12 Aug. 1328
Letter from the Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty of
London to the Mayor and Commonalty of Oxford, complaining that Robert de Ely and Thomas Edmund, citizens
of London, had not been allowed to sell their goods at their
own price in Oxford, and praying redress. Dated 12 Aug. (F)
12 Aug. 1328
Letter from the same to Edmund, Earl of Kent (fn. 1) , Henry,
Earl of Lancaster, John (de Stratford), Bishop of Winchester,
and Thomas Wake, thanking them for past favours and
praying their continuance. Dated 12 Aug. (F)
12 Aug. 1328
Letter from the same to Henry (Berghersh), Bishop of
Lincoln and Chancellor of England, complaining that although the citizens of London had the right of appointing
one or two citizens to hold a court for London citizens at
St Botolph's Fair (fn. 2) and other fairs, nevertheless the steward
of Sir John de Bretayne (fn. 3) , lord of the Fair of St Botolph, had
caused the citizens to plead before him, summoned them on
juries, and inflicted other hardships on them. The Chancellor
is desired to issue a writ commanding that the liberty of the
City be allowed. Dated 12 Aug. Ao 2 Edw. III. (F)
12 Aug. 1328
Commission from the Mayor and Commonalty, appointing
John de Grantham, Simon de Swanlond, John de Pulteneye
and John de Causton to hold the court for London citizens
at St Botolph's Fair. Dated as above. (L)
11 Aug. 1328
Letter of credence from the King to the Mayor etc.,
notifying that Richard de Betoyne and James Beauflour were
bearers of his answer touching certain matters affecting the
City. Dated at York, 11 Aug. Ao 2 Edw. III [1328], under
the Privy Seal. (F)
8 July 1328
Writ to Hamo de Chigwell and John Gisorz, who had been
appointed 3 Nov. Ao 18 Edw. II [1324] to supervise the
measures for wine, beer and corn in the City, and to take
amercements from those using false measures, commanding
the above Hamo and John to render forthwith to the Ex
chequer estreats of their rolls of fines and amercements.
Dated at York, 8 July Ao 2 Edw. III [1328]. (L)
Return to the effect that the above Hamo and the Commonalty had at once protested to the King that this appointment was to the prejudice of the City's liberties, whereupon
by word of mouth the King had ordered them to do nothing
until they had further commands from him. (L)
Membr. 23 (27)
3 Sept. 1328
Commission appointing Thomas Horewold, Ralph de
Upton, Richard de Berkyng and William de Elsyng to hold
the court for London citizens at St Giles's Fair, Winchester.
Dated 3 Sept. Ao 2 Edw. III [1328]. (L)
4 Sept. 1328
Letter from the Mayor and Commonalty to Henry (Berghersh), Bishop of Lincoln and Chancellor of England, on
behalf of Guy Teste, from whom the King's custom-officers
at Southampton had illegally taken custom dues. Dated
4 Sept. Sealed with the Common Seal on Monday before
the Feast of the Nativity B.M. [8 Sept.] Ao 2 Edw. III
[1328]. (F)
28 Aug. 1328
Writ for the election of two citizens to represent the City
at the Parliament to be held at New Sarum on Sunday after
Michaelmas fortnight. Dated at Clipston, 28 Aug. Ao 2
Edw. III [1328]. (L)
16 Sept. 1328
Letter from the Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty to
William, Count of Hainault, Holland and Zeeland and
Seigneur of Friesland on behalf of Henry le Palmere and
other citizens, about whom the King had recently sent letters
under the Great and Privy Seals to the Count. Dated
16 Sept. (F)
24 Sept. 1328
The same to the King, acknowledging his favours to
Richard de Betoyne and James Beauflour, and praying that
Parliament might sit at Westminster instead of New Sarum.
Dated 24 Sept. (F)
A note to the effect that the above letter was not dispatched,
as in the meantime Sir Oliver de Ingham and Sir Bartholomew
de Burghersh had arrived with the following letter from the
King.(L)
22 Sept. 1328
Letter of credence from the King to the Mayor, Sheriffs,
Aldermen and Commonalty in favour of Oliver de Ingham
and Bartholomew de Burghersh, who would explain the
King's wishes to the citizens. Dated at Horsford, 22 Sept.
Ao 2 Edw. III [1328]. (F)
26 Sept. 1328
Letter from the Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty to
William (de Melton), Bishop of York and Primate of England,
praying him to use his influence to have the next Parliament
at Westminster instead of New Sarum. Dated 26 Sept.
(F) Cancelled.
A note to the effect that similar letters were sent to the
Bishops of Hereford, Lincoln, Norwich, Ely and London,
the Earl Marshal and the Earl of Warenne, sealed with the
Common Seal, 26 Sept. (L) Cancelled.
Membr. 23 (27) b
27 Sept. 1328
Letter from the Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty of
London to the King. The writers acknowledge the receipt
of the letters of credence by the hands of the King's "bachelers (fn. 4) ," Oliver de Ingham and Bartholomew de Burghersh,
and of the King's request to be informed of the particulars
of a visit paid to the City by the Bishop of Winchester and
Thomas Wake—what the visitors said and what the citizens
answered. They explain that the said Bishop (fn. 5) and Thomas
de Wake came to the Guildhall on Saturday after the Exaltation of the Holy Cross [14 Sept.] to talk over affairs of state,
and said to the citizens that the King ought to live of his
own and have treasure ready for dealing with his enemies,
which treasure he did not possess; secondly, that it had been
laid down at the Parliament of Westminster after the King's
Coronation that he should have around him certain prelates,
earls and barons of his Council to advise him, and this had
not been done; and lastly, that they desired above all things
that the peace should be well kept in the kingdom. The
citizens had answered that if these things were so, it would
be well that they should be amended in Parliament, which
the citizens considered should be held at Westminster, and
this desire of theirs they beg again to recommend to the
King. As for a report which had reached the King's ears
that the City was making alliances and conspiracies against
him, it was absolutely false. The letter concludes with thanks
for the King's promise to come to London and to bring his
"places" to the City, as they had been informed by Richard
de Betoyne and James Beauflour. Dated 27 Sept. (F)
21 Sept. 1328
Record of the election (fn. 6) of Simon Fraunceys, mercer,
nominated by the Mayor, and Henry de Combemartyn, woolman, nominated by the Commonalty, as Sheriffs, by representatives of the Wards (twelve, eight or six according to the
size of the Wards) on St Matthew's Day [21 Sept.] 1328, and
of their having been presented to Sir William de la Souche,
Constable of the Tower, on the morrow of the Feast of
St Michael [29 Sept.]. (L)
3-4 Oct. 1328
Proceedings before Hamo de Chigwell, Mayor, and fifteen
Aldermen named, on Monday and Tuesday after the Feast
of St Michael [29 Sept.] 1328, against John de Cotun, Alderman of Walbrook, who was said by Roger le Bere to have
declared that Hamo de Chigwell was the worst worm
(pessimus vermis) that had come to London for twenty years,
that there would be no peace in the City so long as he was
alive, and that it would be a good thing if his head was cut off.
