Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T07:48:44.702Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Thomas Mortimer and Thomas Molineux: Radcot Bridge and the Appeal of 1397

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 July 2014

James L. Gillespie
Get access

Extract

The appeal for treason lodged against Sir Thomas Mortimer in the parliament of 1397 as well as the entire background to the event has been the subject of considerable confusion. Much of this confusion has been the result of poor communication within the historical community. The information has been available, but it has appeared in diverse places. Thus, the two most recent biographers of Richard II, Anthony Steel and Harold Hutchison, have each been puzzled by the appeal of Mortimer: “The reasons for his inclusion are not clear…”; “…a mysterious addition for which no satisfactory explanation has ever been offered.” Sir Charles Oman, however, offered an explanation over sixty years ago: “As a small supplementary addition to the appeals of the previous autumn, two noted supporters of Gloucester in 1387 were dealt with—Lord Cobham, and Sir Thomas Mortimer, who had murdered the constable of Chester at Radcot Bridge.” Oman was not quite accurate when he grouped Mortimer with Cobham. Although Sir Thomas was not included in the original bill of appeal, he was cited in the summary of the appeal and the subsequent processes of the autumn session of Richard II's last parliament; lord Cobham did not become involved until the parliament reassembled in the next year. Oman's explanation of the matter, however, is not vitiated by this error. It, therefore, deserves further investigation as a solution to the mystery of Mortimer's appeal.

Type
Research Article
Information
Albion , Volume 7 , Issue 2 , Summer 1975 , pp. 161 - 173
Copyright
Copyright © North American Conference on British Studies 1975

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Steel, Anthony, Richard II (Cambridge, 1941), p. 238Google Scholar; Hutchison, Harold, The Hollow Crown (New York, 1961), p. 184.Google Scholar

2 SirOman, Charles, The Political History of England: 1377-1485 (London, 1910). p. 140Google Scholar; cf. Clarke, Maude V. & Galbrailh, V.H., eds., “The Chronicle of Dieulacres Abbey.” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library. XV: 161 n i.Google Scholar; Goodman, Anthony, The Loyal Conspiracy (Coral Gables, 1971). p. 35.Google Scholar

3 Rot. Parl., III: 374Google Scholar ff. Mortimer was associated with Lord Cobham in a land transaction of 1396. but so was William Rickhill, the justice sent to Calais to hear Gloucester's confession in 1397. Cal. Close Ro., 1392-1396, pp. 498-499.

4 Goodman, pp. 34-35; The Wigmore chronicle warmly praised the guardians of the young earl for the care of his estates, cf. McKisack, May, The Fourteenth Century (Oxford, 1959), p. 471Google Scholar. For an idea of Mortimer's own wealth see Cal. Inq. Misc., 1392-1399, #174, 176, 238, 264, 271, 273, 361. 380, 383. These deal with his forfeitures resulting from the appeal.

5 Cal. Put. Ro., 1367-1370, p. 54; E.101/40//33.

6 For Mortimer's later associations with Gloucester, see Goodman, pp. 101-102, 128.

7 Rot. Parl., III: 376.Google Scholar

8 Goodman, p. 29.

9 Rot. Parl., III: 376.

10 Cal Pat. Ro., 1388-1392. p. 20; Olway-Ruthven, A.J., A History of Medieval Ireland (London, 1968), p. 322Google Scholar; For Mortimer's activities in Ireland, cf. Otway-Ruthven. Chapter X.; Gilbert, J.T., History of the Viceroys of Ireland (Dublin, 1865), p. 274.Google Scholar

