Ross, C.D., 'Forfeiture for Treason in the Reign of Richard II', The English Historical Review 71 (1956), 560-575

-

Quick Summary

Changes to the law introduced by a group of rebel barons in 1388 were nothing compared to the legal innovations introduced by Richard II to destroy his enemies in 1397-8

  • The Lords Appellant introduced legal innovations in 1388
  • These innovations were mild compared to later innovations introduced by Richard II
  • The severity of Richard’s actions in 1397-8 were highlighting during his deposition in 1399
Key Conclusion

Ross explores changes to the law of forfeiture in legal cases where the accused is found guilty of treason. The Lords Appellants – a group of barons who momentarily seized power from Richard II between 1386 and 1388 – introduced innovations to the law of forfeiture for treason. However, Ross concludes that these innovations were relatively mild compared to those introduced by the ‘revengeful Richard II’ (p. 574) in 1397-8. At the end of his reign, Richard II extended the law of treason so that it affected not just the person found guilty of treason, but also their ‘dependents and retainers’ who were stripped of any incomes (‘corrodies, fees and annuities’, p. 574) that they received from the traitor.

Content Overview

Ross challenges M. V. Clarke’s interpretation that the Lords Appellant introduced the doctrine of ‘Total Forfeiture’ to cause the complete of ruin of their enemies. Notably, Ross presents evidence that the Appellants upheld a legal precedent that ‘entailed estates’ (property that passes automatically to a pre-designated heir) were exempt from forfeiture. There were, however, two legal innovations introduced by Appellants: (1) lands ‘held to the use of a convicted traitor’ (i.e. where the traitor received profits from land held by somebody else, p. 569) were liable for forfeiture; (2) the king was prevented from granting forfeited lands and the Appellants gave themselves the power to sell the land in order to improve royal finances (p. 570).

Further Findings

Ross highlights that in 1397-8 ‘Richard abandoned all moderation in his attempt to destroy his enemies forever’ (p. 574). This lack of moderation meant that in 1399, Henry IV could plausibly point to Richard’s lack of moderation surrounding the law of forfeiture as evidence of him having acted ‘contrary to justice and the laws of his realm’. Ultimately, the severity of Richard II’s treason sentences in the last years of his reign were a contributing factor to the ‘indifference with which the English nobility regarded Richard’s deposition in 1399’ (p. 575).

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