Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T16:25:08.043Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Purveyance for War and the Community of the Realm in Late Medieval England*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 July 2014

W. R. Jones
Get access

Extract

A new topic of controversy was interjected into relations between the English crown and the community of the realm during the late thirteenth and the fourteenth centuries as a result of large scale purveyancing of victuals, military supplies, and transport to provision a nation at war. The old right of purveyance or prise-taking, which permitted the king, members of his family, royal officials, and the greater nobility to preempt foodstuffs and requisition carriage for their personal use, was transformed into an elaborate mechanism for supplying English armies fighting in Scotland and France. The conflict provoked by this institutional change dominated crown-community relations in England from the latter part of Edward I's reign forward through the reign of Edward II and much of Edward III's. In order to defend private property against royal purveyance, representatives of the community experimented—especially during the period 1297 to 1362—with several methods for restricting the practice. But efforts to regulate purveyance were hindered by the ambiguous nature of the king's right, which could be viewed both as a royal prerogative and as a simple act of buying necessities for the king and his court. Further, depending on its scope and extent, purveyance by the crown could be seen either as a means of provisioning the household alone or as a form of national taxation applicable to the country at large. Occasionally during this period the community equated purveyance with regular taxation and tried to subject it to parliamentary control. Eventually, however, the nation was compelled to accept the view of purveyance as a commercial arrangement between English kings and their subjects based on the more or less legitimate right of the crown to take goods and services by forced loan or under promise of future payment. Accordingly, attempts to regulate it assumed the form of legislation designed to assure the prompt compensation of sellers, the accountability of the king's agents, and the punishment of corruption.

Type
Research Article
Information
Albion , Volume 7 , Issue 4 , Winter 1975 , pp. 300 - 316
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.)

Footnotes

*

A version of this paper was presented to the 1975 meeting of the Pacific Coast Conference of British Studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara. The author expresses his appreciation to his colleagues of the Columbia University Collegium on the History of Legal and Political Thought for the opportunity to discuss some of the issues of this paper at a meeting of the Collegium.

References

1 For general discussions of purveyance, see Prestwich, Michael, War, Politics and Finance under Edward I (London, 1972), pp. 114–36Google Scholar; Hewitt, H. J., The Organization of War under Edward III: 1338-1362 (Manchester and New York, 1966), pp. 50–74Google Scholar; and Prince, Albert E., “The Army and Navy,” The English Government at Work: 1327-1336, eds., Willard, J. F. and Morris, W. A. (3 vols.; Cambridge, Mass., 1940–1950), I: 365–76.Google Scholar

2 Prestwich, , War, Politics and Finance, p. 119.Google Scholar

3 Two versions of the treatise are printed under the title, De Speculo Regis Edwardi III, ed., Moisant, Josephus (Paris, 1891)Google Scholar. See references to the beginning of purveyance on pp. 115, 167.

4 Prestwich, , War, Politics and Finance, pp. 29ff, 114ffGoogle Scholar; SirPowicke, Maurice, The Thirteenth Century: 1215-1307 (2d. ed.; Oxford, 1962), p. 659Google Scholar. Merchants were still ordered during the fourteenth century to bring supplies into the war zones. See McKisack, May, The Fourteenth Century: 1307-1399 (Oxford, 1959), p. 242.Google Scholar

5 The phrase, “household in arms,” is from Tout, T. F., Chapters in the Administrative History of Mediaeval England (6 vols.; Manchester, 1920–1933), II: 133.Google Scholar

6 For the. wartime role of the Wardrobe, see ibid., II: 131-45; Prestwich, , War, Politics and Finance, pp. 151–76.Google Scholar

7 For the transformation of the army, see Powicke, Michael, Military Obligation in Medieval England (Oxford, 1962), pp. 96ffGoogle Scholar; Bean, J. M. W., The Decline of English Feudalism: 1215-1540 (Manchester and New York, 1968), pp. 5–6.Google Scholar

8 See the list of purveyances in A Lincolnshire Assize Roll for 1298 [P.R.O. Assize Roll No. 505], ed., Thomson, Walter Sinclair [Lincoln Record Society, 36] (Hereford, 1944), pp. lxxiii–lxxv.Google Scholar

9 For the “efficiency” of medieval purveyors as contrasted with their Tudor counterparts, see Prestwich, , War, Politics and Finance, p. 136.Google Scholar

10 Ibid., p. 127 and Prestwich's, article, “Victualling Estimates by English Garrisons in Scotland during the Early Fourteenth Century,” English Historical Review, LXXXII (1967): 536–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11 Hewitt, , Organization of War, p. 54.Google Scholar

12 Tout, , Chapters in Administrative History, IV: 397Google Scholar; Prince, , “Army and Navy,” p. 370.Google Scholar

13 For the sheriff's role, see Morris, W. A., “The Sheriff,” English Government at Work, II: 97–98Google Scholar; and for the appointment of king's clerks to oversee purveyance. Prince, , “Army and Navy,” p. 368Google Scholar. Sons succeeded fathers as receivers of supplies, implying the professionalization of this office, ibid., p. 365.