11 Erat ibi tunc dictus Thomas Mulinewes, qui se praeparavit ad pugnam…qui cum aliquandiu pugnasset. fessus et desperans Humen, quod prope erat, ingressus est. Inter multos vero. Thomas de Mortuo Mari, miles, hortabatur ut ascenderet. vel sine dubio cum in flumine sagittis perforaret. “Si.” inquil Thomas, “ascendam, visne ser-vare vitam meant?” “Non hoc promitto.” ait miles, “sed vel ascendas vel occumbes mox.” Cui ille. — “Si sic.” inquit. “necesse est. sinas ut ascendam et tecum, vel quocunque vestrum. pugnem. ut moriar sicut homo.” In ascendendo autem cepil cum miles per cassidem. et de capite suo traxit. et mox. extracto cultello daggardo. ejus cerebrum perforavit. Riley, H.T., ed., Thomas Walsingham…Historia Anglicana (Rolls Series. 1863–1864). II. 168Google Scholar; cf. Thompson, E.M., ed., Chronicoii Angliae… (Rolls Series. 1874). p. 385.Google Scholar

12 Lumby, J.R., ed., Chronicle of Henry Knighton, (Rolls Series. 1889–1895). II: 253Google Scholar; Lumby, J R., ed., Polychronicon Ranulphi Higden, (Rolls Series. 1886), IX: 112.Google Scholar

13 Myres, J.N.L., “The Campaign of Radcot Bridge in December 1387,” Eng. Hist. Rev., XLII (1927): 20–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

14 Ibid., p. 24.

15 Thomas Molyns, vir utiquc dives et audax, cujus nutum tota illa provincia [Chester] expectabat. Knighton. II: 251.

16 qui magnae potestatis erat illo tempore in comitatibus Lancastriae et Cestriae. Monk. West., p. 94; cf. p. 112.

17 Militemque principalem ducis Hiberniae. Hayden, F S., ed., Eulogium Historiarum (Rolls Series. 1858–1863), III: 365.Google Scholar

18 qui sepius habuit in mandatis tam per brevia regia quam per secretas litteras an-nulo regio signatas. Dieulacres. p. 168; cf. Hearne, Thomas, ed., “Thomas Otterbourne's Chronicle,” Duo Rerum Anglicuruin Scriptores Veteres (Oxford, 1732), p. 172Google Scholar; Wals. II: 168; Chron. Aug., p. 385.

19 misitque ad Thomum Molyneux ….Tunc iste Thomas Molyneux congregavit populos ex omni parti, et ut fertur, qui noluerant secum ire pro zelo ducis Gloucestriae et sociorum ejus maneipavit cos in carcerem, praecipiens custodibus cos vinculis aretari, et ut cos uno die parco pane nigro alarent, et altero die tanquam penitus mortis crudclitati adduetos sola aqua contentos facerent, donee de viagio rediret. Knighton, II: 251; cf. dux Hiberniae in partibus Cestriae et Walliae magnam turbam conflaverat; quorum ductor erat Cestriae constabularius, diclus Mulinews, Thomas, Chron. Ang., p. 385.Google Scholar

20 Molineux was called constable of Chester in a number of chronicles: Chron. Ang. p. 385: Wals. II: 332; Otterbourne. p. 170: Hearne, Thomas, ed., Historia Vitae et Regni Ricardi II…a monacho quodam de Evesham (Oxford, 1729), p. 95Google Scholar. Among the modern works which repeat this description are: Walton, Henri, Richard II (Paris, 1864). I: 338Google Scholar; Tout, T.F., Chapters in Medieval Administrative History (Manchester, 1920–1933). III: 427Google Scholar; Ramsay, J.H., The Genesis of Lancaster (Oxford, 1913). II: 242Google Scholar: Victoria County History of Lancs., III: 73Google Scholar; de Lettenhove, Baron K., ed., Oevres de Jean Froissart (Brussels, 1870). XII: 391Google Scholar. XXII: 211: Oman. pp. 108. 140; McKisack. p. 453.

21 Vic. Count. Hist., III: 73Google Scholar; cf. Baines, Edward, History of the County Palatine of Lancaster (London, 1836), IV: 216 ffGoogle Scholar. which makes him a son rather than a grandson of the direct line.

