The Angevin Empire and the Community of the Realm in England

1. Simon de Montfort\u27s Administration in Gascony, 1248-1252 ---- 1 Part 1 Barons\u27 Community of the Realm in England2. Magna Carta and the Community of the Realm, 1215-1258 ---- 353. The Community of the Realm in England, 1258-1260 ---- 574. The Community of the Realm and the Baronial Reform Movement. 1258-1265 ---- 96 Part 2 Performance of the Reformist Barons\u27 Government5. Custos Pacis and Henry Ill\u27s patronage policy towards the gentry in 1264 ---- 1336. Household accounts of the countess of Leicester, 1265 ---- 162 Part 3 Discord, Reconciliation and Authority for Jurors in local society7. The Hundred Jurors in Cambridgeshire in the 1260s ---- 1898. The Barons\u27 War and the Hundred Jurors in Cambridgeshire ---- 2159. The Hundred Jurors in Cambridgeshire in the 1260s: the case of Armingford Hundred ---- 23610. The Hundred Jurors in Cambridgeshire in the 1260s: the case of Thriplow Hundred ---- 25

The Return case in the context of European mercantilism

In 1673 Return, English East India Company\u27s ship despatched to Taiwan and Japan in 1671, entered in the port of Nagasaki, Japan, and asked to reopen the trade relation between Japan and England. Its arrival had been informed to the Tokugawa Shogunate beforehand by Holland East India Company, VOC, when the ship sailed out from Taiwan. The ship was immediately restrained by Nagasaki governor, who questioned the captain many times making reference to Edo Shogunate frequently. Finally the ship was ordered to leave Japan without any permission of trade. So far many Japanese historians published articles concerning this event in the context of various issues, such as Christian prohibition policy of Tokugawa Shogunate, National segregation policy of Japan, Coast Guard system of Nagasaki governor and so on. But why did the English government resume asking the Japanese government to re-establish trade relationship in 1670s, which had been closed since 1623? What had happened in the relation of two countries after fifty years of no correspondence? VOC had established good trade and political relationship with Tokugawa Shogunate before the English Government began to reconsider the reopening of the trade. In Europe England and Holland had wars three times, in 1652-54, 1665-67, and 1672-74. In Asia the two countries were in competition each other in Java, Moluccas, and Japan not politically but in trade. What did the English Company plan to form the trade relation by sending Return to Japan in the context of international mercantilism? This paper will investigate the Court Minute of the company and put a new light on the policy change of trade goods from woolen or worsted of England to calico of India

1253年グロステストのGravamina

本稿は科学研究費補助金基盤研究(C)課題番号18K01053による研究成果の一部である

The Return case seen through the documents of Taiwan Factory of English East India Company

After a visit of Return, a trade ship of English East India Company, to Japan in 1673 to re-open trade with Japan, was refused by Tokugawa Shogunate, the Company continued to try to sell English wool to Japan and Taiwan through various routes. A factory was established in Taiwan and asked the king of Taiwan to carry English wool to Japan. But Taiwan merchants refused to accept the company\u27s request saying that Japanese merchants might dislike buying English wool. Dutch East India Company may buy English woollen cloths in Bantam or in Batavia from English Company and bring them to Amoy and Nagasaki. English Company\u27s documents in British Library reveal English woollen cloths were not well bought in Amoy, and loaded them in a returning ship to Surat, India, via Taiwan. Ching dynasty prohibited the merchants of coastal area to trade freely with foreign merchants till Ching\u27s army did overcome the rule of the family of Cheng Ch\u27eng-kung, \u27Coxinga\u27, Taiwan king, in 1682. Then, in 1684, the government changed trade policy and let foreign traders have contact with Chinese ones under the strict regulation of Ching Government in Canton. But in Japan the strict trade regulation of European goods still existed after 1673. Only little amount of woollen cloths was permitted to be bought by Japanese wealthy people.After 1684 Chinese adventurers into South East Asia increased their number and settled in various plantations there. Pirates in East Chine Sea became regulated by coastal guards of Ching dynasty, less smuggling prevailed since then. The Dutch and English East India Company tried to get copper from logistics between Asian nations. But triangle trade system by European companies did have a hard time to manage through in the last decade of the seventeenth century

Court Rolls of Swafham Priory Manor of Ely, kept in Cambridge University Library

Ely Diocesan Records were deposited in Cambridge University Library in 1962, and the archives of the Dean and Chapter of Ely were deposited in the same Library in 1970. Medieval Documents of them were studied, classified and catalogued by many scholars, including James Bentham, E.O. Brake, and Dorothy Owen. Edward Miller analysed the medieval liberty of the Bishops and Priors of Ely intensively, using those documents and many other manuscripts in the British Library, the Bodleian Library and the Public Record Office. He stressed that the bishops and priors held a higher degree of liberties, especially in the field of jurisdictional privilege or advantage, as compared with contemporary lay magnates. He explained that the range of the liberty of Ely was as comprehensive as to include the right to judge criminal cases, from murder and violence to misdemeanour. According to Miller\u27s conclusion, however, even such a highly privileged liberty was a grant from the king, and the rule of justice kept in the liberty was the same common law as that of the Realm of England. The king and the bishops were supposed to be in good partnership concerning the administration and jurisdiction of the whole of the Realm. Mistrial in the Bishop\u27s or Prior\u27s court was redressed in the King\u27s court. The Latter\u27s authority comprehends all the jurisdiction of lesser courts. Bishop\u27s liberty was not regarded as an exception. However, scholars who read of the King\u27s eyre rolls in the thirteenth century easily find not a few examples of bishop\u27s decisive authority in jurisdiction in his liberty. Kings\u27 justice seldom contradicted the decision of the bishop\u27s court. The Hundred jury, comprised by local landholders, made indictment and presentment to the eyre justices, and sometimes gave verdicts to them. In almost all the cases, the justices gave judgement in accordance with the jurors\u27 verdicts. Is it right to say that the king\u27s jurisdictional authority kept complete hold of all the crimes or criminals in local society? In the paper, I pick up some examples of typical and non-typical criminal cases in the court rolls of Swafham Prior manor of Priory of Ely in the 13th century, and reconsider how comprehensive the liberty of Ely was

