Treaty of Leake

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Treaty of Leake was an agreement concluded on August 9, 1318 between the English King Edward II and his powerful cousin Thomas of Lancaster . The contract, which came about after lengthy negotiations, was intended to end the long-standing hostility between the two, but failed a little later.

prehistory

Just a few months after the reign of Edward II began in 1307, the king faced an opposition to the nobility. The most important of these opponents of the king's policy became after 1308 Thomas of Lancaster, a cousin of the king who, because of his immense land holdings and his very large following , had a supremacy among the magnates . Lancaster was a leader in the arbitrary execution of the royal favorite Piers Gaveston in 1312 . In 1313, under pressure from the magnates, the king had to pardon the barons who participated in the execution, but he apparently never forgave Lancaster for the death of his favorite. Lancaster, however, continued to largely reject the king's policies and insisted on the implementation of the Ordinances , a reform program for the government announced in 1311.

From 1316 the political situation in England became increasingly complex. While Edward II regained his power and secured the loyalty of magnates like the Earl of Hereford , Roger Mortimer of Wigmore and Bartholomew de Badlesmere through financial support or attractive offices , new courtiers like Roger Damory , Hugh Audley and William Montagu gained increasing influence . Lancaster, however, firmly rejected their influence and withdrew from the royal court. Presumably he was the instigator for an attack on the royal favorite Henry de Beaumont and his brother Bishop Louis de Beaumont of Durham. In October and November 1317, Lancaster followers conquered Knaresborough and Alton Castle , both of which were owned by Roger Damory. Lancaster, in revenge, plundered the property of Earl Warenne in Yorkshire, who kidnapped his wife Alice de Lacy in the spring of 1317 . As a token of his strength, Lancaster pulled together the military ranks of his vassals, while the Earl of Pembroke found it difficult to prevent the king from besieging Lancaster at Pontefract Castle in October 1317 . This meant that the empire was on the verge of open civil war, while on the other hand the Scots undertook extensive raids into northern England.

To ward off the Scottish raids on northern England, the king needed the military support of the Lancaster, who was particularly powerful in northern England, which is why the king was under great pressure. As a result, the government sent messengers to Lancaster several times to prevent the situation from escalating further, and for January 27, 1318 the king called a parliament in Lincoln . But now there was a danger that Lancaster would appear in Lincoln with a large armed entourage, and the bishops feared armed clashes between supporters of the king and followers of Lancaster. On December 30, 1317, several English bishops met with the Privy Council in Westminster . The assembly urged the king to adjourn parliament. Only when an understanding between the king and Lancaster had been reached, a parliament should be called again, whereupon the king adjourned the parliament on January 4, 1318. John Salmon , the Bishop of Norwich, visited Lancaster in Pontefract, apparently to confirm his readiness to negotiate. On February 23, 1318, a synod of the Canterbury Province took place in St Paul's Cathedral in London , during which the bishops apparently agreed to negotiate with Lancaster in Leicester .

Negotiations in Leicester

Bishop John Sandal of Winchester, who was also the Royal Chancellor , was sent to Leicester by the King on March 29th. Negotiations with Lancaster took place there at the beginning of April and were concluded on April 12th. In addition to Sandale, the delegation likely included Archbishop Walter Reynolds of Canterbury, Bishops John Salmon of Norwich, John Langton of Chichester, John Monmouth of Llandaff, Adam Orleton of Hereford, Thomas Cobham of Worcester, the Earls of Pembroke and Hereford, and William de Bereford , Walter Norwich , Badlesmere and 28 other barons. The leaders of the negotiations with Lancaster were likely Badlesmere, Archbishop Reynolds and the Earl of Pembroke. Since the royal delegation feared Lancaster's armed entourage, Badlesmere alone brought an entourage of 100 men-at-arms to Leicester for his safety . The king , who had stayed at Windsor Castle, remained in contact with his negotiating delegation through messengers .

