MEMORANDUM concerning ecclesiastical persons elected by the bishops and clergy [of Ire.], and lay persons elected by the commons of each county and by the citizens and burgesses of each city and borough in Ire., who were sent to Eng. to the K. and his council, wherever it might be, with sufficient power to treat, advise and agree with the K., on behalf of those bishops and clergy, magnates of each county, citizens and burgesses of each city and borough, both upon the governance and defence of the land of Ire. and also upon an aid to be levied there to sustain the K.’s wars.1
‘[p. 444] The K. of Eng. [Edward III] lately sent Nicholas Dagworth kt to his land of Ire. to expound certain business of the K. to the prelates, magnates and commons of that land, just as the same Nicholas was charged by the K. and just as is contained more fully in letters patent of Eng. made concerning this, which were enrolled in the Irish chancery. And Nicholas, appearing in the K.’s parliament summoned and held for that reason at Kilkenny on Saturday the octave of Michaelmas 49 Edw. III [6 Oct. 1375], set forth to the prelates, magnates and commons assembled then and there the following articles that were contained, among others, both in those letters and in a certain indenture, and afterwards displayed in that chancery, viz. how the K. could no longer sustain the great costs and expenses that he had formerly incurred and sustained upon the wars in that land, for the salvation and defence of same, [p. 445] because of excessive effusion of expenses which he must incur upon his wars elsewhere. Therefore the K. called upon the prelates, magnates and commons that, having considered the premises, they should ordain, each according to his faculties and status, so that he might support a reasonable share of those costs and expenses for the sustenance of the K.’s wars in that land, and the salvation, defence and governance of the same land.
The prelates, magnates and commons excused themselves in the premises, viz. that on account of their insufficiency and poverty they could not support any share of those costs and expenses at that time. After that Nicholas charged the same prelates, magnates and commons, according to the form and effect of the said indenture, should send representatives to the K. in Eng. to treat, advise and agree with the K. and his council, both upon the governance of that land and also upon the aid and sustenance of the K.’s wars, viz. each bishop should send two ecclesiastical persons with sufficient power for themselves and the clergy of their diocese, by letters of proxy from the bishop and clergy; and the commons of each county of that land should send two lay persons with sufficient power for the magnates and commons of the same county; and the citizens and burgesses of each city and borough of that land should send two citizens and two burgesses with sufficient power for themselves, the citizens and the burgesses of those cities and towns.
Because of this charge and also because the K. sent letters of the p.s. [carried] by Nicholas to William Windsor, governor and keeper of Ire.―ordering him that if the prelates, magnates and commons refused to assume upon themselves a reasonable share of the costs and expenses, that then the governor and keeper should cause each bishop, and the commons of each county, and the citizens and burgesses of each city and borough of that land to send two persons in the foregoing manner, just as appears more fully in those letters of the p.s.―it was agreed by advice of the governor and keeper and the K.’s council of Ire. that the K.’s writs should be issued to the following persons, viz.:
[1] Archbishops and bishops;
[2] Sheriffs and seneschals;
[3] Mayors, sovereigns and provosts.
The writs were to instruct them to cause the election of two persons to be sent to Eng. so that the K. and his learned council in Eng. might be more fully informed as to that election and the names of those elected, and upon the effect of the writs, and the returns to the same. [p. 446] Those writs were made and sent to the archbishops and others, and afterwards they were returned into chancery where they remain of record. The tenor of those writs and returns follows here in this form, viz.:
[1. ARCHBISHOPS AND BISHOPS]
[(i) The archbishop of ARMAGH]
“WRIT addressed to M[ilo Sweteman], abp Armagh, ordering the election of two lay persons.
