No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 December 2011
The object of this article is to carry one stage further an analysis which was begun elsewhere of the late medieval receipt rolls of the English exchequer. The technique of this analysis is essentially comparative; thus the first time it was used the two halves of Richard II's reign were compared with each other and with the whole of Henry IV's, while on the present occasion Henry V's reign of nine and a half years, producing nineteen complete rolls, will be compared with the first ten years and nineteen rolls of Henry VI. That is to say, two approximately equal periods are being studied instead of three, but in order to preserve continuity some reference will also be made to Henry IV's reign of thirteen and a half years with its twenty-one complete and four fragmentary rolls. It has been thought that the rough approximation to equality of evidence over these three periods will still justify, as in the former article, the frequent use of absolute totals instead of averages, but it will have to be borne in mind that 1413–22 and 1422–32 are both slightly under-estimated in relation to 1399–1413 wherever absolute totals and not averages are used.
1 E[nglish] H[istorical] R[eview], LI, 29–51, 577–97. The present study is based on rolls classified as E 401/658–731 in the P.R.O.
2 There are no rolls extant for the Easter term 1429.
3 E.H.R. XLVII, 204–15.
4 Corrected to a yearly average: in the E.H.R. article they were stated terminally.
5 See my previous article in E.H.R. Li, 33–4 and 41–2 for an explanation of these once heavy entries and their virtual disappearance after 1395. For the meaning of “fictitious” loans see my article in History, XII, 298–309, “Some Aspects of English Finance in the Fourteenth Century”. Roughly speaking the terms “fictitious loans” and “bad”, i.e. uncashable, tallies are used synonymously throughout the present article.
6 The figures quoted separately under this head and the other heads which follow are reprinted for convenience at the end in Table B.
7 The reason for this change is the fact that after 1415 the chamber was largely occupied abroad. See [Newhall, R. A.], [The English] Conquest of Normandy, 152–3Google Scholar.
8 C[alendar of] P[atent] R[olls], Henry VI, 1429–36, pp. 337, 339, 342.
9 C.P.R., Richard II, 1396-9, 49, 536.
10 She also contributes £333. 6s. Sd. to her son's finances in the next period, but this s i outweighed by nearly three times that amount in bad tallies—an indignity which she did not experience while her husband was alive.
11 Its Norman activities under Henry V must not, however, be forgotten.
12 It may also be worth recording that the well-known Thomas Haxey was able to lend as much as 200 marks in two instalments to Henry V, while John Kempe, archbishop of York, lent 500 marks as chancellor to Henry VI, a sum which ought injustice to be transferred from “bishops” to this heading. Again, of the £233 worth of bad tallies received by William Alnwick, bishop of Norwich, in this reign the greater part was in his capacity as keeper of the Privy Seal and should really be included here.
13 See D[ictionary of] N[ational] B[iography], LIII, supplemented by , Tout, Chapters [in Mediaeval Administrative History], iv, 480Google Scholar, and Saltmarsh, J., C[ambridge] H[istorical] J[ournal], III, 207Google Scholar.
14 John Merbury.
15 William Butler.
16 But see Magnates for the very large sums owed through bad tallies to great men acting as wardens of the marches, etc., particularly under Henry VI. The remarks in the text apply only to what may be called the smaller professional officials, not to noblemen.
17 On the contrary, Richard Bukland, when treasurer of Calais, actually made “real” loans to the crown, while his fictitious loans totalled only £500.
18 None under Henry V, but the Earl of March (£622) and the Earl of Ormond (£770) received some in the period 1422–32.
19 See D.N.B. Mr K. B. Macfarlane's critical analysis is still awaited.
20 Rivalled only, and that doubtfully, by Richard of Cornwall in the thirteenth century. See Denholm-Young, N., Seignorial Administration in England, 63Google Scholar.
21 He also used them very frequently as collectors and commissioners of corporate loans from the localities, but in this capacity I have included them with the country gentry with whom they are always associated for this purpose.
22 C.P.R., Henry V, 1416–22, 249–52, 384–6, 416–17.
23 Northumberland, Westmorland and, of course, the palatinate of Durham do not appear at all.
24 It will be noticed that, with the exception of Middlesex, whose peculiar relation to London, which lent heavily, perhaps marks it out from the others, all the “weak” counties are in the north or west.
25 Possible explanations might be (a) abnormal prosperity in the Lincolnshire wool and cloth trade during this period, (b) exceptional loyalty to the crown, or (c) the reverse, n i which case the loans become penal. Unfortunately I know no evidence in favour of any of these theories. From the point of view of mere county area the Yorkshire loans seem well proportioned to the rest, but not the Lincolnshire loans.
26 I should perhaps repeat at this point that wherever I have found persons from other categories such as clergy, burgesses or magnates mentioned in conjunction with the words et aliis de comitatu I have taken them out of their own category for that particular payment and included them under “country gentry”.
27 Henry Chichele.
28 Rich, E. E. in C. Hist. J., IV, 193Google Scholar.
29 The only notable exception is a certain mayor of Lincoln, Thomas Archer, from whom et aliis as much as £83. 6s. Sd. was forthcoming.
30 The only other appearance up to this date of the staplers as lenders to the crown is in Henry IV's reign, when they contributed no less than £8000 out of a nominal “burgess” total of £10,366 odd. In each case their heavy lending makes the “burgess” total misleading, but it is difficult to see under what other heading they could be placed.
31 Possibly to be identified with Stephen de Navarria, doctor of civil law, king's advocate before the consistory and at the council of Basle: in return for these services he obtained a licence to hold benefices in England to the value of £1,1OO a year in 1435. C.P.R., Henry VI, 1429–36, p. 461.
32 J. Victor under Henry V and “Primacio Discresis” (sic) et socii under Henry VI also made loans.
33 Nicholas “Mulyn” (? Molini) et alii mere' de Venicia lend £666. 13s. 4d. under Henry V.
34 D.N.B., sub nomine. He was, it is true, an active member of the council of regency, but the grants obtained by him in return for a good deal of ambassadorial work appear to be trifling. More material was the fact of his nominal salary as warden of the east marches of £5,000 in time of war and £2,500 in time of peace, but it was precisely this salary which he had so much difficulty in collecting. A cursory examination of the entries under his name in C.P.R., Henry VI, 1422–9 and 1429–36 does little to dispel the impression that on balance he lost considerably more from all his offices together than he gained from them.
35 See e.g. , Jolliffe, Constitutional History of Medieval England, 465–6, 473–6Google Scholar.