English Manuscripts in British Library on the Case of Return and Japan Diary, 1673

The Return, the ship sent to Taiwan and Japan by English East India Company, arrived in Nagasaki asking for re-opening the Anglo-Japanese trade in 1673. The Tokugawa shogunate after two month consideration refused the captain to re-open the trade. That English King, Charles II, married with a Portuguese princess, Catherine, seems to have been regarded as the main reason of the refusal, because before the arrival of Return the Dutch Company informed the Shogunate of the king\u27s marriage with a Catholic lady. Detailed investigation of the Documents in British Library and the Public Record Office in London has revealed that such an interpretation was not correct. After leaving Nagasaki Return stopped at a Taiwan port where English Factory of the Company was established by the agreement between the king of Taiwan and the court of the Company. The court of the company and English King tried to sell English-made woolen manufactures to Japan and get silver as much as possible. They misunderstood the demand of the Japanese market, and English woolen goods did not sell well anywhere in Eastern Asia. In 1680 the court gave up the trade in Taiwan and closed the factory there. The company failed in establishing factory in Mainland China. The Qing Dynasty of China introduced a new trade controlling system, Kaikan 海関 in Guangdong 広東 after Taiwan king surrendered to the Dynasty in 1680s. The English company seems to have been forced to adjust to the new system. The exchange of Chinese tea with silver brought from Europe began. The Japanese market had been closed to European merchants except the Dutch by then

A Reflection of Simon de Montfort\u27s Parliament of 1265

The commemorative publication Seventh Century of Simon de Montfort\u27s Parliament includes a passage that reads as follows: \u27on this occasion he introduced into its composition the additional representative element, which was subsequently to earn him the title of Father of the House of Commons\u27. This excerpt suggests that Simon de Montfort\u27s parliament of 1265 might be the origin of the House of Commons. On 4 June 1264, four knights from each shire were summoned to meet with prelates and magnates at the parliament in London on 22 June. The ordinance, made during the parliamentary sitting, was referred to as Forma Regiminis, and established a device to control the central administration. Three faithful electors were to be chosen, and these three were to nominate a council of nine, three of whom were to be constantly in court and advise the king in matters of government. Professor R.F. Treharne once emphasized the presence of knights in the parliament. His conclusion depends on the first phrase of the ordinance:\u27This is the form of peace commonly agreed upon and approved by the lord king and the Lord Edward his son, by the prelates and all the great men and the community of the whole realm of England.\u27 He interpreted \u27the community of the whole realm of England\u27 as the community of knights. But the word \u27knights\u27 does not appear in the ordinance. Did knights summoned there participate in the debate and the institution of the ordinance? The most significant provision made in this ordinance is the appointment of the three executive electors who shall have authority and power from the lord king to choose and nominate nine councilor on behalf of the lord king. In this regards the ordinance orders the following: \u27if it shall seem necessary to the community of the prelates and barons that anyone shall be put forward and substitute in the place of any of the three first electors, the lord king, by the counsel of the prelates and barons, shall substitute others for them\u27. Subject to this stipulation, knights did not participate in the decision-making process with regards to the ordinance. They were merely \u27present at that time\u27 there. At the end of December 1265 two knights from each county and two burgesses from some boroughs, together with four barons of Cinque Ports, were summoned to Simon de Montfort\u27s parliament of January 1265. Was this parliament the House of Commons in Embryo? According to the wording of the writ of summon two main issues were discussed during the parliament\u27s meeting. The first was confirmation of Forma Regiminis made in the parliament of June 1264. The second issue was a settlement of release problems of the imprisoned Lord Edward, who had been given as a hostage to secure peace of the realm. The London Chronicler states that the parliament was informed on 14 February that King Henry III and the Lord Edward had promised that they were willing to observe the Charters of Liberties and Forma Regiminis of June 1264. The writ of 15 February to sheriff of Yorkshire indicates that the assembly of parliament lasted until the middle of February. The knights then left London for their counties. But prelates and magnates remain in London and the parliament continued to decide the details of release conditions of Lord Edward. On 8 March the king sent letters to each county informing that the Forma Regiminis was ratified, together with a statement that the king had pardoned enemies. The letter also assured the counties that the Lord Edward would not attack the Monfortians. The king\u27s letter reads as follows: \u27it is by agreement provided for the peace of the realm, that a certain ordinance made at London in June in the 48th year of our reign with the unanimous assent of ourselves, the prelates, earls and barons concerning our state and that of our realm should be observed unviolently\u27. Judging from the phrases of the letter Forma Regiminis was enacted and ratified only by the king, prelates and barons. Knights were not qualified for decision-making in the parliament. In June 1265 Simon de Montfort planned to hold another sitting of parliament at Winchester. None of knights or burgesses was named in the writ of summons, which suggests that they were not summoned to Simon’s parliament of 1265 as members of Parliament, but as observers or bystanders. De Montfort\u27s parliament was not the House of Commons in Embryo