[p. 447] Attested by William Windsor, governor and keeper of Ire., at Kilkenny, 25 Oct. [1375] 49 Edw. III.”2
The return of that writ is as follows:
“[Archbishop Sweteman to Edward III] Having convoked before him the clergy of his diocese, the archbishop answers, by their common counsel and assent, that with regard to the matters contained in the schedule stitched to this writ, they are not bound according to the liberties and customs of the church, nor those of the land of Ire., to elect any clergy to Eng. nor to send them to Eng.; but out of reverence for the illustrious K. of Eng. and because of the urgent necessity threatening the land at present―saving to the clergy and the magnates and commons of the land the said rights, privileges, liberties, laws and customs―they elected Sir John Cusak and William fitz Adam, clerks, to proceed to Eng. to appear there before the K. and granted them full power to treat, advice and agree upon the salvation, defence and good governance of that land. The archbishop does not, however, grant power the messengers or elected persons to grant any charge or subsidy upon the archbishop or his clergy at present because of his poverty and the meagreness of his dignities and benefices, also because of the outlay, costs and expenses that he must sustain almost daily, both in finding men-at-arms, hobelars and foot, and also other costs and expenses which he must of necessity sustain for the defence of his territories of the said land. [p. 448] Those costs do not amount to one tenth of the costs and expenses which must be spent upon the wars and resistance of the enemies of the K. and the archbishop, the defence of the same land; and for those reasons and others to be declared before the K. in Eng. by the elected persons or the archbishop’s messengers, the archbishop cannot answer otherwise at present.”
[(ii) The archbishop of DUBLIN]
A similar writ of the same date was addressed to the keeper of the spiritualities of the archbishopric of Dublin sede vacante, the return to which follows in this form:
“To Edward III, K. of Eng. and France, and lord of Ire., your humble and devout William Gayflee, canon of the church of St Patrick’s, Dublin, and John fitz Elys archdeacon of Glydelacen’ in the same, keepers of the spiritualities of the archbishopric of Dublin sede vacante, greetings in him through whom kings reign and princes rule.
The keepers of the spiritualities have received with all honour the K.’s writ addressed to them annexed to these presents. By virtue of that writ, the keepers convened before them the clergy of the diocese of Dublin and elected by assent of the clergy two ecclesiastical persons, viz. the said John fitz Elys [one of the keepers of the spiritualities] and Sir Thomas Athelard, vicar of Donabate, to appear before the K. and his council in Eng., at the costs of the keepers and clergy, before the quindene of the Purification of the Blessed Mary next [16 Feb. 1376], wherever they may be in Eng., obtaining from the keepers and clergy the power to treat, advise and agree upon those things more fully mentioned in the writ. They have informed the K. of the names of those persons elected, returning the writ before the specified day, and thus fulfilling with honour the K.’s order.
Given at Dublin, 12 Nov. 1375.”
[(iii) The archbishop of CASHEL]
[p. 449] A similar writ of the same date was addressed to the archbishop of Cashel, the return to which follows in these words:
“The clergy of the diocese of Cashel called before the archbishop elect, by unanimous consent of the same clergy and that of the archbishop, Sir John Geffard, canon of the monastery of Osseny and the rector of the church of Kiltewenan, diocese of Cashel, because the resources of the diocese are not sufficient to send two messengers. John has power to treat, advise and agree, as the writ requires; saving the liberties of the church and the free customs of the land of Ire.”
[(iv) The archbishop of TUAM]
A similar writ was addressed to the archbishop of Tuam, who did not respond.
[(v) The bishop of MEATH]
A similar writ of the same date was addressed the bishop of Meath, the return to which follows in these words:
“Stephen [Valle], bp Meath, states for himself and his clergy that they are not bound to elect or send any messengers to Eng., before the K., as the writ requires because in the parliament mentioned in the writ he granted 100m for himself and his clergy to the K., in aid of the relief of expenses incurred upon the sustenance of his wars of Ire.; however, on account of their reverence for the K. and the urgent necessity now threatening the land, the bishop sends master Bartholomew Dullard, rector of the parish church of the Blessed Mary of Drogheda, as his messenger to inform and advice the K. and his council in Eng. concerning the state and governance of Ire., and the remedies supplied concerning this, saving the liberties and customs of that land, with sufficient power for the bishop and his clergy.”
