Plucknett, T. F. T., 'State Trials under Richard II', Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 2 (1952), 159-171

-

Quick Summary

Richard II unsuccessfully attempted to restrict the legal procedures available to his political opponents following the Wonder Parliament of 1386

  • Richard II prevented his political opponents from using the legal procedure of impeachment
  • The Lords Appellant turned to another legal procedure instead – the appeal
  • The Merciless Parliament of 1388 established criminal proceedings independent of the crown
Key Conclusion

Plucknett explores various ‘state trials’ that took place in parliament between 1376 and 1388. The article also examines the development of a legal procedure known as impeachment which was used to initiate trials in parliament. Plucknett concludes that a baronial faction opposed to the king was dealt a heavy blow when a group of judges made a pronouncement that impeachment required the consent of the king. As a result, the group of rebel barons known as the Lords Appellant turned to a different legal procedure – the appeal. This legal procedure provided a way for the Lords Appellant to initiate criminal proceedings against their enemies, and there was little the king could do to control this type of proceeding.

Content Overview

After 1376, the legal principle was established that parliament was the proper venue for trials of people accused of misconducting public affairs. The rough outlines of impeachment were drawn during the Good Parliament of 1376: the process involved the commons presenting accusations in parliament and ‘professing to act in the king’s name and nominally at least in consultation with him’ (p. 160). Plucknett goes on to explore a series of state trials, including the trial of the bishop of Norwich in 1383 (p. 161), the trial of Michael de la Pole, earl of Suffolk in 1384, and again in 1386 (p. 164), as well as the trials that took place during the Merciless Parliament of 1388 (p. 169).

Further Findings

During the Merciless Parliament of 1388, the Lords Appellant attempted to establish a criminal procedure that was independent of the crown. However, they succeeded only by the ‘barest margin’ (p. 170) owing to the fact that Richard II insisted in taking part in the proceedings – even though he was essentially the appellants’ prisoner. Plucknett remarks that in the state trials that took place between 1383 and 1388 ‘the hand of lawyers is visible everywhere’ (p. 170). Even if the king and his opponents sought to manipulate legal procedure to serve their own ends during this period, their actions impress the ‘simple fact that legality was part of the nation’s traditions’ (p. 171).

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