Saturday 19 April 2008

The Ordinances 1308-1313

Edward’s kingdom was already in trouble very early on in his reign. His abandonment of the Scottish campaign that his father had begun led to dissent amongst a number of nobles who had lands there and resented the lack of support from the crown. Gaveston’s recall from exile was causing major tensions and the Vita Edwardi Secundi even suggests that Piers was so unpopular because ‘he alone found favour in the king’s eyes.’ (Vita)

Further tensions arose during December 1307 when Gaveston partook in a tournament and beat most of the Lords involved. It only added fuel to an already burning fire and Edward himself made the situation worse by making Gaveston the Keeper of the Realm when he went to complete his marriage to Isabella in France. Not only that, but Gaveston had his hand in the Royal Treasury which was already heavily indebted. Issues with high taxation and extreme poverty of the people was becoming a running theme.

It was in January of 1308 when the first official vocalisation of opposition to Edward was heard. The Boulogne Document, drawn up by the Bishop of Durham, the Earls of Lincoln, Surrey, Pembroke, Hereford and five other barons declared that they wanted to reform the kingdom, citing crimes against the right of the crown, against the kings honour and against the people as the reasons for such letters. However they were pretty careful about doing so. It’s a fine line between treason and doing what’s best for the crown. It’s the whole argument of getting around the fact the monarch is preordained by god and is a subject of god. Religion in those days was a big issue. They tried to get around the idea of treason by stating they were loyal to the crown and the king, but by passing the blame onto others for leading the king astray. You can guess who got the blame for that… yup, Gaveston. Boulogne is an important document because it tries to differentiate between the Office of the King and the Kings person. Essentially, this is the argument that comes when deposing Edward later on. The line in the agreement that stands out is:

“…was done before this time against his honour and the rights of his crown.”

Whether or not the kings person and the office of the king can be separate entities is an argument for another day. It’s rather a complex discussion.

Further dislike of Gaveston and his influence continued to grow because of his lavish behaviour at the Coronation of Edward in February 1308, but it was the addition of a new clause put into the Coronation Oath itself that is most telling. It’s not very exciting but here is a translation of the Oath in 1308 taken from the Foedera:

Sire, are you willing to grant and preserve and by your oath confirm to the people of England the laws and customs granted to them by former kings of England, your righteous and godly predecessors, and particularly the laws, customs and liberties granted to the clergy and the people by the glorious king St. Edward, your predecessor?

Sire, will you for God and the holy church and for the clergy and for the people keep peace and accord in God, to the best of your ability, intact?

Sire, will you in all your judgement have impartial and improper justice and discretion done in compassion and truth to the best of your ability?

Sire do you agree to maintain and preserve the laws and rightful customs which the community of your realm shall have chosen and will you defend and enforce them to the honour of God to the best of your ability?

The first two clauses are usual in the Oath, but the last is a new addition. Note the future perfect tense in the last clause, as if it has been anticipated that Edward will misbehave.

The Ordinances were documents that dealt with the grievances Edward had done against his magnates. Edward was pretty much forced into accepting a counsel of Ordainers. His recall of Gaveston from exile in June 1309 led to the Statute of Stamford in which concessions were made for the return of Gaveston’s wealth and lands – a small price to pay for the return of Edward’s favourite. However, Gaveston’s return wasn’t the main issues of the Statute. Other problems were rife and the magnates were unsettled – mainly financial and administrative issues that were left by Edward Longshanks after his death. Gaveston didn’t do much to help himself however. Rather than returning quietly, he riled up the other Earls by gifting them with nicknames that weren’t exactly flattering. Discord grew further and, whilst the Earl of Lincoln was reconciled with the King, Lancaster – the kings own cousin – grew estranged. Why the king and Lancs fell out isn’t really known. Several chroniclers mention it, but the information is tenuous at best. One mentions that Gaveston removed a member of Lancaster’s household from office, whilst another suggests that it was Gaveston’s recall itself. In more recent years it has been suggested that Lancaster was actually interesting in reforming government, rather than preventing Gaveston’s return.

By October 1309 ill-will towards Gaveston was becoming an issue however – so much so that the Earls of Lancaster, Lincoln, Warwick, Oxford and Arundel refused to attend a Council in York because of the Earl of Cornwall. They stated they would not come whilst the chief enemy of the kingdom was lurking in the king’s chamber, as it would be unsafe for them to do come (Vita) There was some discussion about the Earls attending only if they were armed, which Edward immediately told them under no uncertain terms to do, but he shifted Gaveston off to a safe hiding place. The Earls eventually came to parliament, but they ignored the Kings request and came armed.