[(vi) The bishop of KILDARE]
A similar writ of the same date was addressed the bishop of Kildare, the return to which follows in these words:
[p. 450] “On account of the writ, the bishop convened before him the clergy of his diocese; and the same clergy together with the bishop―with the exception of the lord prior of the hospital of St John of Jerusalem in Ire. who declined and refused to agree with the bishop and his clergy in any business, although he has appropriated to himself a great number of the churches of that diocese; and the bishop could not compel the prior to do so because he is entirely exempt from the bishop’s jurisdiction by apostolic authority―elected William White, dean of the cathedral church of Kildare, and Richard White, rector of Donaghda, and granted them full power to treat, inform, advise and agree with the K. and his council, wherever he might be in Eng. on the date mentioned in that writ, upon the estate, salvation and governance of his land of Ire.; but they were unwilling to grant them power to charge or bind the clergy with any further charges or subsidies, both because they already sustain great and unbearable costs [in defence of that diocese] which is for the greater part destroyed on account of the war of the K.’s enemies and rebels, and because of the meagreness of his benefices, and also the poverty and the scarcity of the clergy, just as proctors shall declare fully before the K. and his council in Eng., if necessary.”
[(vii) The bishop of LEIGHLIN]
A similar writ of the same date was addressed the bishop of Leighlin, the return to which follows in these words:
“The bishop convened the clergy of his diocese and all the premises and all the articles contained in the K.’s writ were read out. And all of the clergy of that diocese declared that no ecclesiastical person could be sent to the K. and his council in Eng. at the costs of the diocese, as the writ requires, because of the insufficiency, poverty and scarcity which the bishop and commons of the diocese have become because of the daily destructions, robberies, arsons and depredations of the Irish enemies […] perpetrated before this time. And especially because in that diocese there are not 14 carucates of land cultivated and worked that are not in the hands of the K.’s Irish enemies, the tithe of which is insufficient for the sustenance of the bishop, as was declared at the last parliament held at Kilkenny by the bishop and clergy of that diocese and the [p. 451] community of co. Carlow before the governor and Nicholas Dagworth kt, and the K.’s council.”
[(viii) The bishop of OSSORY]
A similar writ of the same date was addressed the bishop of Ossory, the return to which follows in these words:
“Alexander [Bicknor], bp Ossory, and John de Acres […] were elected by the bishop and clergy of his diocese to appear before the K. and his council in Eng. on the date specified in that writ, to do as the writ requires, saving the liberties and free customs of the church and the land of Ire.”
[(ix) The bishop of WATERFORD]
A similar writ of the same date was addressed the bishop of Lismore and Waterford, the return to which follows in these words:
“The names of two ecclesiastical persons elected for Thomas [le Reve] bishop of Lismore and Waterford, and the clergy of his diocese, to appear before the K. in Eng., on the date specified in this writ, wherever they may be in Eng., having power to treat and advise with the K. on behalf of the bishop and clergy, and to inform the K. upon the articles contained in this writ, viz. Thomas [le Reve], bishop of Lismore and Waterford, and master Thomas Raye clk, without any power granted by the bishop and clergy to those persons to agree in the premises, lest the liberties of the church of the land of Ire. be infringed, since power to agree of that kind would be to the greatest prejudice of his church and the liberties of the church and the land of Ire., just as those persons will declare fully before the K., if necessary.”
[(x) The bishop of FERNS]
A similar writ of the same date was addressed the bishop of Ferns, the return to which follows in these words:
“The clergy of the diocese of Ferns, having convened before the bishop, of their unanimous assent and the assent of the bishop, elect master William St John, dean of Ferns, and Richard Whitty clk, who are to have full power as the writ requires; saving the liberties of the church and the free customs of the land of Ire.”