14 Prestwich, , War, Politics and Finance, p. 121.Google Scholar

15 Ibid., pp. 133-34.

16 Ibid., p. 119. Edward I purveyed supplies in Ponthieu, Gascony, Ireland, and England to provision his troops fighting the Welsh.

17 Ibid., p. 135. In 1303 the poor were protected by ordering that no corn should be taken from persons with less than £10 worth of goods.

18 For forced carriage, see Hewitt, , Organization of War, p. 85Google Scholar. The sheriffs and takers of carriage were apparently given great latitude in requisitioning transport.

19 Prestwich, , War, Politics and Finance, pp. 114, 127, 159Google Scholar. The payment of purveyed goods as wages was condemned by statute, Statues of the Realm, ed., Record Commission (11 vols.; London, 1810–1824), I: 137:28Google Scholar Edward I, Articuli super Cartas, c. 2; I, 155: 3 Edward II, Statute of Stamford; I, 263: 4 Edward III, c. 4. For the use of purveyed goods as subsidies, see Prince, , “Army and Navy,” pp. 374–75.Google Scholar

20 Prestwich, , War, Politics and Finance, pp. 127–28Google Scholar; Prince, , “Army and Navy,” p. 376Google Scholar. For the profitability of the sale of purveyed goods and the king's role as “middleman” in such transactions, see the budget statement printed by Morris, John E., The Welsh Wars of Edward I (Oxford, 1901), p. 197.Google Scholar

21 Prestwich, , War, Politics and Finance, p. 130Google Scholar; Keen, M. H., England in the Later Middle Ages (London, 1973), p. 44.Google Scholar

22 Prestwich, , War, Politics and Finance, pp. 196–99Google Scholar; Fryde, E. B., “Edward III's Wool Monopoly of 1337: A Fourteenth-Century Royal Trading Venture,” History, New Series, XXXVII (1952): 8–24.Google Scholar

23 Stubbs, William, The Constitutional History of England in Its Origin and Development (3 vols.; Oxford, 1880), II: 588, 591Google Scholar; Prince, , “Army and Navy,” p. 362Google Scholar. For recent discussions of the commissions of array, see Powicke, , Military Obligation, pp. 130–31, 146–47Google Scholar; Prestwich, , War, Politics and Finance, pp. 99ffGoogle Scholar; Prince, , “Army and Navy,” pp. 355–64.Google Scholar

24 Maddicott, J. R., Thomas of Lancaster, 1307-1322 (London, 1970), p. 108Google Scholar. Stubbs described the practice as “unwise” and “unconstitutional,” Constitutional History, II: 587.Google Scholar

25 For purveyance for the queen and others, see McKisack, , Fourteenth Century, p. 269Google Scholar; Register of Edward the Black Prince Preserved in the Public Record Office, 1346 [65] (4 vols.; London, 1930–1933), I: 18, 19, 72, 74, 100, 103, 137.Google Scholar

26 Malmesbiriensis, Willelmi, De Gestis Regum Anglorum Libri Quinque, ed., Stubbs, William [Rolls Series, 90] (2 vols.; London, 1887–1889), II, 487.Google Scholar

27 Cam, Helen M., “Studies in the Hundred Rolls,” Oxford Studies in Social and Legal History, ed., SirVinogradoff, Paul, VI (Oxford, 1921), p. 174.Google Scholar

28 Cf. the versions of John, Henry III, and Edward, I in Statutes of the Realm, I: 7, 15, 116 (cc. 19, 21).Google Scholar

29 Select Charters and Other Illustrations of English Constitutional History from the Earliest Times to the Reign of Edward the First, ed., Stubbs, William (9th. ed.; Oxford, 1913), p. 376 (cc. 22, 23)Google Scholar. The Dictum of Kenilworth promised relief, Statutes of the Realm, I, 51 & 52 Henry III, c. 10.Google Scholar