The above Roger was examined in the Inner Chamber of the
Guildhall, and said that the words were spoken in the 20th
year of the late King, and that there was no other witness.
The accused person denied having spoken them. As it was
found that Roger le Bere was defendant in several actions at
the suit of John de Cotun, and so was ill-disposed to him,
the latter was allowed to purge himself with the "sixth
hand (fn. 7) ," instead of the fiftieth hand as he would otherwise
have done according to ancient custom. He cleared himself
by his own oath and that of Elyas de Thorp, John de Bedeford, John de Aynesham, Richard de Carleton, and John de
Kyngeston, skinners. (L)
No date
Letter from the Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty of
London to the Queen-Mother, thanking her for agreeing that
her son the King should return to London with his "places "
—as reported by Richard de Betoyne and James Beauflour,
and as announced in the King's letters from York. (F)
Membr. 24 (28)
10 Oct. 1328
The same to the King, notifying the election of Stephen
de Abyndon and Robert de Kelseye to represent the City at
the Parliament at New Sarum. Dated 10 Oct. Ao 2 Edw. III
[1328]. (L)
10 Oct. 1328
Letter from the Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty of
London to Sir Hugh de Neville, on behalf of William de
Coulee, who complained that he had been maltreated and
robbed of £100 by Hugh de Neville's sons and others, whilst
visiting his cousin the parson of Horkesle on business.
Dated 10 Oct. (F)
12 Oct. 1328
The same to the King, acknowledging the receipt of his
letters of credence by the hands of Oliver de Ingham and
Geoffrey le Scrope. Dated 12 Oct. (F)
12 Oct. 1328
The same to Simon (Mepeham (fn. 8) ), Archbishop of Canter
bury, praying him, in conjunction with the rest of the prelates, to use his best endeavours to restore quiet and peace to
the land. Dated 12 Oct. (F)
13 Oct. 1328
Letter from the Mayor and Commonalty of London to
the Mayor and Commonalty of Cambridge (fn. 9) , praying them
to uphold (meyntenir & avower) a certificate they had made
to the effect that no one had been arrested for a robbery
committed on Richard de Welleford and Geoffrey de Weston,
drapers of London, in the hundred of Stowe in the county
of Cambridge. Dated 13 Oct. (F)
Membr. 24 (28)b
13 Oct. 1328
Letter from the Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty of
London to John (Hotham), Bishop of Ely, on behalf of the
above Richard and Geoffrey, who had sued out an execution
under the Statute of Winchester for the aforesaid robbery.
Dated 13 Oct. (F)
10 Oct. 1328
The same to Eymer la Souche, Sheriff of Cambridge, to
the same effect. Dated 10 Oct. (F)
4 Nov. 1328
Letter from John de "Graham" (Grantham), Mayor, to
Walter de Norwych (fn. 10) , expressing satisfaction at the prospect
of his coming to the City. Dated 4 Nov. (F)
A note to the effect that a similar letter was sent to Geoffrey
le Scrope (fn. 11) under the Mayor's small seal. (L)
8 Nov. 1328
Letter from John de Grantham, Mayor, the Aldermen
and Commonalty of London to the King, thanking him for
having agreed that his "places" be brought back to London
(vers celes parties) and that the next Parliament should be
held there. The writers desire him not to believe anything
which might be told him touching the City's want of
allegiance. Dated 8 Nov. (F)
18 Oct. 1328
Letter from Hugh de Nevill of Essex to the Mayor etc.
of London, denying all complicity in the maltreatment and
robbery of William de Coulee, and praying them to give less
credence to anything that William de Coulee might say.
Dated at Langham, 18 Oct. (F)
5 Nov. 1328
Letter from Henry, Earl of Lancaster (fn. 12) , to the Mayor etc.
of London. He informs them that he had been at Winchester
and had signified his good intentions to Parliament in the
most obedient manner, but had not obtained a hearing, and
when he was about to offer his services to the King, he found
that Parliament had been adjourned to London, because they
had no wish to see him there (at Salisbury). In the meantime
the Earl of Kent had made certain communications (fn. 13) to him,
which he could not put into writing, but which the bearer
would report by word of mouth. He had gone, on the
advice of the prelates and of his cousin, to his own estates.