[(xi) The bishop of LIMERICK]
[p. 452] A similar writ of the same date was addressed the bishop of Limerick, the return to which follows in these words:
“These are the names of two suitable persons elected to treat, advise and agree on behalf of the bishop and clergy of the diocese of Limerick with the K. and his council in Eng. before the Purification of BMV next, wherever they may be in Eng., just as the writ requires: master John Fox and John Route clk.”
[(xii) The bishop of EMLY]
A similar writ of the same date was addressed the bishop of Lismore, the return to which follows in these words:
“Most excellent lord, with regard to the two ecclesiastical persons to be sent by the bishop with sufficient mandate to Eng., as the K.’s writ requires, in no way can the bishop [of Emly] send such persons, viz. because of this notorious and very great poverty and that of the clergy, since the bishop has no clergy at present resident in his diocese because of the continuous and unceasing wars, except a few very poor clergy remaining among the Irish enemies of the K. and the bishop. However the bishop sends as proctors the ecclesiastical persons elected by the clergy of the bishopric of Lismore with sufficient power to Eng., as contained in the present mandate.”
[(xiii) The bishop of CORK]
A similar writ of the same date was addressed the bishop of Cork, the return to which follows in these words:
“Master Thomas Rys and master John White clk, canons of the cathedral church of Cork, have been elected by G[erald Barry], bp Cork, and the whole clergy of his diocese to be before the K. and his council, where they may be in Eng., on the date specified in the writ, to treat, advise and agree, just as the writ requires.”
[(xiv) The bishop of CLOYNE]
A similar writ of the same date was addressed the bishop of Cloyne or his vicar general, the bishop being in remote places, the return to which follows in these words:
“The clergy of the diocese of Cloyne, of their common assent, elect Thomas prior of Bridgetown [priorem Ville Pontis] and John Sandy chaplain to appear before pp. 453] the K. in Eng. before the Purification of BMV next, wherever they may be, to treat, advise and agree, together with other proctors elected by the provost of Cashel, as the writ requires.”
[(xv) The bishop of ARDFERT]
A similar writ of the same date was addressed the bishop of Kerry [Ardfert], the return to which follows in these words:
“Having convened the clergy of his diocese, the following were elected as messengers to Eng., according to the tenor of that writ, viz.: master Gilbert […] and John s. of John, canon of the cathedral church, who will go to Eng. to the K.”
[2. SHERIFFS AND SENESCHALS]
[(i) The sheriff of DUBLIN]
“WRIT addressed to the sheriff of Dublin.
Attested by William Windsor, governor and keeper of Ire., at Kilkenny, 25 Oct. [1375] 49 Edw. III.”3
The return to that writ was as follows:
“Nicholas Howth and Richard White were elected by the magnates and commons of co. Dublin to appear before the K. and his council in Eng. before the Purification of BMV [16 Feb. 1376] mentioned in the writ, wherever he might then be in Eng., having full power to treat and advise for the magnates and commons with the K. and his council there, and to inform the K. upon the estate and governance of his land of Ire., without any power being granted by the magnates and commons to Nicholas and Richard to agree to any charges that would be imposed on the magnates and commons in future, on account of disagreements which will be declared by Nicholas and Richard then and there. And upon this, many of the more sufficient persons of co. Dublin by their petition sealed under their seals to the governor and keeper, [p. 454] and the C. and others of the K.’s council in Ire., showed and certified that they had not consented to the election of Nicholas and Richard, the names of whom appear below annexed to these presents. Consequently, adverting to how dissension and division intervened in that election, it was agreed, by advice of the governor and council, that in order to remove all dispute in this connection that the K.’s letters patent under the g.s. used in Ire. should be sent to brother Thomas Scurlak, abbot of the house of St Thomas near Dublin, T. of Ire., and Robert Preston, chief justice of the common bench of Ire., instructing them to be present to cause election and to supervise it and the names of those thus elected; and to inform the K. in chancery whether or not they were elected by the common assent of the magnates and commons or the greater part of the same, just as appears more fully in the letters annexed to these presents. And a writ was sent to the sheriff of Dublin to convene those magnates and commons, in the presence of the T. and justice, to hold an election of their common assent, and to inform the K. in chancery of the names of those thus elected, just as appears more fully in the same writ similarly annexed to these presents.