30 Statutes of the Realm, I, 26–28Google Scholar: 3 Edward I, c. 1. For background to the church's problem, see Wood, Susan, English Monasteries and Their Patrons in the Thirteenth Century (Oxford, 1955), pp. 101ffGoogle Scholar; and for the canons against forced carriage and the seizure of esslesiastical goods, Councils & Synods with Other Documents Relating to the English Church, II, A.D. 1205-1313, eds., Powicke, F. M. and Cheney, C. R. (2 pts.; Oxford, 1964), pp. 138, 535, 547, 581, 883, 907, 1138–39Google Scholar. The clergy was exempted by statutes of 1340 and 1344, for which see, Statutes of the Realm, I, 293Google Scholar: 14 Edward III, Statute 4, c. 1; I, 303: 18 Edward III, Statute 3, c. 4. But see the complaint of 1350 in Register of John de Grandisson, Bishop of Exeter (A.D. 1327-1369) with Some Account of the Episcopate of James de Berkeley (A.D. 1327), ed., Hingeston-Randolph, F. C. [Episcopal Registers of the Diocese of Exeter] (3 pts.; London and Exeter, 1894), II: 1092Google Scholar. The best protection for clerics was to obtain individual licenses of exemption as, for example, Calendar of Close Rolls, Henry III, VI: 121.Google Scholar

31 For the inquiry of 1298, see A Lincolnshire Assize Roll, ed., Thomson, , pp. x, livffGoogle Scholar; and for the great inquiry of 1341-44, Jones, W. R., “Rex et ministri: English Local Government and the Crisis of 1341, “ Journal of British Studies, XIII (1973): 11–12Google Scholar. For specific inquiries into the activities of purveyors, see Select Cases in the Court of King's Bench under Edward I [-Henry, V], ed., Sayles, G. O. [Selden Society ] (7 vols.; London, 1936–1971), IV: 110–11Google Scholar; Calendar of Patent Rolls, Edward III, XII, 294Google Scholar; XIII, 290; Tout, , Chapters in Administrative History, III: 257–58.Google Scholar

32 A Lincolnshire Assize Roll, ed., Thomson, , p. lviiiGoogle Scholar and specific cases passim; and cases of oppressive or illegal purveyance from the plea rolls of 1341-44, Public Record Office, Assize Rolls, Justices Itinerant [Just] 1/258/5, 6, 7, 7d, 8: Just 1/337/5, 6d; Just 1/521/3, 4, 7; Just 1/691/3, 4; Just 1/858/4, 7.

33 Statutes of the Realm, I, 277Google Scholar: 10 Edward III, Statute 2, c. 2. The office of the keeper of the king's war horses has been described by Neilson, Nellie, “The Forests,” in English Government at Work, I: 437–44Google Scholar. For complaints against the providers for the king's horses in 1341-44, PRO Just 1/258/5, 6d, 12.

34 This is the conclusion of Fryde, E. B., “Parliament and the French War, 1336-40,” in Essays in Medieval History Presented to Bertie Wilkinson, ed., Sandquist, T. A. and Powicke, M. R. (Toronto, 1969), p. 258Google Scholar. But Prestwich believed that the wealthiest were the most vulnerable, War, Politics and Finance, p. 135.

35 See the legislation of 1330, Statutes of the Realm, I, 262Google Scholar: 4 Edward III, c. 3; and for the problem of weights and measures, Jones, , “Rex et ministri,” p. 11.Google Scholar

36 For background to the crisis of 1297, see Prestwich, , War, Politics and Finance, pp. 247ffGoogle Scholar. Also helpful are the older studies by Edwards, J. G., “Confirmatio Cartarum and the Baronial Grievances in 1297,” English Historical Review, LVIII (1943): 147–71, 273–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rothwell, H., “The Confirmation of the Charters, 1297,” English Historical Review, LX (1945): 16–35, 177–91, 300–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rothwell, H., “Edward I and the Struggle for the Charters, 1297-1305,” in Studies in Medieval History Presented to Frederick Maurice Powicke, eds., Hunt, R. W.et al. (Oxford, 1948), pp. 319–32Google Scholar; and Wilkinson, B., “The Crisis of 1297,” in The Constitutional History of England, 1216-1399 (3 vols.; London, Toronto, New York, 1948–1958), I: 187–232.Google Scholar

37 The best edition of the Monstraunces is that printed by Edwards, , “Confirmatio Cartarum and the Baronial Grievances,” p. 170Google Scholar; Wilkinson, translated it, Constititional History, I: 220.Google Scholar

38 Statutes of the Realm, I, 125Google Scholar: 25 Edward I, Statute de Tallagio, c. 2.

39 Ibid., I, 123: 25 Edward I, Confirmatio Cartarum, c. 6.

40 Ibid., I, 137: 28 Edward I, Articuli super Cartas, c. 2., mistranslated by the editors as “Secondarily.” For Sirde Keighley's, Henry bill, see The Parliamentary Writs and Writs of Military Summons…, ed., SirPalgrave, Francis (2 vols.; London, 1827–1834), I: 104–05Google Scholar. Prestwich stressed the continuity between the reigns of Edward I and Edward II with respect to opposition to purveyance, War, Politics and Finance, pp. 273ff.