He concludes with assurances of loyalty to the King and
expressions of his hope that the City of London, like him,
wished for nothing so much as the King's good and the good
of the realm. Dated at Hungerford, 5 Nov. (F)
Membr. 29
28 Jan. 1328
Acquittance to the Sheriffs for £23 12s 5d, in part repayment of £1000 lent by the citizens to Edw. II in the 10th
year of his reign. Dated 28 Jan. Ao 2 Edw. III [1327-8]. (L)
Similar acquittance for £20. Same date. (L)
28 Oct. 1328
Proceedings at the election of the Mayor on Friday the
Feast of SS. Simon and Jude [28 Oct.] 1328, and the following
day. An assembly took place in the Guildhall of the Mayor,
Sheriffs, Aldermen and twelve, ten or eight Commoners from
each Ward, and the Mayor and Aldermen retired to the
Chamber to make the election for themselves and the Commonalty according to custom. When they descended to the
Hall, and the Recorder announced that the election had
fallen on Hamo de Chigwell, almost with one voice the
Commoners assented, shouting "yes." After a short silence,
some shouted "Fulsham" and others "Chigwell," and the
assembly broke up in confusion. Discussion and argument
took place in the City all that night, until certain of the wiser
citizens came to an agreement, and persuaded the candidates
that in order to prevent commotion in the City, neither of
them should be Mayor. Accordingly next day at tierce John
de Grantham was elected Mayor and presented to the
attorney of the Constable of the Tower, by whom he was
sworn. Subsequently he was presented to the King and
admitted as Mayor, but was not required to take the oath
again. (L)
20 Oct. 1328
Writ to the Sheriffs of London. Some evildoers, who had
been outlawed for a recent assault made on the town and
Abbey of St Edmunds, had since made an attack (fn. 14) on the
Abbot's manor of Chevynton co. Suffolk, carried off thirtyfive horses, plate, jewels and other valuables, and had even
made a prisoner of the Abbot himself and carried him off to
London. The Sheriffs are ordered to make inquiries about
him, and if they find him in London or their bailiwick, to
place him in safety, and to secure if possible the plunder that
had been taken. Dated at New Sarum, 20 Oct. Ao 2 Edw. III
[1328]. (L)
18 Nov. 1328 (2)
Letter from the Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty of
London, assuring the King, in answer to his inquiries, of the
peaceful condition of the City, to which all who had business
at his "places" might come with safety. The writers had
heard of the King's displeasure because some Londoners
had gone in arms to Winchester, to the terror of the country
through which they passed. They declare that none had gone
with their consent or knowledge, and that if any were found
to have been guilty of going with arms, they would inflict
due punishment for the offence. They conclude by praying
the King not to retain any ill-feeling against his loyal citizens.
Dated 18 Nov. (F)
16 Nov. 1328 (1)
Letter of credence from the King on behalf of Bennet de
Fulsham, Reginald de Conduit, John de Causton, Thomas
de Leire, Simon de Swanlond, John de Pulteneye, Stephen
de Abyndon, Henry Darci, Robert de Kelseye, Henry
Wymond, John Priour, Robert le Bret, Henry Moncoy and
Hugh de Brandon, the twelve leading citizens who had been
sent to Windsor at his request to consult about the state of
the City. They have been charged by the King to convey to
the City his messages and to bring back the City's answers.
Dated at Windsor, 16 Nov. Ao 2 Edw. III [1328]. (F)
Membr. 29b
18 Nov. 1328
Letter from the Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty of
London to the Queen-Mother, thanking her for favours and
praying their continuance. Dated 18 Nov. (F)
13 Nov. 1328
Note to the effect that on Sunday after the Feast of St
Martin [11 Nov.] Ao 2 Edw. III [1328] a sergeant-at-arms
of the King came to John de Grantham, Mayor, after vespers
with the following letter:
The King to the Mayor of London, desiring him to send
twelve leading citizens to Windsor on Tuesday next in order
to learn his wishes. Dated at Reading, 12 Nov. Ao 2 Edw.
III. (F)
On Monday six aldermen and commoners were chosen
and forthwith proceeded to Windsor, where they had colloquy with the King and his Council, returning on Thursday
with the King's letter, to which the City sent a reply. (L)
[See above, letters (1) and (2), pp. 73-4.]
26 Nov. 1328
Note that in accordance with the King's grant in Parliament (fn. 15) , Richard de Beton and Hamo de Chigwell during
their mayoralties were nominated in the commission of
Justices of Gaol Delivery at Newgate together with Sir John
de Bousser (fn. 16) . When Hamo de Chigwell was deposed, a
commission was obtained for John de Grantham:
Letters patent appointing John de Grantham a Justice of
Gaol Delivery. Dated at Westminster, 26 Nov. Ao 2 Edw. III
[1328]. (L)
Membr. 26 (30)
1 Dec. 1328
Writ (fn. 17) to the Sheriff of Cambridge to execute the Statute
of Winchester and to make good to Richard de Welleford
and Geoffrey de Weston, merchants of London, the loss they
had sustained by a robbery committed in a place called
" Potterescrouche" between Arnyngton and Caxton in the
hundred of Stowe co. Cambs. The plaintiffs had alleged that
the men of the hundred had allowed the robbers to escape,
to which the men of the hundred had replied that within
fifteen days several evildoers had been apprehended and
placed in the King's prison at Cambridge, on account of
which the hundred was not bound to answer for the robbery.
A precept had been sent to the Mayor and Bailiffs of Cambridge and a certificate returned, and the parties had appeared in Chancery, being subsequently ordered to come
before the King in Parliament at Salisbury, and by adjournment before Geoffrey le Scrope and the other Justices in the
King's Bench. The men of the hundred, represented by
William Avenel, knight, and others, averred that the returns
of the Sheriff, the Coroners and the Mayor and Bailiffs of
Cambridge [saying that no persons suspected of the robbery
had been apprehended] were false, and that as a matter of
fact Ralph le Thresher and other thieves had been arrested
and detained at Cambridge. When ordered to verify this
pleading they made default, whereupon judgment was given
that the plaintiffs return to Chancery there to sue out
execution of the Statute of Winchester, which was duly
granted to them. Dated at Westminster, 1 Dec. Ao 2 Edw.