The T. and justice, by virtue of those letters, returned into chancery that 24 persons elected Nicholas Howth and William fitz William, and 20 persons elected the said Nicholas and Richard White as appears in the return annexed to these presents; and the sheriff returned that the better magnates and commons of that county elected the said Nicholas and Richard, and they were not bound to elect others, as appears in the return annexed to these presents. When the governor and council had viewed those returns, it seemed to them that Nicholas and William had been elected by the better and more sufficient person of that county, and the same governor and council deigned to accept the election of Nicholas and William. Upon this, by advice of the governor and council, other letters patent of the K. were sent to the T. and justices instructing them to cause all those persons, together with other magnates and commons of that county, to come before them and the sheriff or coroner of that county, and that they should compel them to grant sufficient power to Nicholas and William both to agree and to treat and advise; and that having done so they should inform the K. in chancery, as appears more fully in the letters annexed to these presents. It appears from the return to those letters in a certain schedule [p. 455] stitched to the same letters. And because the magnates and commons persisted in their dissension and dispute, lest the K.’s business should be delayed any further in this part because of singular dissension or dispute of this kind, both letters and writs and the returns of the same, should be sent before the K. in Eng., by advise of the governor and council.”
[(ii) The sheriff of LOUTH]
A similar writ of the same date was addressed the sheriff of Louth, the return to which follows in these words:
“The magnates and commons of co. Louth convened in response to the K.’s writ and stated of their common assent with one voice that, according to the rights, privileges, liberties, laws and customs of the land of Ire., used from the time of the conquest of that land and before, they are not bound to elect nor to send anyone from that land to parliaments or councils held in Eng. to treat, advise and agree, as the writ requires; however, out of reverence for the K. of Eng. and on account of the most urgent necessity of the land of Ire., and the faithful people of the same, at present, saving to those commons the rights, privileges, liberties, laws and customs, they grant to Roger Gernon and Richard Verdon―elected by them to cross to Eng. to appear before the K. there―full power to treat, advise and agree upon the salvation, defence and good governance of the said land. They do not, however, grant power to Roger and Richard to grant any charges or subsidies to be imposed upon them at present, because of the poverty of that community and because of their great expenses which they sustain daily in finding men-at-arms, hobelars and foot-soldiers in defence of the marches of that county against the strong Irishmen, the Irish enemies and rebels of the K. of Eng.; and for that reason and others, which the said Roger and Richard shall declare before the K. and his council in Eng., they cannot answer otherwise at present.”
[(iii) The sheriff of KILDARE]
A similar writ of the same date was addressed the sheriff of Kildare, the return to which follows in these words:
“The magnates and commons of co. Kildare convened in response to the K.’s writ and stated of their common assent with one voice that, according to the rights, privileges, liberties, laws and customs of the land of Ire., used from the time of the conquest of that land and before, they are not bound to elect nor to send anyone from that land to parliaments or councils held in Eng. to treat, advise and agree, as the writ requires; however, out of reverence for the K. of Eng., and of their will and in fulfilment of their instructions and because of the most urgent necessity, for the ruin and scarcity of that land and the K.’s people of the same, [p. 456] to declare to the K. on this occasion, they grant power to John Rocheford and Peter Rowe―elected by them to treat, advise and agree with the K. upon the estate and governance of the same land, without granting them power to charge the magnates and commons. Such that, however, that grant or expense to the magnates and commons should not in future act to the prejudice of the rights, privileges, liberties, laws and customs, by which the magnates and commons from the time of the conquest of Ire. used and enjoyed unshaken and inviolably.”
