The composition of the Parliament of September 1397-January 1398

Richard Fitzalan, earl of Arundel, facing his accusers at his trial for treason at the start of this Parliament, was stung into protesting at the false assumption that the charges against him were made in the name of the people: ‘fideles plebei Regni non sunt hic’. Thomas Walsingham, the St. Albans chronicler, further substantiated the earl’s complaint by referring to the presence in the Commons of a number of knights of the shire who had not been elected by their communities according to established custom, but rather had been chosen at the behest of the Court. According to his admittedly subjective account, nothing was allowed to be said, or petitioned for, which did not please Richard II. There is no doubt that in this Parliament the Commons were at the forefront of the political action on the King’s behalf, and that from Arundel’s point of view the ‘faithful commons’ were simply not in evidence, or else, if present, were unable or unwilling to make their voices heard in his defence. The reasons for this are not readily apparent. The charges made against Richard II after his deposition asserted that, having appointed his own creatures as sheriffs, he deliberately used them to influence the return of knights of the shire in his own interest. Yet there is no reason to suppose that the outgoing sheriffs who presided over the election of Members to the Parliament of September 1397 were unduly subservient to the King (even though Richard certainly did, in October—after the first session had ended—appoint many of his supporters to the shrievalties), and evidence of widespread and systematic packing has not been found. Some contemporary accounts report that the Parliament assembled at Westminster in an open-sided building with the royal archers ranged around it, fully visible to those present, who were thus exposed to direct intimidation.1

Whether or not these reports are true, there is an alternative explanation for the Commons’ willingness to endorse and promote royal policy: that this largely came about through the careful management of the proceedings by one of the King’s most articulate councillors, Sir John Bussy, whom (so Walsingham asserted) Richard had appointed (‘constituit’) as their Speaker. As the lists below make clear, Bussy could look for support in the House to several Members who had been formally retained by the King, some of them as knights or esquires of his household. Indeed, Bussy himself and the majority of this group of 29 individuals (14% of the total of 203 Members known) had been granted annuities and/or appointed to crown offices within the previous six years, in several cases only very recently, as a consequence of Richard’s deliberate policy of increasing the size of his personal retinue. Opinion could well have been orchestrated by three other leading and highly remunerated members of the King’s Council present in the House: the experienced parliamentarian Sir William Bagot, the astute Sir Henry Green and the long-serving Sir John Russell, master of the King’s horse. Bussy and these fellow councillors had all once been prominent in the service of the Lords Appellant of 1387-8, but now, having been newly won round to the King’s party, were all the more zealous proponents of his views on the royal prerogative. Around this key group, firmly committed in their support for King Richard, were ranged at least a dozen Members who were closely associated with his friends—the eight noblemen who as counter-appellants were to be the instruments of Richard’s policy of retaliation, and Sir Thomas Percy, who in the trials held during the first parliamentary session was to act as proctor for the clergy. The identity of those Members who were considered on the strength of their stance in the House to have shown appropriate loyalty to the King in the course of that session may be deduced from the appointments to office or the rewards in the form of grants authorized in their behalf, either before the prorogation on 29 Sept. or while Parliament was in recess. Of particular interest are those whom Richard then selected to be sheriffs and, in contravention of the statutes, subsequently chose to keep on in office for a second year in the autumn of 1398.

The King’s men in the Commons may not have been dominant numerically, but there was quite clearly a cadre of his adherents well able to manage the House in the way he wanted. They were doubtless helped in their task by the fact that 42% of the Members (86 out of 203) had apparently never entered the Commons before, and were, therefore, quite likely to be overawed by the proceedings. Moreover, as many as 21 constituencies (six of them shires) had sent to the House two individuals without any previous parliamentary experience. For several communities this in itself was a most unusual step to take: Cambridge, Dorset, Essex, Gloucestershire, Nottingham and Salisbury had never before in our period returned two newcomers together to a Parliament (that is, at ten or more consecutive elections); indeed, for Dorset it was the first time this had happened in 20 years, for Essex in 17 years and for Gloucestershire in 15. Apart from the complete novices, there was also a group of 11 men who had not served in the Commons for a very long time (upwards of 13 years), and, except in the cases of Sir John Russell, the King’s councillor, and Sir Ivo Fitzwaryn, a knight of his chamber, they may well have been out of touch with current political issues. Then again, the Lower House also contained a number of complete nonentities sitting as knights of the shire, whose election is difficult to explain save either because of a marked reluctance of established members of the shire communities and experienced parliamentarians to put themselves forward, knowing that Gloucester, Arundel and Warwick had been arrested and a political crisis was imminent, or else as a consequence of outside interference in the free choice made at the shire courts. There can be no doubt that in several constituencies the normal pattern of representation was disrupted. In Wiltshire, for example, it would appear that direct pressure was exerted on the electorate, for the newly-appointed sheriff, Richard Mawarden*, one of the King’s retainers, returned to Parliament a councillor, Sir Henry Green, in company with a knight of the chamber, Sir Thomas Blount, neither of whom had previously shown any interest in the affairs of the local community. Elsewhere, the results of the elections may reflect more of a general disinclination on the part of the leading gentry to be party to the proscription of the King’s opponents.