On April 12, it was stated that for an understanding between the king and Lancaster the ordinances must be strictly adhered to, the bad advisers must be removed from the royal court and the crown property that has been alienated by the award of favorites must be returned. Lancaster and his followers were to be pardoned for their offenses. It is not clear whether this agreement was already a first draft of an understanding or just a documentation of Lancaster's demands, which should serve as a basis for further negotiations.

Further negotiations with Lancaster

The king was evidently betting on a speedy settlement with Lancaster. On June 8th he confirmed the agreement of Leicester and summoned the feudal army to York for the end of July to undertake a campaign in Scotland. The implementation of Lancaster's demands would not only have resulted in the removal of the controversial courtiers, but also far-reaching changes of ownership. According to Lancaster's demands, the royal favorites should not only have to return the goods they received from the king, but also have to compensate the king for his lost income. The courtiers understandably objected to Lancaster's demands. During a meeting of the Privy Council on June 2, which was also attended by numerous bishops, the courtiers blamed Lancaster's refusal to support the king primarily for the government's failures.

As a result, there were further negotiations with Lancaster, including on June 23 in Horningblow near Tutbury with Bishops Alexander Bicknor of Dublin, John Salmon and John Hotham of Ely, who had just been appointed royal chancellor. The delegation obtained Lancaster's agreement that land grants should be decided individually during parliament and that no compensation should be given to the king for his lost income. Ultimately, it was agreed that only donations made after 1310 should be considered. Other points of contention arose when Lancaster demanded safe conduct to Parliament for himself , but distrusted the king's negotiators and subsequently refused to accept their promises of safe conduct. In early July, Bishops Bicknor, Hotham and Salmon as well as Pembroke, Badlesmere and Hugh Despenser the Younger negotiated with Lancaster, but Lancaster did not agree to the compromise, as he wanted to have the return of the king's land grants into account. Thereupon another delegation consisting of Bicknor, Langton, Hotham, the Earls of Pembroke and Arundel as well as Mortimer and Badlesmere negotiated further with Lancaster in the middle or end of July .

Ultimately, Lancaster agreed that, except for Montagu and Damory, who allegedly wanted his life, the courtiers could make up with him. Then Lancaster proposed the formation of a permanent council of state composed of eight bishops, four earls and four barons. Two bishops, an earl and a baron should be members per calendar quarter. The King had meanwhile left for Northampton on June 30th , but Lancaster still had reservations about meeting face to face. Probably on July 25th a final agreement could be reached with Lancaster, whom the king pardoned for his offenses on July 31st.

Conclusion of Leake's contract

On August 7th, the King and Lancaster met between Loughborough and Leicester. They exchanged the kiss of peace in front of numerous prelates , all the earls except Warennes and numerous barons . On August 8th or 9th, the King and Lancaster met at Nottingham to discuss defending Northern England against Scottish attack until the next Parliament. Finally, on August 9, 1318, the treaty was sealed in the village of Leake in Nottinghamshire.

content

In Leake's treaty the pardon of Lancaster and his entourage was confirmed, in return Lancaster forgave all of his opponents with the exception of Warenne. The feud between Warenne and Lancaster over the kidnapping of Lancaster's wife was not regulated by the treaty, so Warenne received no government protection from the vengeance of the mighty Lancaster.

Politically, however, Lancaster had to make considerable concessions in the treaty. The ordinances of 1311 were supposed to be implemented, but Leake's treaty no longer explicitly mentions the removal of the royal favorites from the court and the return of the king's gifts. According to the treaty, a permanent council of state was to be established, the approval of which was necessary for all government decisions except parliamentary decisions. The council should be given a Knight Banneret appointed by Lancaster , the Bishops of John Salmon of Norwich, John Langton of Chichester, John Hotham of Ely, Roger Martival of Salisbury, David Martin of St Davids, John Halton of Carlisle, Adam Orleton of Hereford, and Thomas Cobham of Worcester, who belong to the Earls of Pembroke, Richmond , Hereford and Arundel, as well as Hugh Courtenay , Roger Mortimer of Wigmore, John Seagrave and John Gray . Lancaster, on the other hand, was only indirectly represented by a Knight Banneret, while the other members were almost all connected to the king by family, obligations, or in the case of the bishops, as officials. After all, nine of the former Lords Ordainers were on the council. The members should rotate quarterly, so that each two bishops, an earl and a baron belonged to the council. The members should be elected annually by parliament.