22 Langton, William, ed., Abstracts of Inquisitions Post Mortem made by Christopher Towneley and Roger Dodsworth, Chetham Society, Old Ser., VC (1875). 29Google Scholar; Vic. Count. Hist., VI: 301–302.Google Scholar

23 Armitage-Smith, Sydney, ed., John of Gaunt's Register: 1372-1376, Camden Society, 3rd Ser., XX–XXI (1911), #374, 488, 489.Google Scholar

24 Vic. Count. Hist., III: 27Google Scholar, IV: 136, VI: 301-302, VII: 106 n.; Final Concords of the County of Lancaster. Lancs, and Ches. Record Soc., XLVI (1930): 135. L (1905): 2 where Molineux's will is printed in a long and contused note. cf. Longford, W W., “Some Notes on the Family of Osbaldeslon,” Trans. Lancs. & Ches. Hist. Soc., LXXX–VII (1935): 72.Google Scholar

25 Cal. Pat. Ro., 1354-1358, p. 502.

26 Cal. Fine Ro., 1356-1368, pp. 9, 71.

27 Cal. Pat. Ro., 1370-1374, p. 100.

28 Ibid., pp. 107, 175-176; Cal. Pat. Ro., 1374-1377, p. 311; Molineux was later ordered not to execute the commission of 23 March 1371. Cal. Close Ro., 1369-1374, pp. 233, 280, 307.

29 Cal. Fine Ro., 1369-1377, pp. 191-192, 228-229, 267-269.

30 Ibid., p. 386; Armitagc-Smilh, #236.

31 Armitage-Smith. #1010, 1562.

32 Ibid., #1200.

33 Lodge, Eleanor and Somerville, Robert, eds., John of Gaunt's Register: 1379-1383, Camden Society, 3rd. Ser., LVI–LVII (1937), #214.Google Scholar

34 Ibid., #299.

35 que le dit Thomas face amesner a la ley Thomas le Molyneux bastard, et William del Peck, ses outliers, et qil enpreigne pur eux et leur compaignons outliers qils ne facent ne apportent a nullui persone riens contre la pees en temps avenir. Et auxint qil preigne bone estat en fee simple a lui meismes de ses terres et tenementz, es queux il ad fait autres feffees einz ces heures suffissantes qi ont terres et tenementz en fee simple, de la somme de mille livres pur son fin a nous fait devant vous. Et autre ce qil face paier a nous a nostre receite de Lancaster, deux centz livres deinz ceste primer an prochein avenir apres la de cestes.…Et alors nous volons, et nostre entiere volence est que en nulle temps avenir il soi ne melle de nulle querelle sauve son querelle propre et qil ne face ne procure en nulle temps avenir qil riens estre fait contre la pees, et qil ne approache my nostre courte ne nostre presence, sauve nostre courte de plees en contee de Lancastre. come la ley le voet. Ibid., #302.

36 Cal. Pat. Ro., 1377-1381, p. 505.

37 Lodge and Somerville. p. xvi.

38 Ibid., #439.

39 Ibid., #215. 300.

40 horspris qil ne soit mye defenduz daprocher a nostre courte ne nostre presence. Ibid., #302.

41 Ibid., #388.

42 Cal. Pat. Ro., 1350-1354, p. 21: Cal. Close Ro., 1349-1354, p. 587.

43 Lodge and Somerville, #565, 1156; “Cal. Pat. Ro. Lancs.,” Deputy Keeper of the Public Records' Report, XL (1878–1879): 521.Google Scholar

44 “Cal. Pat. Ro. Lancs.,” p. 523.

45 Chester 2/53 m. Id.; Chester 29/85 m. 1; Chester 29/87 m. 29d.; Cal Pat. Ro., 1399-1401, p. 296.

46 “Cal. Cheshire Recognizance Ro.,” Deputy Keeper of the Public Records' Report, XXXVI (1875): 348Google Scholar; “Lists of Officers of the Palatinate of Chester,” Deputy Keeper of the Public Records' Report, XXXI (1870): 209.Google Scholar

47 Chester 29/91 m. 1; Sharp, Margaret, “Contributions to the History of the Earldom and County of Chester: 1237-1399” Ph.D. dissertation, Manchester Univ., 1925, II: 11Google Scholar notes Molineux as acting justice of Chester on 17 June 1399. She cites Chester 29/92 m. Id., but this must be an error or the case must recite events which occurred previously.