[(iv) The sheriff of CARLOW]
A similar writ of the same date was addressed the sheriff of Carlow, the return to which follows in these words:
“In response to that writ, the sheriff convened before him at Carlow the commons of co. Carlow and read out to them all of the articles contained in the writ. The commons declared before the sheriff unanimously that they could not send any lay person before the K. and his council in Eng. before the Purification of BMV [16 Feb. 1375] at the costs of the county, as contained in that writ, to treat there upon those articles, because of their insufficiency and scarcity and also the frequent destructions, robberies and depredations that they have often sustained in the past and still daily sustain, perpetrated by the K.’s Irish enemies and rebels of that county who invade and destroy that county on all sides. Also the community declared before the sheriff upon their oath that only 14 carucates of land in that county are cultivated and tilled [culte et manuoperate] in the hands of the K.’s lieges, all reckoned. And that Geoffrey Valle and Philip Valle, knights, who were elected by the community of that county to appear in parliament held at Kilkenny before the K.’s governor of Ire., and others of his council there in the octaves of Michaelmas last [6 Oct. 1375], [declared this] before […] the governor, Nicholas Dagworth kt […]”.
[(v) The sheriff of WATERFORD]
A similar writ of the same date was addressed the sheriff of Waterford, the return to which follows in these words:
“Richard Butler and David Cogan were elected by common assent of co. Waterford to be before the K. and his council in Eng. [p. 457] on the date specified in that writ to do as required by the writ; saving the liberties, rights and laws and […] customs […] of the land of Ire.”
[(vi) The sheriff of WEXFORD]
A similar writ of the same date was addressed the sheriff of Wexford, the return to which follows in these words:
“The names of the two persons elected by the magnates and commons of co. Wexford, because of his writ, to do as required in that writ, are as follows, viz.: Richard Whittey and William St John clk.”
[(vii) The sheriff of LIMERICK]
A similar writ of the same date was addressed the sheriff of Limerick, the return to which follows in these words:
“Henry Bercley and Thomas Kildare were elected by the magnates and commons of co. Limerick to cross to the K. in Eng. and his council there to treat, advise and agree upon certain business concerning the estate and governance of the K.’s land of Ire., as the writ requires.”
[(viii) The sheriff of CORK]
A similar writ of the same date was addressed the sheriff of Cork, the return to which follows in these words:
“Richard Wynchedon and Philip s. of Robert White were elected by the magnates and commons of co. Cork to do and agree for them in Eng., at their costs, as the writ requires.”
[(ix) The seneschal etc. of MEATH]
A similar writ of the same date was addressed the seneschal of the liberty of Meath and the sheriff of the crosslands there, the return to which follows in these words:
“The names of the two lay persons elected by the community of the liberty of Meath are William London kt and Richard Plunket to appear before the K. and his council in Eng., on the date specified in the writ, wherever they may be in Eng., having full power to treat and advise with the K. there to inform the K. upon the state and governance of his land of Ire., without any power granted by the community of that liberty [p. 458] to those two persons to impose any charges upon them in future, on account of divisions which shall be declared by those persons there.”
[(x) The seneschal etc. of KILKENNY]
A similar writ of the same date was addressed the seneschal of the liberty of Kilkenny, the return to which follows in these words:
“Alexander [Balscot], bp Ossory, and Geoffrey Forstall were elected by the seneschal of the liberty of Kilkenny and the sheriff of the crosslands there, and the magnates and commons of the same county, to appear on behalf of them before the K. and his council, wherever they may be in Eng., on the date specified in the writ, to treat and advise concerning the business touching the land of Ire. and that county; saving the liberties and free customs of the land of Ire. and the said county; always such that Alexander and Geoffrey, and neither of them, should on no account have power to grant to be imposed upon the seneschal, sheriff, magnates or commons.