III [1328]. (L)
14 Dec. 1328
Letter from the Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty of
London to Eymer la Souche, Sheriff of Cambridge, urging
the immediate execution of the above writ. Dated the
morrow of the Feast of St Lucia [13 Dec.]. (F)
30 July 1328
Letter from William, Count of Hainault, Holland and
Zeeland and Seigneur of Friesland, to the Mayor and Commonalty of the City of London, desiring to be furnished with
further particulars concerning the loss sustained by Stephen
Alayn (fn. 18) of London, in order that he may know against whom
to proceed, and promising to see justice done on his return
to Holland and Zeeland. Dated at Valenciennes, 30 July. (F)
13 Dec. 1328
The Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty of London to
William, Count of Hainault, acknowledging the receipt of
his letter promising to see justice done to Stephen Aleyn
after his return from the war in Flanders. The writers desire
him to make the needed compensation without further
delay, lest other steps should be taken. Dated 13 Dec. (F)
Membr. 26 (30)b
13 Dec. 1328
The same to the Count of Flanders, with regard to a
robbery suffered by Henry le Palmere (fn. 19) and other citizens.
The latter had sued out writs of arrest in Chancery, whereby
the Sheriffs were ordered to make reprisals on the men of
Flanders, but the execution of these writs had been delayed
because the Count's representatives were negotiating treaties
with the King's Council. The writers desire the Count to
make restitution, lest other steps should be taken. Dated as
above. (F)
13 Dec. 1328
The same to Sir John de Weston, Constable of Bordeaux
Castle, complaining of the conduct of Arnold Trente, the
King's receiver of customs in the said castle, who had imprisoned, attached and threatened London merchants.
Dated as above. (F)
13 Dec. 1328
The same to the Mayor, Jurats and Commonalty of Bordeaux, desiring their good will on behalf of London merchants, and requesting them to ascertain from the above
Arnold the reason for his actions, and to inform him that if
he had any grievance against the City and would put it into
writing, satisfaction would be given. Dated as above. (F)
13 Dec. 1328
The same to John de Haustede, Seneschal of Gascony,
thanking him for the assistance he had given London merchants against the exactions of Arnold Trente, the King's
receiver of customs at Bordeaux. Dated as above. (F)
16 Dec. 1328
Letter from John de Claxton, Undersheriff and deputy of
" Aumary" la Souche, Sheriff of Cambridge (fn. 20) , to the Mayor
etc. of London, promising to levy from the Hundred of
Stowe the sum of £130 claimed by Richard de Welleford
and Geoffrey de Weston in accordance with the King's writ
presented by them. Dated at Cambridge on Friday after the
Feast of St Lucia [13 Dec.]. (F)
Membr. 31
16 Dec. 1328
Letter from the King to the Mayor, Aldermen, Sheriffs
and Commonalty of London, informing them that he had
recently sent to the Earl of Lancaster certain messages, a
copy of which accompanies this letter. On receiving the
messages the Earl had replied that he would take advice and
give an answer, but instead of doing so he had moved from
Leicester to Kenilworth and was now advancing in force
against the King, to whom he would have done an injury,
if he could have taken him unawares. Though the Earl and
his party declared that they were acting in the King's interests,
and that their movements were directed not against him, but
against certain of his subjects, the King considered that their
proceedings would result in grave disorder, and thus directly
affected him. In any case, it was not their duty, but his, to
act as judge and do justice. He appeals to the City, which
he regards as the "King's Chamber," not to show favour to
the Earl or assist him in any way. He desires the Mayor to
proclaim publicly the tenour of the messages which he had
sent to the Earl. Dated at Gloucester, 16 Dec. Ao 2 Edw. III
[1328]. (F)
Copy of the above-mentioned messages: Recently Ralph
Basset and William de Clynton had come to the King at
Westminster and had suggested that an agreement was
possible if the Earl of Lancaster and the Earl of March (fn. 21)
could discuss their differences together, and had prayed the
King to give orders to his Council to arrange a meeting.
To this the King had answered that the measures taken by
the Earl of Lancaster were a trespass against himself, and
amends should be made to him alone. Though it was not a
King's duty to send messengers to his subjects, nevertheless
for the preservation of the peace, he now informs the Earl
of the following points on which he feels himself aggrieved,
in order that the Earl may be better disposed to make his
submission.
In the first place, it was agreed at the Parliament of Northampton (fn. 22) by the prelates and wise men of the Council, and
by them proposed to the King, the Earls and other magnates,
that the King was the rightful heir of France according to
written and Canon law, and he was advised to send two
Bishops to France to claim his right. By general consent, to
which the Earl of Lancaster was a party, the Bishops of
Chester and Worcester were chosen, and thereupon the Earl
and those present in Parliament promised to aid the King to
the utmost of their power.
Item, it was agreed at the same Parliament that Justices
should be commissioned for the several counties to deal with
felonies and trespasses, that the magnates in their districts
should assist them to do justice and should not maintain or
protect evildoers, and that no one, great or small, should go
armed in the Kingdom, under penalty of forfeiture of their
arms and imprisonment.
Item, it was agreed that the King should live of his own;
and forthwith a Chancellor, Treasurer, Steward of the
Household and other ministers were appointed. It was also
agreed that the Earl of Lancaster should remain near the
King to counsel and aid him, and that no important business
should be done without the Earl—which duties the Earl
undertook loyally to perform.