41 Statutes of the Realm, I, 153–54Google Scholar: 2 Edward II; I, 154-55: 3 Edward II, Statute of Stamford. See also the inquiry into alleged abuses, Parliamentary Writs, ed., Palgrave, , vol. II: pt. 1, p. 41.Google Scholar

42 See the canon of Bridlington, , Chronicles of the Reigns of Edward I and Edward II, ed., Stubbs, William [Rolls Series, 76] (2 vols.; London, 1882–1883), II: 36Google Scholar; also the remark of the monk of Malmesbury regarding the possibility of civil war, ibid., II: 171.

43 Quoted by the annals of London, ibid., I: 168.

44 Statutes of the Realm, I, 158–59Google Scholar; 5 Edward II, Ordinances, cc. 4, 8, 10.

45 It has been shown that the phrase, “the king should live on his own,” referred specifically to purveyance. See Wolffe, B. P., The Royal Demesne in English History (London, 1971), pp. 48–49.Google Scholar

46 Maddicott, , Thomas of Lancaster, pp. 173–74, 327Google Scholar; Davies, James Conway, The Baronial Opposition to Edward II (New York, reprint 1967), pp. 110, 318–20Google Scholar. In 1315 the king confirmed the statute of Westminster I's exemption of the clergy, for which see the annals of London, Chronicles of the Reigns of Edward I and Edward II, I, 234–36Google Scholar. That abusive and corrupt purveyance continued, however, is shown by the complaint of an anonymous member of the regular clergy writing to the king's confessor in 1316, which is quoted by the monk of Malmesbury, Vita Edwardi Secundi Monachi Cuiusdam Malmesberiensis, ed. and trans., Denholm-Young, N. (London, 1957), p. 75Google Scholar and Introduction, p. xvii.

47 These tracts are titled, Epistola Regis Edwardi III and Speculum Regis Edwardi III, and have been printed by Moisant. For their possible source, see n. 46 above.

48 Tait, James, “On the Date and Authorship of the ‘Speculum Regis Edwardi,’” English Historical Review, XVI (1901): 110–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Boyle, Leonard E., “William of Pagula and the Speculum Regis Edwardi III,” Medieval Studies, XXXII (1970): 329–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

49 De Speculo Regis Edwardi III, ed., Moisant, , pp. 89, 112, 136.Google Scholar

50 Ibid., pp. 117, 150, 169. But the author of the Speculum was more sanguine about the situation in France than were his French contemporaries, who frequently denounced the exercise of the droit de prise. See Lewis, P. S., Later Medieval France: the Polity (New York, 1968), p. 55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

51 For background, see Nicholson, Ranald, Edward III and the Scots: the Formative Years of a Military Career, 1327-1335 (Oxford, 1965), pp. 113, 114, 115, 145, 187, 218Google Scholar; Hewitt, , Organization of War, pp. 50ffGoogle Scholar; and Fryde's, valuable article, “Parliament and the French War,” pp. 258–59, 266–67.Google Scholar

52 For complaints of the commons early in Edward III's reign, see Rotuli Parliamentorum; ut et Petitiones, et Piacita in Parliamento tempore Edwardi R. I [ad finem Henrici VII] (6 vols.; London, 1767–1777), II: 62a, 105a, 109a, 119a, 129b, 140a.Google Scholar

53 Chronicon Henrici Knighton, vel Cnithon, Monachi Leycestrensis, ed., Lumby, Joseph Rawson [Rolls Series, 92] (2 vols.; London, 1889–1895), II: 3Google Scholar, quoted by Barnie, John, War in Medieval English Society (Ithaca, 1974), p. 38.Google Scholar

54 Fryde, , “Parliament and the French War,” p. 251 and nn. 4, 5.Google Scholar

55 See the legislation of 1330, 1331, 1336, Statutes of the Realm, I, 262–63Google Scholar: 4 Edward III, cc. 3, 4; 1, 265-66: 5 Edward III, cc. 2, 3; I, 276-77: 10 Edward III, Statute 2, cc. 1, 2.