For 108 of the 203 Members whose names are recorded this was to be their final appearance in the Commons. For, whatever their reasons, they did not seek election again, or else were unsuccessful when they did so. Perhaps the experience of Richard II’s last Parliament had proved particularly unedifying. Only 27 of the MPs who sat at Westminster and Shrewsbury in 1397-8 were chosen to represent their constituencies in the assembly of estates which formally deposed the King in 1399, and which shortly afterwards met as Henry IV’s first Parliament.

RICHARD II’s RETAINERS AND SERVANTS

THE COUNTER-APPELLANTS AND THEIR ASSOCIATES

RETAINERS OF JOHN OF GAUNT AND HENRY OF BOLINGBROKE

Lancaster and his sons stood by the King in September 1397; the former, as steward of England, presiding over the trials of Arundel and Warwick. Gaunt and Bolingbroke had been given licence to assemble large retinues in anticipation of the meeting of Parliament, and Bolingbroke was created duke of Hereford on 29 Sept., the same day that the counter-appellants, including his half-brother the earl of Somerset, received new titles as their rewards. Gaunt’s associates are marked *.

HOLDERS OF OFFICES IN THE CROWN’S APPOINTMENT

* Also in receipt of annuities from Richard II

† Kept on the bench after the Parliament was dissolved

APPOINTMENTS MADE WHILE THE PARLIAMENT WAS IN PROGRESS OR SHORTLY AFTERWARDS

* Kept on in office for a further year in the autumn of 1398, evidently they had proved satisfactory either as administrators or from the political point of view.

COMMISSIONERS TO SEIZE AND SURVEY THE ESTATES DECLARED FORFEIT IN THE PARLIAMENT, 3 OCT. 1397.2

MEMBERS OF THE COMMONS NAMED ON THE PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE APPOINTED 31 JAN. 1398

This, consisting of six commoners, ten lords, and two earls acting as clerical proctors, was given responsibility for completing the business of the Parliament, and hearing the charges brought by the dukes of Norfolk and Hereford against each other.

GRANTS MADE TO MEMBERS WHILE THE PARLIAMENT WAS IN PROGRESS, OR SHORTLY AFTERWARDS

ASSOCIATES OF THE LORDS APPELLANTS OF 1387-8

Only 17 men who had sat in the Merciless Parliament (6% of the total) were elected to the Parliament assembled in September 1397, and none of them, even if they had been adherents of the Appellants then, was evidently so any longer. It will be noted that, apart from the three Members listed as having close contact with the earl of Warwick, the former Appellants could not look to the support of any of their more influential retainers in the House. Those listed as being connected with Gloucester and Arundel had served them merely in the capacity of knights on military expeditions, and as long ago as the 1380s.

THOSE GRANTED PARDONS, 1397-8

Altogether 48 Members (24% of the total) obtained royal pardons, 15 of them expressly for their subversive or overtly treasonable activities in 1386-8. Several of them were by the autumn of 1397 retainers of the King, but evidently even those most firmly in his favour, such as Bagot, Bussy and Green, felt the need of his assurance that they would not be prosecuted for anything that had earlier caused him deep offence. Pardons granted specifically for adherence to the Appellants of 1387-8 are marked *; those enrolled on the patent roll are marked †.

UNUSUAL FACTORS

The surveys for each individual constituency draw attention to any unusual factors in its representation, Parliament by Parliament. The following list is intended merely as a brief summary of such matters as they affected the Membership of Richard II’s last Parliament.

Ref Volumes: 1386-1421

Author: J. S. Roskell

End Notes

• 1. Hist. Vitae et Regni Ric. II ed. Hearne, 137; Annales Ric. II in J. de Trokelowe, Chron et Annales ed. Riley, 209; RP, iii. 420; A. Steel, ‘Sheriffs of Cambs. and Hunts.’, Cambridge Antiq. Soc. Procs. xxvi. 1-34.
• 2. CPR, 1396-9. pp. 307-8.