By the parliament of 1310, a list of objections about the kings’ behaviour since he took the throne emerged. They included accusations such as he had been led by evil counsel, had become so impoverished that he could not defend the realm nor provide upkeep for his household, and that he had lost the lands in Scotland that his father had left for him. They over looked the £200,000 debt left by Edward’s father.

The king tried to ignore the petition put down by the Earls but the talk of civil war forced Edward to accept what they were asking. On the 16th march, 1310 twenty-one lord Ordainers were appointed – their aim was to reform the kings household and the kingdom. Only two earls, Warenne and Oxford, did not join the campaign for reform. It clearly shows how much Edward had segregated his magnates from him.

Edward, however, wasn’t content to sit back and take the Ordinances. He immediately began to organise a Scottish campaign and moved his law courts and exchequer to York – perhaps to hinder the Ordainers work. Further dissent became obvious when Pembroke, Arundel, Hereford and Lancaster refused to attend the expedition to Scotland. The Earl of Lincoln’s death in 1311 strengthened Lancaster’s position further as his lands passed to the Kings cousin. The Scots campaign didn’t amount to anything anyway and Edward’s hand was forced when a disagreement between Gloucester and Lancaster threatened to spill into violence. Tension was growing and even with the disunity of the Ordainers, civil war against the king by his magnates was beginning to look like a very real possibility. Backed into a corner, Edward relented and published the ordinances on the 30 September, 1311.

The main clause the contemporary chroniclers recorded was the banishment of Gaveston. He was accused of misleading the king, embezzling the royal treasury, forcing the king to alienate crown land, and encouraging the king to make war against his barons without consent. Gaveston was given till All Saints day in 1311 to leave the kingdom. Gaveston’s favouritism with the king became the backdrop for the Ordinances.

Despite all the talk, the Ordainers didn’t really have much power to enact them. the king still had the final say over the daily running of government and he also had the power to manipulate the officers of the state.

A second set of ordinances were drawn up in November 1311, despite the fact their powers had been dispelled by Michaelmas (29 September). The documents weren’t legal and resulted in the king’s irritation at being treated like a child. Gaveston was smuggled back into the kingdom, despite his exile and was rumoured to have spent Christmas with the king. Edward sought to get rid of the ordinances and reinstate Gaveston.

Gaveston’s return led to his excommunication by Archbishop Winchelsea, and Lancs, Pembroke, Hereford, Arundel and Warwick promised to bring about Cornwall’s arrest. Edward’s behaviour even forced the neutral earls to back the Ordainers.

The king fled to Newcastle with Gaveston, but was followed by Lancaster. Gaveston fled to Scarborough whilst the King moved to Knaresborough. Without the King’s protection, Gaveston was forced to surrender to Pembroke on the 19 May 1312. Warwick intercepted Pembroke and took Gaveston from him, holding the Earl at Warwick castle, whilst the earls debated how to proceed legally. Gaveston was sentenced to death for treason under the authority of the Ordinances – the legality of the act somewhat questionable. Gaveston was executed on 19 June 1312 at Blacklow Hill.

Gaveston’s death solidified Edward’s and Lancaster’s shaky relationship. Pembroke was angry with Warwick for seizing the earl of Cornwall, and civil war seemed likely. It was Gloucester who managed to mediate and finally a truce was reached.

By October 1313 a public apology was made for the murder of Gaveston, acknowledging that they had killed him when the Ordinances were not in motion – therefore illegally.

Over all the ordinances were a failure and did little to reform the kingdom. New problems in Scotland forced the issue to the back of the Earls minds.
Sources Used:
  • Childs, W, Vita Edwardi Secundi, (Oxford University Press, 2005)
  • Foedera, II, i, p.36, from a schedule attached to the Close Roll
  • Oxford, Bodleian Library MS. 18 ff. 1v, 80 printed in J.R.S. Phillips, Aymer de Valence, Earl of Pembroke 1307-1324 (Oxford, 1972), appendix 4
  • Prestwich, M, The Three Edwards: War and State in England 1272-1377, (Methuen and Co. LTD ,1980)
  • Tuck A, Crown and Nobility, 1272-1461 (Oxford Blackwell, 2nd edition 1999).

No comments: