Statutes & Royal Ordinances, Edward II

This is a work in progress

Edward II

Brief History: Reign 1307 – 1327

Married Isabella, from the French Royal Family. The marriage would soon turn sour to the point that Isabella would plot and bring about Edward’s deposition.

The major conflict of his reign was against the Scots led by Robert Bruce where the English army suffered a series of reversals leading up to a decisive victory by the Scots in 1314.

Edward II was most probably gay. This, some say, is what lead to his falling out with Isabella. However, more importantly this lead to a series of “favorites” in his court, most prominently Piers Graveston, whose ascending power disturbed the feudal balance of powers in the court and became the flashpoint which lead to the far-reaching Ordinances of 1311, and the death of Gravestone. Later on, Hugh the Despenser became extremely powerful (and by some accounts, the de facto ruler of England) which lead to a increasingly conflict ridden end of the reign till the king was deposed in 1327. However, the Despenser period saw a massive shift in the Constitutional balance towards the king from the barons, culminating in the Statute of York in 1322.

There were different ways in which Kings would extricate themselves from the promises made. Edward I, for example, did so through absolution through a Papal Bull. Edward II though took a novel approach, and argued against the 1311 ordinances on the basis of the relationship of the Sovereign to the law. He especially argued that the Ordinances, and the limits the sought to impose on him, were violative his Coronation Oath (given below), especially the first and the fourth precepts. [Anthony Musson, Medieval Law in Context, Mancheter University Press, Manchester, at 239-240.]

CORONATION OATH (1308)

"_Sire, will you grant and keep and by your oath confirm to the people of England the laws and customs given to them by the previous just and god-fearing kings, your ancestors_, and especially the laws, customs, and liberties granted to the clergy and people by the glorious king, the sainted Edward, your predecessor?" "I grant and promise them."

"Sire, will you in all your judgments, so far as in you lies, preserve to God and Holy Church, and to the people and clergy, entire peace and concord before God?" "I will preserve them."

"Sire, will you, so far as in you lies, cause justice to be rendered rightly, impartially, and wisely, in compassion and in truth?" "I will do so."

"_Sire, do you grant to be held and observed the just laws and customs that the community of your realm shall determine, and will you, so far as in you lies, defend and strengthen them to the honour of God_?" "I grant and promise them." [Emphasis Added]

STATUTE OF YORK (1322)

In 1322, soon after Edward II won his political and military victory over the Baronial opposition, he convened the Parliament at York to pass the Statute of York to repeal the Ordinances of 1311 and reestablish the absolute superiority of the Monarchy. The relevant portions of the statute read:

Whereas our lord King Edward, son of King Edward, on March 16, in the third year of his reign, granted to the prelates, earls, and barons of his realm ... ;[1] and whereas the archbishop of Canterbury, primate of all England, and the bishops, earls, and barons chosen for the purpose, drew up certain ordinances that begin as follows ... , which ordinances our said lord the king caused to be rehearsed and examined in his parliament at York three weeks after Easter in the fifteenth year of his reign ...; and whereas, through that examination in the said parliament, it was found that by the ordinances thus decreed the royal power of our said lord the king was wrongfully limited in many respects, to the injury of his royal lordship and contrary to the estate of the crown; and whereas, furthermore, through such ordinances and provisions made by subjects in times past against the royal authority of our lord the king's ancestors, the kingdom has incurred troubles and wars, whereby the land has been imperilled: [therefore] it is agreed and established at the said parliament by our lord the king, by the said prelates, earls, and barons, and by the whole community of the realm assembled in this parliament, that everything ordained by the said Ordainers and contained in the said ordinances shall henceforth and forever cease [to be valid], losing for the future all title, force, virtue, and effect; and that the statutes and establishments duly made by our lord the king and his ancestors prior to the said ordinances shall remain in force. And [it is decreed] that henceforth and forever at all times every kind of ordinance or provision made under any authority or commission whatsoever by subjects of our lord the king or of his heirs against the royal power of our lord the king or of his heirs, or contrary to the estate of the crown, shall be null and shall have no validity or force whatever; but that matters which are to be determined with regard to the estate of our lord the king and of his heirs, or with regard to the estate of the kingdom and of the people, shall be considered, granted, and established in parliament by our lord the king and with the consent of the prelates, earls, and barons, and of the community of the kingdom, as has been accustomed in times past. [Emphasis Added]

The statute became, in time, one of the most important in the history of English constitutional law. Of great importance, and which got a lot of attention from the future scholars, was the term “and the commonality of the realm” at the end of the statute. This was often viewed by future scholars as a recognition of Parliamentary supremacy, and a constitutional recognition of the role of the “commonality” (or commons) who till that point had little substantive role in the process of law making. To understand the significance of the Statute of York in English constitutional history (especially the aspect of legislative power) one must look at the role of the Parliament in the conflict between Edward II and the Barons.