Confirmation by the Parliament of York

The reconciliation between the King and Lancaster was to be completed by a parliament that was to take place in York from October 20th and should approve and implement the Treaty of Leake. Lancaster was in York from about October 26th to November 22nd. After his departure, he was represented by his vassal Roger Beler in the meetings that lasted until December 9th.

Parliament first confirmed Leake's treaty. Lancaster and his entourage were pardoned again for all offenses committed before August 7, 1318. To this end, Parliament renewed the appointments to the highest government offices . The Bishop of Ely was confirmed as Chancellor, and the Bishop of Winchester, the former Chancellor, was named Treasurer , replacing John Walwayn . Montagu was replaced as Steward of the Household by Badlesmere, instead he was appointed Seneschal of Gascony . Hugh le Despenser, who had replaced Lancaster's opponent John Charlton as Chamberlain of the Household after June 1318 , was confirmed in office.

Lancaster had placed great emphasis on a review of the king's gifts. Parliament did not revoke all of the king's gifts, but only checked individual donations to determine whether they were appropriate for the services rendered. Ultimately, only the younger Despenser, Damory, Badlesmere, Hereford and a few others had to forego part of their gifts received from the king. There was no longer any question of removing the favorites from the royal court, with Damory and Audley apparently leaving the court after parliament and Montagu being transferred to south-west France, thus reaching a compromise. The permanent Council of State was expanded to include two bishops and seven barons. It is unclear which Knight Banneret was Lancaster's representative on the State Council, presumably John de Clavering . Parliament appointed a commission to reform and improve the royal budget, which included Hereford, Badlesmere, Roger Mortimer of Chirk , John de Somery , Walter Norwich, Archbishop William Melton of York, and the Bishops of Norwich and Ely.

Lancaster had largely renounced its core demands, the return of the gifts of the king and the removal of the favorites. For this he was given a free hand against Warenne. This had to conclude an agreement with Lancaster, after which he renounced his estates in Yorkshire and Bromfield, Yale and Holt Castle in North Wales in favor of Lancaster. Montagu concluded a settlement with Lancaster on November 23, in addition he and Damory and Audley recognized larger amounts than debts to Lancaster as compensation. These were actually paid by Damory and probably also by Montagu.

consequences

Although some of the king's favorites had left the court, the younger Despenser quickly rose to become the king's dominant new favorite. Already during the siege of Berwick in September 1319 the cooperation between Lancaster and the king broke up again when Lancaster left the siege army with his troops without the permission of the king to provide a Scottish army that looted his possessions.

For the next several months, Lancaster remained isolated on its possessions until the younger Despenser's greed for possession provoked a violent revolt by the Marcher Lords , the Despenser War, in early 1321 . Lancaster supported this revolt politically, but when the king took military action against the rebels from the autumn of 1321, Lancaster could not organize a common defense against the king, not least because he did not want to support Badlesmere, who also switched to the rebels. The king eventually declared Lancaster a traitor, and in March 1322 Lancaster's army was defeated at the Battle of Boroughbridge . Lancaster was captured and executed a few days later. After Edward II had eliminated his domestic political opponents, he ruled unchallenged with the help of the Despensers until he was overthrown by Roger Mortimer of Wigmore in autumn 1326.