48 Cal. Pat. Ro., 1385-1389, p. 159.

49 Cf. supra.

50 “Cal. Ches. Recog. Ro.,” p. 344.

51 qe Je mesme la Subside de Demy Marc del sac a paier par les Aliens outre ceo qe soleil estre paiez, il plesoit a notre seignur le Roy regarder ceux qi feurrent desrobbez. et despoliez de lour Biens et Chateux a Rotcotbrugg, tanqe la somme de trois ou quatre mill marcs. Rot. Parl., III: 369Google Scholar. This petition clearly was initialed by Richard II. The Commons normally were found complaining about the incursions of the palatinate's inhabitants into the neighboring shires.

52 E.403/561. The dates were 28 October where the recipient should read Robert not John de Legh, and 18 November 1398. cf. Chester 1/1 pt. 5 no. 46: Gillespie, James L., “The Cheshire Archers of Richard II” Ph.D. dissertation, Princeton Univ., 1973. pp. 13–14.Google Scholar

53 Cal. Close Ro., 1396-1399. p. 438: Rymer, Thomas, ed., Foedera, etc., Hague edn., III: Part IV. 155Google Scholar; Syllabus of Foedera, II: 534.Google Scholar

54 Rot. Parl., III: 360, 382.Google Scholar

55 Cal. Close Ro., 1396-1399, p. 221; Gillespie, pp. 251-252.

56 Soit enquis pur notre seignur le Roy si William Curleys, qest amestuz et comys en garde al constable du chastell de Cestre, a Roddekot Brygge en la counte doxon occist Thomas le Molyneuse, lieutenant au Justice notre dit seignur le Roy en la counte de Crestre, felonisement et traytorisment, en le service notre seignur le Roy esteantz. Et si le dit William apres le dit occision derobba et dispoula le dil Thomas le Molyneuse… Et auxint si le dit William fuit en compaigne es parties Dirland ou Descoce ou ailliour ovesque Thomas le Mortimer parla puis le temps qe le dit Thomas fuit exule et par parlement traitor (illegible) et pronounce ou en ascun autre maner illeoques ou ailliour luy conforte ou ovesque luy parla ou a luy manda puis le dit exile. Chester 24/19 (22 Richard II).

57 E.101/40/33 m. 10.

58 Cal. Pat. Ro., 1391-1396, p. 357.

59 Ibid., pp. 481, 710.

60 Cal. Pat. Ro., 1396-1399, p. 118.

61 Et que touz eeaux que sont adherdantz, conseillantz. ou aidantz, a dit Thomas Morlymer, apres les ditz trois moys que le dit Thomas Morlynier soit issint convict et atteint, et ceo duement provez en Parlement, q'ils soient adjuggez come Traitours au Roy et a Rioalme. Rot. Parl., III: 351-352, 381.Google Scholar

62 Chester 24/19 (22 Richard II); “Cal. Ches. Recog. Ro.,” p. 406.

63 Cf. Rot. Parl., III: 352–353.Google Scholar

64 Hallam, Henry, View of the State of Europe during the Middle Ages (12th. ed.; London, 1868), III: 214Google Scholar; Oman, p. 133.

65 Lingard, J., A History of England (5th. ed.; London, 1849), IV: 393Google Scholar; Wallon. II: 191.

66 Williams, B., ed., Traisen et Mort de Richard II (London, 1846), pp. 3–6Google Scholar; Hellaguet, L., ed., Chronique du religieux de St. Denis, 1380-1422 (Paris, 1839–1852), II: 550.Google Scholar

67 Jones, R. H., The Royal Policy of Richard II (Oxford, 1968), passim.Google Scholar