56 Barnie noted the diminution of complaints following the enactment of the statute of 1362, War in Medieval English Society, p. 40. Earlier legislation was confirmed by Richard II in 1392, Statutes of the Realm, II, 30Google Scholar: 6 Richard II, Statute 2, c. 2.

57 Tout, , Chapters in Administrative History, II: 257–58Google Scholar; Wolffe, , Royal Demesne in English History, pp. 116, 117, 124, 126, 140, 144, 148Google Scholar; and the commons petitions, Rotuli Parliamentorum, II: 269a, 276b, 305a, 319a–b, 352a, 354a–b.Google Scholar

58 That even some modern historians confuse the two is shown by the remarks of Denholm-Young, N., History and Heraldry: 1254-1310 (Oxford, 1965), pp. 135–37.Google Scholar

59 For the wine prise, see McCusker, John J. Jr., “The Wine Prise and Mediaeval Mercantile Shipping,” Speculum, XLI (1966): 279–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Powicke, , Thirteenth Century, p. 629 n. 1Google Scholar. For the history of the customs, see Barker, Robert L., “The English Customs Service, 1307-1343: A Study in Medieval Administration.” Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, New Series, vol. LI, pt. 6 (Philadelphia, 1961).Google Scholar

60 De tallagio non concedendo associated prise and tallage, Statutes of the Realm, I, 125.Google Scholar

61 Prestiwch, , War, Politics and Finance, p. 131Google Scholar; Statutes of the Realm, I, 371Google Scholar: 36 Edward III, c.2.

62 Statutes of the Realm, I, 123Google Scholar: Confirmatio Cartarum, cc. 5, 6; and for background, Prestwich, , War, Politics and Finance, pp. 254ff.Google Scholar

63 Prestwich, , War, Politics and Finance, pp. 131–32, 265.Google Scholar

64 Rotuli Parliamentorum Anglie Hactenus Inediti MCCLXXIX-MCCCLXXIII, ed., Richardson, H. G. and Sayles, G. O. [Camden Society, Third Series, 51] (London, 1935), p. 269Google Scholar. For background and the date of this petition, see Harriss, G. L., “The Commons' Petitions of 1340,” English Historical Review, LXXVIII (1963): 632CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fryde, , “Parliament and the French War,” p. 259.Google Scholar

65 Rotuli Parliamentorum, II: 109a, 227a.Google Scholar

66 See the king's reply to the petition of 1337/39, Rotuli Parliamentorum Hactenus Inediti, ed., Richardson, and Sayles, , p. 271Google Scholar; and the responses to the petitions in Rotuli Parliamentorum cited in n. 65 above.

67 Statutes of the Realm, I, 358Google Scholar: 31 Edward III, Statute 4, c. 4.

68 The phrase is from De Speculo Regis Edwardi III, ed., Moisant, , p. 144.Google Scholar

69 Statutes of the Realm, I, 137–38Google Scholar: 28 Edward I, Articuli super Cartas, c. 2.

70 Prestwich, , War, Politics and Finance, p. 265.Google Scholar

71 See the re-enactments of these statutes cited in n. 55 above.

72 Fryde, , “Parliament and the French War,” pp. 266–69.Google Scholar

73 Statutes of the Realm, I, 288Google Scholar: 14 Edward III, Statute 1, c. 19.

74 Ibid., I, 371-73: 36 Edward III, cc. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.

75 See the legislation regarding the taking of inquests in the court of the steward and marshal, ibid., I, 138: 28 Edward I, Articuli super Cartas, c. 3; I, 164: 5 Edward II, Ordinances, c. 26; I, 266: 5 Edward III, c. 2; I, 277: 10 Edward III, Statute 2, c. 1. For the jurisdiction of this court with respect to purveyance, see Jones, W. R., “The Court of the Verge: Jurisdiction of the Steward and Marshal of the Household in Later Medieval England,” Journal of British Studies, X (1970): 18–20Google Scholar. At least twice the commons requested the appointment of resident justices to try such cases. See Rotuli Parliamentorum, II, 252b–53a, 352a.Google Scholar

76 Richard II's statute of 1392 confirmed earlier legislation on purveyance, Statutes of the Realm, II, 30Google Scholar. For later statutes, see ibid., II, 33, 35-36, 125, 326.

77 See the remark of M. M. Postan concerning the depressing effects of purveyance on agricultural production in “Some Social Consequences of the Hundred Years' War,” Economic History Review, XIII (1942): 4–5.Google Scholar