Membr. 31b
Nevertheless, in spite of these ordinances and promises
the Earl had removed himself from the King and his Council,
except on one occasion, when he came to the King at Warwick
and promised to attend the Council at Worcester. But at
Worcester the Earl was unwilling that the dispatch of men
to Guyenne should take place until the matter had been
considered at a larger Council, which he advised the King
to summon to York (fn. 23) . The Earl, however, had not attended at
York, sending letters to excuse himself, with the result that
the business of Gascony and other important matters were
delayed, whereupon the King took the advice of those who
were present and summoned Parliament to meet at Salisbury,
to which place he arranged his journey by way of Lincoln,
Norfolk and London. On the way the Earl had appeared at
Barlyngs (fn. 24) with a retinue of armed and mounted men, to the
great displeasure of the King, who ordered him by word of
mouth to attend the Parliament at Salisbury. After his departure, the Earl sent the Bishop of Winchester and Lord
Wake to the Guildhall of London, in which City there was
always a large number of visiting aliens, and these messengers,
in the presence of the Mayor, Sheriffs, Aldermen and the
whole Commonalty and also of many aliens (fn. 25) , declared that
the King was badly advised, had no good council round him,
had not the wherewithal to live, and paid nothing for the
expenses of his household—all of which was reported abroad,
at the Court of Rome and in France and elsewhere, to the
great slander of the King and his Council and in hindrance
of the King's affairs in France and Gascony. After this, the
Earl assembled men-at-arms at Hegham Ferers (fn. 26) , news of
which was carried to the King at Cambridge (fn. 27) . In order to
avoid the Earl he had turned aside from his journey to
London and had joined the Queen-Mother and the Queen,
staying in their company till Salisbury was reached. The
Earl did not attend the Parliament there, but sent certain
knights as his proctors to lay before the King his reasons for
not coming—which reasons seemed to many in Parliament
invalid. However, the Bishops, who did not wish to say
openly that the excuses given were unacceptable, prayed the
King not to accept them for the time being, but to wait
quietly till the whole Council was met together; their reasons
being that the Bishop of Winchester was not present among
the other prelates when the Earl of Lancaster's non-arrival
was discussed. Subsequently the Bishop appeared and told
the prelates, earls and barons that he knew well that the
Earl had not come because of the quarrel between himself
and Lord Mortimer. The Earl had heard, he said, that Lord
Mortimer had made peace in Scotland, in order to destroy
him (the Earl). The Bishop added that if an agreement could
be reached between the Earl and Mortimer all would be well.
These remarks were reported to the King, in whose presence
Lord Mortimer, now Earl of March, had defended himself
from the Bishop's aspersions. The prelates and others there
were satisfied with his defence, and afterwards by the King's
command and at the request of the prelates, earls and barons
in Parliament, Mortimer took an oath on the cross of the
Archbishop of Canterbury that he would neither do, nor
procure to be done, any harm to the Earl of Lancaster and
his party. On the prayer of the prelates, the Bishops of
Winchester and London were sent to the Earl to report these
events to him, and to invite him to attend Parliament, the
King adding a verbal message that he wished the Earl and
his party to come in safety, though he did not desire the
presence of Sir Henry de Beaumond (fn. 28) on this occasion, and
that if the Earl distrusted any person of the King's entourage,
the King would give him surety. Meanwhile these delays
and the upholding of business were regarded as a great hardship by those attending Parliament, especially as they had been
put to great expense on previous occasions, when nothing
was done. However, the Bishops returned at length with the
Earl's answer to the following effect:
The Earl denied that he was moved by any desire to profit
himself, or by any hatred of others, and declared that it was
in the interest of the Church, the King and the realm, that
certain abuses should be remedied. The King ought to have
enough of his own to live fitly, without oppressing the people,
together with treasure for defending his land and people if
need arose. Moreover the Queen-consort ought to have her
dowry on which to live without grieving the people (fn. 29) . Peers
of the realm had been chosen at the Parliament at Westminster after the King's coronation to advise him during his
youthful years, which counsellors were to be responsible for
their actions to the next Parliament. The peace of the realm,
without which the King could not be lord or King, ought to
be maintained. In order to recommend these matters and
give such assistance as he could, the Earl would come to
Parliament, but he begged the prelates and others to excuse
him to the King for coming with an armed force, since his
motive for so doing was not any desire to disobey the King
or to harm any one, but merely to protect himself against
those who were notoriously anxious to do him a wrong. If the
King considered that he should come in any other wise, because of the danger of conflict, he prayed the prelates and
magnates to obtain from the King letters of safe-conduct for
himself and his party.
The above answer being considered by the King, it seemed
to him as regards the first point, namely, that he ought to
live of his own, that it was impossible for him to be any
richer, since both he and his people were impoverished by
the present disturbances, but if any man knew how to make
him richer, it would give him and his advisers great satisfaction.
As regards the Queen-consort's dowry, this ought not to
be a reason for disturbance, since the matter concerned himself and her alone. It would not be an increased charge, and
so he was willing that it should be done.
As to the point that the King should be counselled by the
peers of the realm, summons had frequently been sent to the
Earl, but he had been unwilling to come and had removed
himself from the King.
As regards the maintenance of the law and peace, this was
the sovereign desire of the King himself, and he wished above
all things to maintain them, as he was bound by his oath
to do.
In the matter of the safe-conduct, though it was not customary for Kings in the past to issue such letters to their
subjects in the realm, nevertheless at the request of the
Queen-Mother, the prelates, the King's uncle the Earl of
Kent, and others, the King had granted them in the form
demanded, under the condition that the Earl and his party
would answer at law, since the King could not issue any
other kind of safe-conduct without offence to the Great
Charter, which laid down that the King should not deny or
delay right or justice to any man.
These letters of safe-conduct were not accepted by the
Earl, nor did he attend Parliament. Accordingly the King,
in view of the long delays which had taken place, with the
assent of the prelates, earls and barons, and at the request of
the knights of the Commons, on Monday the eve of All
Saints [1 Nov.] adjourned his Parliament to the octave of the
Purification next ensuing at Westminster. He then arranged
to make his journey by Winchester to London, when news
was brought to him that the Earl of Lancaster with others
had entered the City of Winchester with a great force of
men-at-arms and foot-men, and had gathered to himself
large numbers of men in a warlike manner. Thereupon the
King ordered the Sheriff of Southampton to hasten to Winchester in order to arrest all men carrying arms against the
King's prohibition and the Statute of Northampton. The
Sheriff conveyed his orders to Lord Wake, but the Earl's
party stood their ground and did not obey the King's servant
until the Thursday following, although the Parliament was
adjourned and the members had departed on leave, On
Thursday the King journeyed as arranged to Winchester,
when the Earl and his armed following left the City and
passed by the side of the King, which was seen by some of
the King's household, who told him what they saw—an
action which the King regarded with great displeasure as
being done against the peace and his own honour, and in
despite of him.
