for Somerset, May 1421; for Devon, 1422, 1425 and 1427–8. Afterwards Lord Bonville (1449). Ob. 1461Google Scholar. (Harbin, Bates, op. cit., pp. 87–9Google Scholar.) His brother, Thomas, was M.P. for Cornwall, 1439–40. (Hist, of Parl. Biogs., p. 92.)Google Scholar

^{page 69 note 01} Sir John Montfort, M.P. for Warwickshire, 1361. His grandson and heir, Sir William (1385–1452), M.P. for Warwickshire, 1422, 1423–4, 1427–8, 1439–30, 1437, 1445–6 and 1450–1. He married the daughter of Sir John Pecche, M.P. for Warwickshire, August 1352, 1354, 1358 and 1373. Sir William's younger son. Sir Edmund, was M.P. for Warwickshire, 1447 and 1459; for Gloucestershire, 1491–2. Sir Simon, son and heir of Sir William's eldest son, Sir Baldwin, was M.P. for Warwickshire, 1463–5, 1478 and 1491–2. (Dugdale, W., Antiquities of Warwickshire (1656), pp. 728–32Google Scholar; Hist, of Parl., Biogs., pp. 602–4.)Google Scholar

^{page 69 note 02} Sir John Arundell, M.P. for Cornwall, January 1397, 1397–8, January 1404, October 1404, 1406, 1411, April 1414, March 1416, 1417, May 1421, 1422 and 1423–4. Ob. 1435Google Scholar. His son and heir, John, (ob. v. p. 1423)Google Scholar was M.P. for Devon, November 1414; for Cornwall, 1419, December 1421 and 1422. Sir John–s younger son, Sir Remfrey, was M.P. for Cornwall, 1431, 1433 and 1442. (Hist, of Parl., Biogs., pp. 19–20.)Google Scholar

^{page 69 note 03} Sir Thomas Tyrell, M.P. for Essex, 1365, 1366, 1369, 1372 and 1373. His grandson, Sir John Tyrell, M.P. for Essex, 1411, May 1413, March 1416, 1417, 1419, May 1421, 1422 and 1425; for Hertfordshire, 1427–8; and for Essex, 1429, 1431, 1433 and 1437 (speaker, 1427, 1431 and 1437). (D.N.B.) His son and heir. Sir Thomas, M.P. for Essex, 1442, 1447, February 1449 and 1459. Sir John's and son, William, was M.P. for Suffolk, 1447 and 1459 and his son and heir, Sir James, was M.P. for Cornwall, 1478. Sir John's fifth son, Sir William, was M.P. for Weymouth, February 1449; for Essex, 1449–50, 1450–1 and 1455–6. (Hist, of Parl., Biogs., pp. 889–94).Google Scholar

^{page 69 note 04} See Appendix, Table A below, pp. 74–5.

^{page 69 note 05} Sir John Stanley, M.P. for Lancashire, May 1413 and November 1414. Ob. 1437Google Scholar. His son and heir, Sir Thomas Stanley, M.P. for Lancashire, 1427–28, 1433, 1439–40, 1442. 1447, February 1449, 1449–50, 1450–1, 1453–4. 1455–6. Lord Stanley 1456. Ob. 1459Google Scholar. His grandson. Sir George, was M.P. for Lancashire, 1478. Lord Strange 1482. Ob. 1503Google Scholar. (Roskell, J. S., Knights of the shire for Lancashire, Chetham Soc., pp. 123–8 and 162–72Google Scholar; Hist, of Parl., Biogs., pp. 796–7 and 800).Google Scholar

^{page 69 note 06} Sir Nicholas Harrington of Farleton (second son of Sir John, M.P. for Lancashire, 1343, 1352 and 1357), M.P. for Lancashire, 1372, October, 1377, 1379, 1386 and 1402. Ob. c. 1403. His second son, James, M.P. for Lancashire, October 1404, was the father of Sir Richard, M.P. for Lancashire, 1450–1, 1453–4 and 1459. Sir Nicholas's grandson and ultimate heir, Sir Thomas, was M.P. for Lancashire, 1432, 1437, 1442, 1447 and February 1449; and for Yorkshire, 1455–6. His son and heir, Sir James, was M.P. for Lancashire, 1467–8 and 1478. Sir Thomas's second son, Sir Robert, was M.P. for Lancashire, 1472–5. (Roskell, J. S., op. cit., pp. 33–8, 103–6, 179–86 and 195–8Google Scholar; Hist, of Parl., Biogs., pp. 423–7).Google Scholar

^{page 70 note 01} On this subject see Cam, H. M., ‘The decline and fall of English feudalism’ in History, XXV (1940), 216–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 71 note 01} Paston Letters, v. 240.Google Scholar

^{page 71 note 02} Ib., v. 106Google Scholar

^{page 71 note 03} Tout, T. F., Chapters in the administrative history of medieval England, iv. 12–14.Google Scholar

^{page 71 note 04} Pastan Letters, ii. 80Google Scholar contains an amusing account of one Steward's predicament: ‘He enquired me’, wrote Edmund Paston, ‘of the rule of my master Daniel and my lord of Suffolk, and asked which I thought should rule in this shire; and I said, both, as I trow, and he that surviveth to hold by virtue of the survivor, and he to thank his friends and to acquit his enemies. So I feel by him he would forsake his master and get him a new, if he wist he should rule; and so, ween I, much of all the country is so disposed.’

^{page 72 note 01} ‘A new life of Richard II’, History, xxvi (1942), 227. My italics.Google Scholar

^{page 72 note 02} Ib., p. 229Google Scholar

^{page 72 note 03} Pecock, Reginald's Repressor of over-much blaming of the clergyGoogle Scholar, ed. Babington, C. (Rolls Series), ii. 306.Google Scholar

^{page 72 note 04} Pastan Letters, v. 31.Google Scholar

^{page 72 note 05} Chronicon Angliae, ed. Thompson, E. M. (Rolls Series), pp. 107–8.Google Scholar

^{page 72 note 06} Ib. PP. 74–5.Google Scholar