Aftermath

The historian William Stubbs argued in his Constitutional History of England , published in 1875 , that in addition to the court party and the opposition under Lancaster, there was a third group, a so-called Middle Party , which included Pembroke, Badlesmere, Audley and other courtiers and magnates. The historian TF Tout later joined this thesis . In his view, the Leake Treaty was the success of this middle party, which also included most of the bishops.

However, recent research has shown beyond any doubt that Pembroke and Badlesmere were loyal supporters of the king and that there was no middle party of this kind. Lancaster, on the other hand, was politically isolated except for his entourage and had few allies among the other magnates. The Treaty of Leake is therefore primarily a success of the moderate followers of the king, who were supported by the bishops who, according to their tradition, politically supported the crown. The king himself was rather disinterested in the negotiations. The courtiers and favorites of the king were primarily responsible for the lengthy negotiations, and they managed to keep their property almost unchallenged.

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ John Robert Maddicott: Thomas of Lancaster, 1307-1322. A Study in the Reign of Edward II. Oxford University Press, Oxford 1970, p. 225.
  2. ^ A b Michael Prestwich: The Three Edwards. War and State in England, 1272-1377 . 1980, ISBN 0-416-30450-8 , p. 78.
  3. ↑ John Roland Seymour Phillips: Aymer de Valence, earl of Pembroke, 1307-1324. Baronial politics in the reign of Edward II. Clarendon, Oxford 1972, ISBN 0-19-822359-5 , p. 149.
  4. ↑ John Robert Maddicott: Thomas of Lancaster, 1307-1322. A Study in the Reign of Edward II. Oxford University Press, Oxford 1970, p. 207.
  5. ↑ John Robert Maddicott: Thomas of Lancaster, 1307-1322. A Study in the Reign of Edward II. Oxford University Press, Oxford 1970, p. 210.
  6. ↑ John Roland Seymour Phillips: Aymer de Valence, earl of Pembroke, 1307-1324. Baronial politics in the reign of Edward II. Clarendon, Oxford 1972, ISBN 0-19-822359-5 , p. 151.
  7. ↑ John Robert Maddicott: Thomas of Lancaster, 1307-1322. A Study in the Reign of Edward II. Oxford University Press, Oxford 1970, p. 213.
  8. ↑ John Roland Seymour Phillips: Aymer de Valence, earl of Pembroke, 1307-1324. Baronial politics in the reign of Edward II. Clarendon, Oxford 1972, ISBN 0-19-822359-5 , p. 154.
  9. ↑ John Roland Seymour Phillips: Aymer de Valence, earl of Pembroke, 1307-1324. Baronial politics in the reign of Edward II. Clarendon, Oxford 1972, ISBN 0-19-822359-5 , p. 155.
  10. ↑ John Robert Maddicott: Thomas of Lancaster, 1307-1322. A Study in the Reign of Edward II. Oxford University Press, Oxford 1970, p. 215.
  11. ↑ John Roland Seymour Phillips: Aymer de Valence, earl of Pembroke, 1307-1324. Baronial politics in the reign of Edward II. Clarendon, Oxford 1972, ISBN 0-19-822359-5 , p. 159.
  12. ↑ John Robert Maddicott: Thomas of Lancaster, 1307-1322. A Study in the Reign of Edward II. Oxford University Press, Oxford 1970, p. 216.
  13. ↑ John Roland Seymour Phillips: Aymer de Valence, earl of Pembroke, 1307-1324. Baronial politics in the reign of Edward II. Clarendon, Oxford 1972, ISBN 0-19-822359-5 , p. 163.