And afterwards because the magnates and commons did not give those elected persons power to agree, as the K.’s writ required, and also because two lay persons and not any ecclesiastical persons ought to be elected to cross to the parts of Eng., for those magnates and commons, according to the mandate and will of the K., by advice of the governor and keeper of the land of Ire., and the council there, by the K.’s writ, the seneschal and sheriff was instructed to enjoin the magnates and commons on the K.’s behalf that they were to elect of their common assent one lay persons in the place of that bishop, having sufficient power, together with that Geoffrey, both to agree and treat and advise, as aforesaid.”
And the tenor of the return of that writ is as follows:
“Walter s. of William Coterell of Kells was elected in the place of Alexander [Balscot], bp Ossory, together with Geoffrey Forstall, by the seneschal of the liberty of Kilkenny and the sheriff of the crosslands there, and the magnates and commons of the same county, to appear on behalf of the same before the K. and his council on the date specified in that writ, wherever they may be in Eng., to treat, advise and agree concerning business touching the land of Ire. and that county; saving the liberties and free customs of the land and the said county. Neither Walter nor [p. 459] Geoffrey, nor either of them, should on any account have power to agree to any charges to be imposed upon the magnates and commons or received in any manner.”
[(xi) The seneschal etc. of TIPPERARY]
A similar writ of the same date was addressed the seneschal of the liberty of Tipperary and the sheriff of the crosslands there, the return to which follows in these words:
“William Newbury and William Yong were elected by common assent both of the liberty and the crosslands [of Tipperary] to be before the K. and his council in Eng. on the date specified in the writ to do as the writ requires; saving the liberties, rights and laws and free customs of the land of Ire.”
[(xii) The seneschal etc. of KERRY]
A similar writ of the same date was addressed the seneschal of the liberty of Kerry and the sheriff of the crosslands there, the return to which follows in these words:
“Gilbert s. of Walter and Thomas fitz Danielle of Rath [del Rath], lay persons, were elected by the magnates and commons of co. Kerry, both for the liberty and for the crosslands, to appear before the K.’s council in Eng. in the quindene of BMV next [16 Feb. 1376] to treat, advise and agree, as the writ requires.”
[3. MAYORS, PROVOSTS AND SOVEREIGNS]
[(i) The city of DUBLIN]
“WRIT addressed to the mayor and bailiffs of the K.’s city of Dublin.
Attested by William Windsor, governor and keeper of Ire., at Kilkenny, 25 Oct. [1375] 49 Edw. III.”4
The return to that writ follows in these words:
“Having convened the citizens and commons of the K.’s city of Dublin because of that writ, the same citizens and commons, of their common assent, declared in one voice that they were not bound by the rights, privileges, liberties, laws and customs of the land of Ire., used from the time of the conquest of the same, that they were not bound to send anyone from that land to parliaments or councils held in Eng., nor to treat, advise and agree with the K. in Eng., as this writ requires; but out of reverence for the K. and of their will, and in fulfilment of their mandates, and because of the urgent necessity for the ruin and scarcity of that land, and the faithful people of the same, to declare to the K., they granted on this occasion to John [p. 460] Blackboyn and John White, citizens of that city, elected for that city, power to treat, advise and agree with the K. and his council in Eng. upon the state and governance of his same town of Ire.; the power of John and John being reserved in the case of any charges granted to the K. on behalf of the citizens and commons. Such, however, that the grant or expense should not act to the prejudice of the rights, privileges, liberties, laws and customs which the magnates and commons of Ire. and the citizens and commons of that city, have used and enjoyed from the time of the conquest of Ire. unshaken.”
[(ii) DROGHEDA]
A similar writ of the same date was addressed the mayor, seneschal and bailiffs of the K.’s town of Drogheda on both sides of the water, the return to which follows in these words:
“Having convened the burgesses and commons of the town of Drogheda on either side of the water, because of that writ, they made a similar grant [as above] to William White and Nicholas Starkey, who were elected for that town to treat [etc.].”