The Barons did mention the Parliament several times in the Ordinances of 1311. However, they did not foresee any role for the commonality in it, neither did they seek the co-operation of the commonality in drafting the ordinances or in their battle against the King. The role that the Barons sought for the Parliament was as a meeting place for the Magnates who could effectively act as a check on King’s power. They did not envisage the parliament to be an effective centre of power, especially legislatively. The focus of the Baron’s challenge, and what they were really concerned with was administrative power. And the way they sought to use the parliament is either as a judicial body (to check king’s decision) or as a body which gives consent to all the important administrative postings. Ordinance 29, through which the Magnates in Parliament were to hear pleas delayed in the Royal Court, or against Royal ministers was an example of the former. Ordinance 14, which stipulated that the ‘counsel and assent of the Baronage and that in Parliament” was required for any significant royal appointment was an example of the latter. In neither of these functions did the commonality have any role to play. Their role was limited to assenting to laws, granting money and petitioning for new laws – all alongside the rest of the Parliament, and mostly just formal in nature. Eitherways, the Barons were not so concerned about the legislative aspect of the power, their focus was on controlling the administration of the realm.

In this context the abovementioned phrase in the statute can be seen as a major concession to the commonalities. While such concessions have been made by Kings earlier from time to time for strategic purposes (including Edward’s father Edward I), this statute gave it permanency, and as would be argued by future historians and politicians, a constitutional validity to the right of the community to be consulted on fundamental matters which clearly concerned it..

However, it would not be in any ways correct to surmise from this that the intention of Edward II and his advisers who drafted the Statute was to establish the Parliament as a centre democratic power. The commonality was only a bit part of the drama. The express intention of the statute was to secure royal supremacy, as the rest of the statute makes it amply clear. Moreover, what Edwards was specifically concerned about is having unchecked and unfettered power over matters concerning his own person, estate, family and heirs. In the fractured Feudal nature of the British realm, this was of the central concern to him. The concession to the commons on the other hand was made regarding the “estate of the realm”. Here, it was not seen as threatening to his immediate concerns to atleast acknowledge the principle that matters concerning all must be approved by all. In anycase, it is likely that he saw the commonality as playing a merely formal role as they ad used to and not emerging as a alternate centre of power, like the Barons, who were the more immediate enemies.

Neither was he proven wrong in his belief in his lifetime. Only when the social and economic conditions of the country changed, and democracy and republicanism became serious political issues, did these words get a new life. As one can say, it is not the words of law that make the world, but the world which makes the words of law what they are. However, this is a great example of how words gain whole new significance, and a political life of their own when the circumstances change. Especially in the hands of the Whig lawyers, these words served as one of the main constitutional arguments against absolute royal power and at the heart of the claim that all important legislation needed co-operation of the commons in a full parliament.

More importantly, this also signified the shift of power from Ordinances to Statutes. From Edwrad II’s reign, though not by his express design, Ordinances would signify an administrative decree, while statutes, like that of York, would signify a more fundamental legislative act. The hierarchy of the two, and their jurisdictional separation, so to speak, as we are used to today, can be traced back to Edward II’s fight for power with the Barons.

The Rise and Progress of the English Constitution By Edward Shepherd Creasy

The Law and Custom of the Constitution By William Reynell Anson, Arthur Berriedale Keith
The Law and Custom of the Constitution By William Reynell Anson, Arthur Berriedale Keith

The Law and Custom of the Constitution By William Reynell Anson, Arthur Berriedale Keith

The Law and Custom of the Constitution By William Reynell Anson, Arthur Berriedale Keith

The King and the Law

“Sic voluntas hodie vincit rationem. Nam quicquid regi placuerit, quamvis ratione careat, legis habet vigorem” [Thus today will overcome reason. For whatever pleases the king, although lacking reason, has the force of law]. Vita Edwardi Secondi.

To get a better idea of the nature of Royal power especially with relation to the laws (especially statutes) it is instructive to look at some of the contemporary judicial decisions which dealt with that question.

The king being the fount of all justice, was also a judicial authority. It seems that Edward II personally did involve himself in the judicial decision making process if the matter had enough at stake for him to be involved. La Warre v. Bishop of Coventry (attached) mentions adjournment for further royal deliberation.

So does King v. The Prior of the Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem (attached).

However, sometime the King would intervene to instruct the courts to act in a way that would be expressly violative of a statute, and that did not go without protest. In Scoland v. Grandison [Attached] the counsel for the defendant, says that his client need not answer to the writ since it was presented in violation of the procedure laid (not on the day provided for) by statute. The judge note that they were under direct order from the King to allow the writ. The interesting (and relevant for our purpose) exchange happens on page 175-76, where to the Counsel’s contention that the statute in question was made by the “common counsel of the Realm”, and therefore should not be overridden by a simple directive of the king. However, the judges responded that the king’s command was at par with “common counsel” What also came up was the fact that such a view is in clear violation of the Ordinances, which were still fresh (the case was sometime in the years 1313-1314)

Similarly, in the case of Horneby v. Abbot of Croyland the question came up whether certain actions were in violation of the Magna Carta. The response of the judges was that since they were acting in King’s stead, the have to give weight to the king’s wishes (which were conveyed through a letter) even if it goes against the principles of Magna Carta. [Attached]