Thanks to the actions of Donald Trump’s political opponents in the United States, impeachment is very much in the news at the moment. It is therefore an opportune moment to consider the English parliamentary origins of the process.

The first recorded example of parliamentary impeachment dates back to the ‘Good Parliament’ of 1376. This, the penultimate Parliament of Edward III’s reign, was an assembly of great consequence which also saw the first record of the election of a Speaker by the Commons. Highly critical of the government, the Lower House submitted the longest list of petitions ever sent to a King in a medieval Parliament, conducted its own investigations into maladministration and demanded the appointment of a new council. Through their spokesman, Sir Peter de la Mare, generally recognised as the first Speaker, the Commons voiced their grievances and demands and initiated the procedural novelty of impeachment; that is, they drew up a formal set of allegations against those whom they suspected of incompetence and corruption at the centre of power, forming charges for the Lords to try in their role as a high court. A group of courtiers and merchant-financiers, those impeached in 1376 included Edward III’s chamberlain, William, Lord Latimer, and the wealthy London merchant and financier, Richard Lyons.

The impeachment process was an also important feature of parliamentary history under Edward’s successor, Richard II. Its use epitomised the serious political divisions of Richard’s reign, with a series of savage crises ending in his deposition.

During the so-called ‘Wonderful Parliament’ of 1386, Richard’s unpopular chancellor, Michael de la Pole, earl of Suffolk, was impeached and the King threatened with deposition, unless he agreed to attend Parliament and accede to its demands. Forced to suffer the imposition of a continual council to govern the kingdom for a year, Richard overturned this arrangement by securing legal rulings in defence of his prerogative in 1387. Yet events soon put him back in the mercy of his opponents, led by the ‘Lords Appellant’, and the following Parliament, the ‘Merciless Parliament’ of 1388, attacked his most prominent courtiers through appeals of high treason and impeachment.

The impeachment and execution of his former tutor, Sir Simon Burley, was a particularly grievous blow for the King who pleaded in vain for the knight’s life. Richard struck back against his opponents a decade later, and the Parliament of 1397-8 annulled the acts of the Merciless Parliament and brought down the original Lords Appellant, the duke of Gloucester and the earls of Arundel and Warwick. But he subsequently went too far in reasserting his prerogative. By banishing two of his greatest lords, the dukes of Hereford and Norfolk, he set in train his own downfall, for Hereford would return from exile and seize the throne as Henry IV in 1399. Impeachment also loomed large in the reign of Henry IV’s inept grandson, Henry VI: the Parliament of 1449-50 impeached William de la Pole, duke of Suffolk, himself the grandson of the impeached chancellor of Richard II.

Although impeachment played a prominent part in such late medieval political crises, it happened that its use between the Middle Ages and its last occurrence in the nineteenth century was rare. It was nevertheless a process which enhanced the Commons’ involvement in high politics, being a means for them to hold anyone, save the King, responsible to the nation at large. It was with the monarch’s exemption in mind, that the Constitutional Convention which drew up the constitution of the new United States in 1787, determined that the President should not enjoy a like immunity, so making possible the actual impeachment of Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1998, and the initiation of proceedings against Donald Trump.

C.E.M.

For more on impeachment in later centuries see this earlier blog and more information on our new Medieval project can be found on our website.

The overarching aim of this paper was to explore how Bristol and Norwich exploited their growing participation at parliament to forge a new relationship with the English crown between 1295 and 1350. This was a period in which the crown’s perception of the urban polity was fundamentally transformed by both parliament and the demands of the ‘war state’. Edward I begrudgingly summoned burgesses to parliament from 1295 because he needed to acquire their consent to collect taxation in order to finance the defence of the kingdom. But by the eve of the Black Death, burgesses were no longer viewed simply as seigneurial subjects. Instead, Edward III consolidated their position within the political elite, viewing them as vital royal financiers and important participants in national government. This paper proposed that parliament was central to the transition in crown-town relations from a predominantly seigneurial nature to one in which the urban polity were intrinsically involved in government by the mid-1300s.

Bristol and Norwich adopted a fluid, flexible and often contrasting approach towards participation in the parliaments of this period. When towns had a particular corporate issue to resolve, they consciously elected specific burgesses who either had considerable parliamentary experience or a detailed knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the petition. For example, William Butt the Younger, William Bateman and Richard de Panes were deliberately employed as MPs because their contacts, status and links to the crown could prove decisive in the negotiations over a new borough charter or the reimbursement of loans. Yet, towns also returned a range of leading citizens when they did not have a particular problem to resolve. Urban rulers were fully aware that burgesses such as Henry Gare wanted to use parliament to represent their private interests. Furthermore, Bristol and Norwich were desperate to have their interests represented and thus elected MPs who were already traveling to London on private business. These contrasting views were indicative of the ad hoc nature of urban representation at parliament in the early 1300s. This was an evolutionary period for parliament and towns were still trying to understand the parliamentary process and their precise role within it.

Attendance was not a hindrance for many of the leading citizens from Bristol and Norwich in the early 1300s. Payment was an important, but far from decisive, factor in encouraging burgesses to serve their town as a MP. Instead, this paper proposed that there was a corpus of the urban elite who lobbied for re-election because it offered them the opportunity to form new contacts within the government and develop their careers as royal officials. William Butt the Younger, Thomas Butt, John Franceys junior and Robert Gyen were only some of the MPs who secured employment as crown officials, commissioners or customs collectors in the years following their appointment to parliament. As the fourteenth century progressed, an increasing number of MPs were re-elected and became more experienced and politically active in the process. Towns elected such ambitious individuals because they could best represent their interests at Westminster or on parliamentary committees and merchant assemblies. But to guarantee their services, towns offered an incentive and did so by allowing their representatives to pursue personal interests or advancement as royal officials, as long as these did not conflict with corporate aims. The early fourteenth-century parliament thus enabled burgesses to fulfill civic responsibilities, develop careers as crown officials, and experience an active role in national government.

RM

Join us tonight for our latest ‘Parliaments, Politics and People’ seminar. Sarah Ward of the Institute of Historical Research will speak on: ‘‘I am nothing discuraged to present you with the Parliament newse’: parliamentary news, personal interest and political action in north-east Wales, 1640-88.’ Hope to see you there!