[(iii) The city of WATERFORD]
A similar writ of the same date was addressed the mayor and bailiffs of the K.’s city of Waterford, the return to which follows in these words:
“Having convened the citizens and commons of the K.’s city of Waterford, the mayor and bailiffs answer of their common assent and counsel that they are not bound according to the liberties, privileges, rights, laws and customs of the said city, nor the land of Ire., to elect or send anyone of that city to parliaments or councils held in Eng.; however, out of reverence for the K., and the urgent necessity threatening the land of Ire. at present, saving to the mayor [etc.] to the magnates and commons their rights, privileges, liberties, laws and customs, they granted to William Chaundhull and Geoffrey Forstals, elected by them to proceed to Eng. to appear before the K. there, full power to treat, advise and agree upon the salvation and defence of that land. They do not, however, grant to those messengers or elected persons power to grant any charges [p. 461] or subsidies upon the citizens or commons of that city, because of their poverty, and also their costs and expenses which are levied from the commons of the city almost daily, as well as other costs and expenses which must of necessity be incurred upon the defence of that city.’
[(iv) The city of LIMERICK]
A similar writ of the same date was addressed the mayor and bailiffs of the city of Limerick, the return to which follows in these words:
“These are the names of the two persons elected, with sufficient power for themselves and for the citizens and commons of the city of Limerick, to treat, advise and agree with the K. before the Purification of BMV next, wherever they may be in Eng., as that writ requires, viz. Henry Bercley and Thomas Kildare.”
[(v) The city of CORK]
A similar writ of the same date was addressed the mayor and bailiffs of the K.’s city of Cork, the return to which follows in these words:
“William Dalton and John Droupe were elected to appear before the K. and his council in Eng., to treat, advise and agree, as the writ requires.”
[(vi) The town of KILKENNY]
A similar writ of the same date was addressed the sovereign and provost of the town of Kilkenny, the return to which follows in these words:
“Robert Flode and John Ledred were elected by the sovereign, provosts and burgesses of the town of Kilkenny to cross to the K. in Eng. and to appear before the K. and his council there on the date specified in this writ, to do as the writ requires; saving the liberties and free customs of the land of Ire., and of that town.”
[(vii) The town of NEW ROSS]
[p. 462] A similar writ of the same date was addressed the sovereign and bailiffs of the town of New Ross, the return to which follows in these words:
“William Rykyll and William Seymor are the two elected to answer for the town of New Ross, as the writ requires.”
[(viii) The town of WEXFORD]
A similar writ of the same date was addressed the sovereign and bailiffs of the town of Wexford, the return to which follows in these words:
“James Freynsh and Laurence Bron, burgesses of the town of Wexford, were elected by the sovereign, bailiffs and community of the town of Wexford: James and Laurence have power to treat, advise and ordain both for themselves and for the commons of that county and to appear before the k. and his council in Eng., wherever it might be, before the quindene of the Purification of the Blessed Mary [16 Feb. 1376], as the writ requires.”
[(ix) The town of YOUGHAL]
A similar writ of the same date was addressed the sovereign and bailiffs of the town of Youghal, the return to which follows in these words:
“By virtue of this mandate, the sovereign and bailiffs caused Bernard Baret and Richard Cristofre to be elected, having full power for themselves and the community of the town of Youghal, to treat, advise and agree before the K. and his most discreet council in Eng., according to the form and tenor of this mandate.” ’
And because it seemed to the governor and keeper, and the council of Ire., that it would be more authoritative to send this matter to the K. and his council in Eng. under the g.s. of Ire. rather than in any other way, by advice and ordinance of the governor and keeper, and the K.’s council of Ire., the g.s. of Ire. was affixed to these presents in testimony of the premises.