  14. ↑ John Robert Maddicott: Thomas of Lancaster, 1307-1322. A Study in the Reign of Edward II. Oxford University Press, Oxford 1970, p. 217.
  15. ↑ John Roland Seymour Phillips: Aymer de Valence, earl of Pembroke, 1307-1324. Baronial politics in the reign of Edward II. Clarendon, Oxford 1972, ISBN 0-19-822359-5 , p. 166.
  16. ↑ John Robert Maddicott: Thomas of Lancaster, 1307-1322. A Study in the Reign of Edward II. Oxford University Press, Oxford 1970, p. 221.
  17. ↑ John Robert Maddicott: Thomas of Lancaster, 1307-1322. A Study in the Reign of Edward II. Oxford University Press, Oxford 1970, p. 224.
  18. ↑ John Robert Maddicott: Thomas of Lancaster, 1307-1322. A Study in the Reign of Edward II. Oxford University Press, Oxford 1970, p. 226.
  19. ↑ John Roland Seymour Phillips: Aymer de Valence, earl of Pembroke, 1307-1324. Baronial politics in the reign of Edward II. Clarendon, Oxford 1972, ISBN 0-19-822359-5 , p. 170.
  20. ↑ John Roland Seymour Phillips: Aymer de Valence, earl of Pembroke, 1307-1324. Baronial politics in the reign of Edward II. Clarendon, Oxford 1972, ISBN 0-19-822359-5 , p. 171.
  21. ↑ John Robert Maddicott: Thomas of Lancaster, 1307-1322. A Study in the Reign of Edward II. Oxford University Press, Oxford 1970, p. 227.
  22. ↑ John Robert Maddicott: Thomas of Lancaster, 1307-1322. A Study in the Reign of Edward II. Oxford University Press, Oxford 1970, p. 232.
  23. ↑ John Roland Seymour Phillips: Aymer de Valence, earl of Pembroke, 1307-1324. Baronial politics in the reign of Edward II. Clarendon, Oxford 1972, ISBN 0-19-822359-5 , p. 174.
  24. ↑ John Robert Maddicott: Thomas of Lancaster, 1307-1322. A Study in the Reign of Edward II. Oxford University Press, Oxford 1970, p. 230.
  25. ^ A b John Roland Seymour Phillips: Aymer de Valence, earl of Pembroke, 1307-1324. Baronial politics in the reign of Edward II. Clarendon, Oxford 1972, ISBN 0-19-822359-5 , p. 173.
  26. ^ A b c John Robert Maddicott: Thomas of Lancaster, 1307-1322. A Study in the Reign of Edward II. Oxford University Press, Oxford 1970, p. 231.
  27. ↑ John Robert Maddicott: Thomas of Lancaster, 1307-1322. A Study in the Reign of Edward II. Oxford University Press, Oxford 1970, p. 234.
  28. ↑ John Robert Maddicott: Thomas of Lancaster, 1307-1322. A Study in the Reign of Edward II. Oxford University Press, Oxford 1970, p. 233.
  29. ↑ John Robert Maddicott: Thomas of Lancaster, 1307-1322. A Study in the Reign of Edward II. Oxford University Press, Oxford 1970, p. 250.
  30. ↑ John Roland Seymour Phillips: Aymer de Valence, earl of Pembroke, 1307-1324. Baronial politics in the reign of Edward II. Clarendon, Oxford 1972, ISBN 0-19-822359-5 , p. 139.
  31. ↑ John Roland Seymour Phillips: Aymer de Valence, earl of Pembroke, 1307-1324. Baronial politics in the reign of Edward II. Clarendon, Oxford 1972, ISBN 0-19-822359-5 , p. 147.
  32. ↑ John Roland Seymour Phillips: Aymer de Valence, earl of Pembroke, 1307-1324. Baronial politics in the reign of Edward II. Clarendon, Oxford 1972, ISBN 0-19-822359-5 , p. 150.
  33. ↑ John Roland Seymour Phillips: Aymer de Valence, earl of Pembroke, 1307-1324. Baronial politics in the reign of Edward II. Clarendon, Oxford 1972, ISBN 0-19-822359-5 , p. 177.
  34. ↑ John Robert Maddicott: Thomas of Lancaster, 1307-1322. A Study in the Reign of Edward II. Oxford University Press, Oxford 1970, p. 228.