Nevertheless the King, being anxious that peace should
be maintained, desires to bring all these facts to the notice
of the Earl, that the Earl may be advised to behave towards
the King as he ought to behave to his liege lord. The King
assures the Earl that if he does so, he will find him gracious
and ready to promote unity and concord between all as a just
judge, and not as a partisan. (F)
Membr. 28 (32)
circa 21 Dec. 1328
Letter from the Commonalty of London to the King,
notifying that the above letter was publicly read before a
great Commonalty in the Guildhall on Tuesday the eve of
the Feast of St Thomas the Apostle [21 Dec.]. The writers
inform the King that Thomas Wake, William Trussel,
Thomas Roscelyn and others (fn. 30) were present and had explained
that the Earl could not answer the King's letter in haste
without the advice of his peers, but that a speedy answer
would be sent, for the honour of the King and the profit of
the realm. The King is assured that the City remains firmly
loyal, and is prayed to give orders that all enmities cease
until matters can be redressed in the forthcoming Parliament. (F)
23 Dec. 1328
Letter from Simon (Mepeham), Archbishop of Canterbury,
to the King, reminding him that at the Parliament of Salisbury
proclamation was made by common assent that no proceedings
should be taken against the magnates of the realm till the
coming session at Westminster, further that he had promised
by his coionation oath to maintain the laws and customs of
England, and thirdly that it was laid down in the Great
Charter that the King should not go nor send against any
in the land, except by judgment of his peers and by process
of law—a clause which had been enforced by sentence of
excommunication against all who contravened it. Moreover
the King well knew that divers councils of the prelates of the
realm had given sentence of excommunication against all
persons (with the exception of the King, the Queen and their
children) who were guilty of disturbing the peace, or causing
it to be disturbed. Since it was now common knowledge
that the King had been advised to advance in force against
certain peers and others of the land, to the great peril of the
realm, the Archbishop earnestly prays and admonishes the
King to desist from these intentions until the meeting of
Parliament at Westminster, at which any peer or other who
had offended might make amends and be punished according
to due process of law. (F)
Note that the above letter was sent to the King at Worcester
by the hands of Master John de Elham, Canon of St Paul's
and Archdeacon of Essex, who left London on Friday [23
Dec.] before Christmas Day [25 Dec.] 1328. (L)
22 Dec. 1328
Letter from the Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty of
London to the King to the same effect. The writers feel
themselves bound by their allegiance to the King to warn
him of the dangers which would ensue if he persisted in his
intentions. Dated 22 Dec. (F)
Note that this letter was sent by the hands of Robert
Flamberd (fn. 31) , Common Serjeant, who left London on Sunday,
Christmas Day.
29 Dec. 1328
Letter from the King to the Mayor, Aldermen and Sheriffs,
enclosing a proclamation to be published in the City. Dated
at Worcester under the Privy Seal, 29 Dec. Ao 2 Edw. III
[1328]. (F)
[Enclosure] The King proclaims that he is about to advance in force from Worcester to Warwick in order to deal
with those who are laying waste the country, including his
own manors. He will be at Warwick on New Year's Day
and at Leicester on the Feast of the Epiphany [6 Jan.]. He
is ready to grant a pardon to all those who have been guilty
of the above trespasses, if they make submission before the
morrow of the Epiphany, but this amnesty does not extend
to Sir Henry de Beaumont (fn. 32) , Sir Thomas Roscelyn (fn. 33) , Sir
Thomas Wither (fn. 34) and Sir William Trussel (fn. 35) , though the King
has no desire to do any wrong or to act illegally against the
latter. The taking of victual without payment is strictly forbidden. (F)
Membr. 28 (32)b
No date
The Mayor's proclamation for keeping the peace. All
citizens are enjoined to assist the City's officers in arresting
disturbers. (F)
11 Jan. 1329
Letter from the Mayor and Commonalty of London to the
Constable of Windsor Castle, complaining of the seizure of
wheat and other victuals for the provisioning of the Castle,
as reported by Martin de Chigwell and other merchants of
London. Such prises were contrary to the liberties of the
City, and had been publicly forbidden by proclamation made
in the City by the King's command on Monday last. Dated
11 Jan. [1328-9]. (F)
No date
The same to Hugh de Neville demanding restitution to
Henry Prodomme, William de Neuporte and John Turnegold
of goods stolen from their ship, which ran aground near the
manor of Wakeryng, when on a voyage from Yarmouth to
London with a cargo of cured herring (hareng soor) (fn. 36) and
other goods value £80. Three of the crew had come ashore
and asked assistance, for which they were willing to pay, but
the tenants had allowed the ship to be wrecked out of malice,
and when the tide ebbed, had carried the cargo to Wakeryng
and had also broken up the ship. Though the sailors had
claimed the return of their goods from the bailiff of the
manor, in whose possession they were found, they had obtained no redress. (F)
22 Jan. 1329
Reply to the above, to the effect that the ship ran ashore
at a place where the writer had rights of "wreck," and that
the sailors went in the night to the town of Shobery to ask
for help. When they returned, the ship was a wreck and the
greater part of the goods had been carried away by people of
the district, before any of his men knew anything of the
matter. No living thing was found when the ship perished,
except two dead men (sic). The writer had taken steps to
recover the property and was willing to do all that law and
reason demanded. Dated at Langham on St Vincent's Day
[22 Jan.]. (F)
Membr. 33
3 June 1329
Letter from John de Grantham, Mayor, and the Commonalty of the City of London to Hugh de Audele (fn. 37) , reminding him that he had put in respite the exaction of
wharfage dues at Henley from citizens of London, pending
a discussion of the matter in London. Nevertheless his
bailiffs at Henley had again been distraining London citizens
for the dues. Dated 3 June. (F)
No date
The same to the King, praying him to instruct his Chancellor or the Treasurer and Barons of the Exchequer to repay
to John de Gisorz the sum of 100 marks, which the latter,
during his Mayoralty, had advanced to Sir Nicholas de
Hugate for the King's business, by order of Sir John de
Sandale then Chancellor. (F)
13 July 1329
The same to the Queen-Mother to the same effect.
