Clarke, M. V., 'Forfeitures and Treason in 1388', Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 14 (1931), 65-94

-

Quick Summary

The sentences passed against those found guilty of treason in the Merciless Parliament of 1388 went beyond what was allowed by English law

  • The Lords’ Appellant were ‘illogical’ in their application of the law
  • They used a legal procedure known as ‘impeachment’ to destroy their enemies
  • Parliament attempted to modify the judgements to avoid establishing a legal precedent
Key Conclusion

Clarke explores the legal implications of the Merciless Parliament of 1388, wherein the Lords’ Appellant – a group of rebel barons – brought to trial prominent allies of King Richard II and sentenced them to sentenced to death, imprisonment and exile. The article concludes that the course of action taken by the appellants was illogical in its application of the law (p. 75). Furthermore, the Merciless Parliament provides an example of ‘the contempt show by Parliament for its own law-making’ (p. 94), by which Clarke means that the sentences imposed on those found guilty of treason were more severe than they should have been if statutory law – law created in parliament – had been properly applied.

Content Overview

The main section of the article explores the legal theory that lay behind the trials and punishments of the victims of the Merciless Parliament. A legal procedure known as ‘impeachment’ – whereby individuals could be brought to trial in parliament – was used by the Lords’ Appellant against their enemies. Indeed, during the parliament it was declared that ‘high crimes’ must be tried in parliament (p. 75). The main body of evidence for the events is provided by four contemporary accounts of the parliament, including the Parliament Rolls which should be read with ‘great caution’ (p. 74).

Further Findings

In every sentence delivered by the Merciless Parliament, it was explicitly stated that ‘the traitor and his heirs are disinherited forever and their lands, goods and chattels escheat to the king’ (i.e. all their property was seized by the king, p. 93). Controversially, this included ‘dower’ and ‘estates tail’ – forms of property ownership that were not traditionally subject to forfeiture under the great treason statute of 1352. Indeed, Clarke highlights how, before parliament dissolved, an attempt was made ‘to reverse or to modify the judgements on forfeitures’ (p. 93) so that the sentences were limited to what was allowed under statutory law. It is suggested that this was also designed to avoid the sentences of 1388 establishing a legal precedent.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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

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

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