Bayley, C. C., 'The Campaign of 1375 and the Good Parliament', The English Historical Review 55 (1940), 370-383

-
Quick Summary

Although the Good Parliament of 1376 blamed William, Lord Latimer, for the surrender of English strongholds in France, ultimate responsibility lay with John of Gaunt, duke of Lancaster

  • Latimer was a scapegoat for the loss of English strongholds in France
  • John of Gaunt was too powerful to be challenged directly in parliament
  • Gaunt was implicated in bribery for the surrender of Saint Sauveur
Key Conclusion

Bayley explores the background to the impeachment of William, Lord Latimer, in the Good Parliament of 1376. Latimer was impeached for surrendering Becherel and Saint Sauveur-le-Vicomte – English strongholds in north-west France – in return for bribes. The article concludes that Latimer was a scapegoat, and that the loss of Becherel and Saint Sauveur was actually the result of failed English continental policy after 1374. Ultimately, John of Gaunt, duke of Lancaster, and John IV de Montfort, duke of Britanny were ‘far more blameworthy than Latimer’ (p. 371).

Content Overview

Since John of Gaunt was too powerful to be challenged directly in parliament for the loss of Becherel and Saint Sauveur, the commons accused Thomas Catrington, captain of Saint Sauveur, of selling the stronghold to the French. Catrington shifted blame for the illegal transaction onto Latimer who was impeached in the Good Parliament. Catrington’s testimony formed the bulk of the case against Latimer.

Further Findings

The article finds that bribery had, in fact, played an important part in the surrender of Saint Sauveur. However, the payment of a bribe by the French in exchange for the surrender of the stronghold had been ‘expressly sanctioned’ (p. 382) in the treaty of Bruges concluded by John of Gaunt. Furthermore, Bayley argues that Latimer himself was guiltless of bribery, yet shouldered the blame so that he could protect John of Gaunt from criticism. By deflecting attention away from John of Gaunt, Latimer also helped to prevent public knowledge about the surrender of Becherel and Saint Sauver forming part of the treaty of Bruges.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Phillpotts, Christopher, 'The fate of the truce of Paris, 1396-1415', Journal of Medieval History 24 (1998), 61-80

-
Quick Summary The Truce of Paris (1396) formed a framework to reduce the level of warfare between England and France up until 1415 The focus of the truce changed depending on the particular ambitions of subsequent English kings Richard II maintained the truce after 1397 to secure dowry payments from France Henry IV and Charles VI put their differences aside to establish a peace between kingdoms Key Conclusion Phillpotts explores the longest truce of the Hundred Years War, agreed at Paris between Richard II of England and Charles VI of France in 1396, and its subsequent extension, redefinition and clarification until 1415. Truces reduced the level of warfare, rather than ended it, and needed to be periodically renegotiated to be effective. Phillpotts concludes that the truce of 1396 ‘formed the central framework of a series of general and particular truces’. The focus of the truce changed between 1396 and 1314, from Richard II’s initial concern to p...
Read more

Theilmann, John M., 'Stubbs, Shakespeare, and Recent Historians of Richard II', Albion 8 (1976), 107-124

-
Quick Summary The idea that Richard II was a tyrant persists even though a satisfactory history of his reign is yet to be written According to the Stubbsean Orthodoxy, Richard II was a coldly calculating king A revision to the Stubbsean Orthodoxy cast Richard II as insane Existing research distorts history by its fixation on constitutional issues Key Conclusion Theilmann explores the historiography of Richard II’s reign from the 1890s to the 1970s and, in particular, the verdict reached by historians about his approach to kingship. This historiographical review leads Theilmann to conclude that the traditional interpretation of Richard’s reign – the ‘Stubbsean Orthodoxy’ – has been slowly challenged but its influence remains strong. According to this Orthodoxy, Richard II was a ‘coldly calculating king’ (p. 110). He was a tyrant determined to diminish parliament and destroy constitutional government. Theilmann notes that while more recent research h...
Read more

Wilkinson, B., 'The Peasants’ Revolt of 1381', Speculum 15 (1940), 12-35

-
Quick Summary The Peasants’ Revolt of 1381 was primarily a ‘movement of reaction’ against John of Gaunt, duke of Lancaster Historians have paid too much attention to one particular source Common hatred of John of Gaunt brought the Londoners and the rebels together After the destruction of Gaunt’s palace in London the Peasants’ Revolt began to wane Key Conclusion Wilkinson provides a revisionist interpretation of the events in London during the Peasants’ Revolt of 1381. Wilkinson contends that historians have paid too much attention to one particular source – the return of the jurors in the Sheriffs’ Inquisitions of 1382. The evidence presented to the Sheriffs’ Inquisitions was ‘thoroughly and, it seems likely, intentionally misleading’ (p. 12), since the London jurors ‘did their best to conceal the powerful support which Londoners themselves gave to the revolt’ (p. 29). Wilkinson concludes that the revolt was primarily a ‘movement of reaction against J...
Read more