13 July. (F)
13 July 1329
The same to Roger (fn. 38) , Earl of March, to the same effect.
Dated 13 July. (F)
No date
Another letter from John de Grantham, Mayor, and the
Commonalty to Hugh de Neville, acknowledging his promise
to assist Henry Prodomme and others, whose ship had been
wrecked, and the goods therein stolen. The writers point out
that the men who left the ship went not to Shobery but to
Wakering, where the tenants promised to help them and did
nothing. The goods were not carried away by the inhabitants
of the district, but were taken by his tenants, together with
portions of the ship, into the manor of Wakering, where the
three sailors saw the goods. Hugh de Neville is desired to
obtain restitution, in order that other steps need not be
taken. (F)
Membr. 33b
24 June 1329
Writ to the Bailiffs of Hugh de Audele and Margaret his
wife at Henley, forbidding them to exact wharfage dues from
vessels belonging to citizens of London, since such dues
were contrary to the charters granted by the King to the
City of London. Dated at Eltham, 24 June Ao 3 Edw. III
[1329]. (L)
1 July 1329
Another writ to the same effect. Dated 1 July. (L)
Return from the Bailiffs to the effect that one penny had
from time immemorial been levied on vessels coming to
Henley, by way of easement of the lord's land, and that the
town of Henley was held by Sir Hugh de Audele for the lifetime of his wife, with remainder to the Crown.
A note that the writ and return were not delivered into the
Chancery. (L)
10 July 1329
A writ pluries to the same effect as the preceding writs.
Dated 10 July Ao 3 Edw. III [1329]. (L)
15 Aug. 1329
Another letter from John de Grantham, Mayor, the Aldermen and Commonalty to Hugh de Neville, urging him to
delay no longer in taking steps to make good the loss sustained by Henry Prodomme, William de Neuport and John
Turnegold, whose ship was wrecked within his demesne.
Dated the eve of the Assumption [15 Aug.]. (F)
28 July 1329
Commission appointing Simon de Swanlond, John de
Causton, John de Pulteneye, Henry Darci, Henry Gisorz
and Andrew Aubry to exercise jurisdiction over London
citizens at Boston Fair. Dated 28 July Ao 3 Edw. III
[1329]. (F)
[14 Aug. 1329]
Acquittance (fn. 39) from the Mayor, Aldermen and other citizens
of London to William Horn, Rector of Rotherhithe, John
atte Vine and Master Philip of London, notary, executors of
the will of Andrew Horn, late Chamberlain of the Guildhall,
in respect of the City's accounts. The executors had duly
accounted for all sums of money mentioned in the Rolls of
Receipts and Expenditure before Hamo de Chigwell and
other auditors, and had delivered by indenture to Henry de
Seccheford, now Chamberlain, all property pertaining to the
Chamber of London. Sealed with the Common Seal. (L)
17 Aug. 1329
Letter from Hugh de Neville to the Mayor etc. of London,
expressing his willingness to assist Henry Prodomme, William
de Neuport and John Tornegold, when he is informed against
whom they wish to make complaint, saving the rights of his
lordship. Dated at Wakering, 17 Aug. (F)
18 Aug. 1329
Commission appointing John de Pulteneye, Ralph de
Upton, Richard de Welleford, Thomas Harewold, Thomas
de Grauntbregge and others to exercise jurisdiction (fn. 40) over
London citizens at Winchester Fair. Dated 18 Aug. Ao 3
Edw. III [1329]. (F)
Membr. 34
25 April 1334
Letter from John de Pulteneye, Mayor, the Aldermen and
Commonalty of London to the Warden of Berwick, the
King's Chancellor and Sheriff in those parts, the Mayor,
Bailiffs and officers of the same, certifying that Margery, wife
of Henry de Lyndeseye, the bearer of the letter, was daughter
and heiress of John de Everwyk, late glover of London, and
desiring that certain property in the town of Berwick, belonging to the said John de Everwyk, might be handed over
to her. Dated Monday the Feast of St Mark [25 April]
1334. (F)
22 April 1334
The same to the Burgomaster, Echevins and Commonalty
of Bruges on behalf of Thomas de Pykenham, executor of
John de Pykenham, that he may be assisted in collecting
certain debts. Dated 22 April 1334. (F)
10 May 1334
Letters testimonial under the Mayoralty Seal in favour of
Friars of the Holy Cross of London travelling throughout
the country and collecting victuals and alms for their order.
