Reading Guide, Week 4 (English Parliament)
A. Summonses to Parliament, 1295
By the year 1398, parliament in England was a powerful force, one that
served as a legitimizing force for the famous revolution of 1399 in which
King Richard II was deposed by his cousin Henry (who became Henry IV).
Yet where had this institution come from? The seed of the notion of parliament
grew out of ideas that were already expressed in Magna Carta: that the
king ought to take counsel with those he sought to govern. Some see
in the baronial council of clause 61 of Magna Carta the first instance
of a formal parliament, but I would urge caution here: parliament developed
quite slowly, and there was no formal institution of parliament in 1215.
By 1295, however, King Edward I (1272-1307) had found that one of the best
ways to garner money for whatever needs he faced was to summon his subjects
and ‘ask’ them politely (but firmly!) for that money. As a result,
Edward frequently began summoning his subjects to such meetings which contemporaries
began to call ‘parliaments’ (after the French word ‘parler’, meaning ‘to
speak’). It is important to note that these Edwardian parliaments
were mostly extensions of royal power; the members who were summoned as
yet had no sense of identity as parliamentarians, nor as a legitimate political
force.
1. In the summons issued to Archbishop Robert of Canterbury, the royal
writ of summons actually quotes a famous precept of Roman Law: “what touches
all must be approved by all”. Consider the significance of this precept,
and of the fact that a king was willing to cite it in a royal document.
Did Edward I think he was an absolute monarch?
2. What reasons does the king offer to Archbishop Robert for why Robert
should come to the parliament? To what does the king appeal (patriotism?
Self-interest? Something else?)?
3. How does the summons issued to the Earl Edmund differ from that
issued to the archbishop? Why does it differ?
4. How were the “common” people to be chosen? Who were the “common”
people?
5. The third summons is very important - it assumes a representative
power on the part of the elected knights and townspeople. Why is this so
important?
6. Given what I say in my introduction about how these parliaments
of 1295 were extensions of royal will, rather than of the political will
of the ‘people’, why are we still interested in these texts?
B. The “Good Parliament” of 1376
The shape of English parliamentary government was set during the 14th
century. All “developments” in parliamentary power must be understood
in the context of the Hundred Years War; remember that war is expensive,
that to finance war the King initially found it expedient to ask his people
for “aids” or “subsidies”, and that after repeated requests, the people
could legitimately come to consider their approval a condition for those
grants. Remember, too, that the fortunes of the English armies in
France would have direct correlations on both the amounts of monies needed
from England and the willingness of the English people to supply those
monies. The ‘duke’ referred to in this text is John, duke of Lancaster,
the third son of King Edward III (who, in 1376, was extremely old and not
very politically active); the ‘prince’ referred to in the text is Edward,
called the Black Prince, the eldest son of King Edward. As the text
reveals, Prince Edward died in the midst of this parliament
1. Why did King Edward III (1327-1377) call a parliament in 1376?
2. Before granting Edward’s wishes, the knights of the shire (who,
along with townsmen, made up the Commons) drew up a list of petitions.
What was the nature of those petitions? Why is this significant?
3. Was there a division between nobles and commons at this parliament?
Or did some of the nobles favor the commons?
4. We see in this text the origins of one of the crucial features of
the English parliamentary system: the Speaker of the Commons (ie., Peter
de la Mare). What role does Peter play? What powers are granted him by
his peers? Why was this a dangerous position?
5. How did the Commons go about criticizing royal government? Did they
attack the King? Or someone else?
6. Look closely at the brief account of the trial of Lord Latimer.
How does Latimer defend his actions? How does Peter de la Mare respond?
What differing theories of government lie behind their respective comments?
7. Our author does not have nice things to say about John, duke of
Lancaster. In 1376, King Edward III was an old man (he died in 1377).
As the text notes, the heir, the Black Prince, died during the course of
Parliament; but he had a ten-year-old son, named Richard. The Duke
of Lancaster was a younger son of Edward III, but he had elder sisters
who were still alive. Thus, he argued that succession should not go to
a woman, but rather to the Black Prince’s young son. Why did he suggest
this, according to our author?
8. Was this a revolutionary moment? Or a traditional, ‘conservative’
one?