Dated 10 May 1334. (L)
26 May 1334
Letter from the Mayor and Commonalty to the Count of
Hainault on behalf of John de Wrotham, whose ship laden
with corn had been driven by stress of weather to Zeeland,
where it had been seized off Flushing, and the cargo taken
ashore. Dated 26 May. (F)
No date
Letter from the Mayor and Barons of Sandwich to the
Mayor, Aldermen and custom-officers of London, to the
effect that Belyngers Comely, merchant and attorney of
Peter Garcies of Sandwich, had bought 200 qrs of corn from
citizens of London, but could not have delivery until he had
paid toll. Withernam had been granted him against London
merchants, though the first three distresses taken from
citizens of London had been returned. Finally 44s 8d, being
double the toll paid in London, had been taken from John
de Braughyng, factor of John de Preston of London. The
writers desire that the above John may not suffer loss owing
to default of justice by the citizens of London. (F)
26 June 1334
Commission appointing Bennet de Fulsham, Andrew
Aubrey, Thomas de Swanlond, Bartholomew Denmars,
William de Cave and William de Braughyng to exercise
jurisdiction over London citizens at Boston Fair. Dated 26
June Ao 8 Edw. III [1334]. (L)
3 Sept. 1334
Letter from the Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty of
London to Antony de Lucy, warden of the town of Berwick,
desiring him to arrest the property of John Turgys, chandler,
inasmuch as the latter had received certain moneys from
Thomas Otewy, draper and merchant of London, to trade
therewith, and had rendered no account of the same as he
ought to have done. Dated 3 Sept. Ao 8 Edw. III [1334]. (F)
Membr. 34b
15 Sept. 1334
The same to the same on behalf of Osbern de Bray. The
latter's factor, William de Braughyng, after selling his wheat
and wine in Berwick had loaded a ship belonging to John le
Chaundeler of London with salmon, leather and tallow at
Perth, and on the voyage to London he had gone ashore at
Leith with others. By mischance all were killed except the
above John, who was still in prison there. The ship had
returned to Berwick, and the goods were now in the custody
of John de Caunterbery and Paul, servants of John le
Chaundeler. Dated the morrow of the Exaltation of the
Holy Cross [14 Sept.]. (F)
The same to the Mayor and Sheriff of the town of Berwick
on the same subject. (F)
A note of similar letters having been sent to the same
Mayor and Sheriff on behalf of Thomas Otewy and William
Oliver, and also to Sir Anthony de Lucy on behalf of William
Oliver. (L)
3 Nov. 1334
Letter from Reginald de Conduit, Mayor, and the Commonalty of London to the Sacristan of the Abbey of St
Edmunds and the Bailiffs of the town, with regard to three
bullocks belonging to John de Preston, Alderman of London,
which had strayed from his manor of Braughyng co. Herts,
into their bailiwick. They are desired to deliver the animals
to the bearer of the letter, who would prove ownership.
Dated the morrow of All Souls [2 Nov.]. (F)
8 Dec. 1334
Letter from the Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty of
London to the King, informing him of the dispatch of 100
horsemen (fn. 41) and 100 foot under the command of Edmund
Flamberd, to assist him in the war with Scotland. Their
wages had been paid for forty days. The writers pray that
the Chancellor may be authorised to pass a warrant under
the Great Seal that this shall not form a precedent. Dated
Thursday the Feast of the Conception B.M. [8 Dec.] Ao 8
Edw. III [1334]. (F)
Membr. 35
22 July 1335
Commission appointing Roger de Guldesburgh and James
de Kyngeston to press all ships of 40 casks of wine burden
and upwards into the King's service against the Scots. This
commission covered all ports northward from Faversham,
and all ships then at sea were ordered to return to their home
ports, in order to be fitted out with double equipment and
manned by sailors and men-at-arms. Dated at Carlisle, 22
July Ao 9 Edw. III [1335]. (L)
Note that by virtue of this commission, which was proved
before the Mayor and Aldermen by the above Roger, six
ships were seized in the port of Billingsgate and elsewhere. (L)
12 Aug. 1335
Commission appointing John de Pulteneye and Reginald
de Conduit to raise and lead troops from the City of London
against the enemy. Dated at Perth, 12 Aug. Ao 9 Edw. III
[1335]. (L)
circa Aug. 1335
A note of certain communications to be made by the
Bishop of London or the Bishop of Winchester on behalf of
the King and the Chancellor to the Bishops and others (fn. 42)
assembled in London on the morrow of the Feast of St
Bartholomew [24 Aug.], as regards the ordering of the
realm.
Excuses are to be made for the non-attendance of the
Chancellor, who is in charge of the Great Seal and cannot be
spared from his duties.
Those present are to be informed that the King had received information that the King of France intended to send
military aid to the Scots, and this information had been confirmed by the fact that ships had been pressed into service
along the French shores as far as the coast of Brittany for
transporting troops. Since there was danger of these ships
making a descent upon the English coast, the King and
Council had appointed Sir John Howard as Admiral from
the mouth of the Thames northwards, and Sir John de Cobham from the same place southwards, and in addition had
constituted certain persons as wardens of the maritime
counties, and others to enlist and command defensive forces,
as would appear by their commissions.
Commands had also been sent to the Barons of the Cinque
Ports and the authorities of other ports to put their towns
in a posture of defence, and commissioners had been sent to
the seaports to ensure that this was being done.
News had also been received that at the Parliament of
Paris held on the Octave of St Mary Magdalene [22 July]
last, the King of France had announced by word of mouth
that he desired to aid the Scots with a thousand men-at-arms
and a large number of other troops, and a suitable escort of
ships, pretending that he was bound so to do by virtue of a
perpetual treaty of alliance between the two kingdoms. Writs
had immediately been issued to summon the bishops and
others to London to discuss the contents of the writs and
other matters, which would be laid before them by the King's
messengers.
The Chancellor, Treasurer and other councillors, in order
to facilitate the discussion of these matters by the prelates
and nobles, had divided the kingdom into three parts: from
the Trent northwards including the county of Lincoln; from
the Trent southwards; and the Marches of Wales. They had
summoned the prelates etc. from the first part to meet at
York, where it was agreed that all men of a certain age
should be armed, and should resist any landing of the
French, in whichever of the three parts it should occur.
Sir Ralph Basset had then been ordered to take a commission issued to the Bishops of Coventry and Lichfield,
Hereford and Worcester, Sir John de Cherleton and himself
to hold a similar council for the Marches of Wales; and afterwards to come to London to explain what had been done at
York and in Wales, so that the Council at London, which
represented that part of England from the Trent southwards,
might give its consent or add anything necessary, in order
that the measures adopted might be carried out unanimously.
Further orders had been given to the Admirals, the Barons
of the Cinque Ports, and the men of other ports, to fit out
and put afloat their ships for the protection of the coasts;
and three chief captains, one from each part of the kingdom,
had been chosen and commissioned for the purpose. (L)
Membr. 35b
Statute relating to the coinage of the realm passed in the
Parliament at York, the morrow of the Ascension [26 May]
Ao 9 Edw. III (1335). (F)
[Printed in the Statutes of the Realm, pp. 273-4.]