In Henry VII`s first parliament after the Battle of Stoke, in 1487, several attainders were passed against the rebels involved. Francis, who had already been attainted in Henry VII`s first parliament in 1485, after refusing to accept the pardon Henry VII offered to him and accepting him as king, was not subject of another attainder. Presumably this was because there was no legal, or other, reason for this. Francis was already declared a traitor, all his possessions forfeit, and repeating the act would have served no practical purpose.
However, despite this, in another parliament in December 1495, a second attainder against Francis was passed. There is no certainty as to why; the first one had never been overturned. It has been speculated that this was to affirm the crown`s right to all his possessions and prevent his nephews from trying to claim some by right of inheritance, or that it was a demonstration of the consequences of treason in the light of the then-current Perkin Warbeck affair. It is not possible to say for certain, but the second attainder went through parliament without problems. Its text, put into modern English, was as follows:
****
"For as much as John, late Earl of Lincoln, Francis Lovell late Lord Lovell, and diverse others with them, traitorously imagining and compassing the death and destruction of our sovereign lord the king, assembled them, with other evil-disposed people, to the number of 5000 persons at Stoke, in the county of Nottingham, the 20th day of June [sic] [1], in the second year of the reign of our said sovereign lord the king that now is, and then and there, for the performance of their cursed, mischievous and wretched purpose, in plain field, at the same Stoke, in the said county, with their banners displayed, contrary to their allegiance [2], against the king, our and their natural sovereign lord, levied and reared war, and made battle against him, for which traitorous and unnatural deed the said John Earl of Lincoln, with diverse others then and there traitorously offending, were late, by authority of Parliament, in a Parliament holden at Westminster in the third year of the reign of the king, our sovereign lord that now is, deemed convicted and attainted of high treason, in which act of attainder the said Francis Lovell was ignorantly left out and omitted, to the most perilous example of others, being of such traitorous mind:
Wherefore be it ordained, enacted and established by the Lord Spiritual and Temporal and the Commons in this present parliament assembled, that the said Francis stand and be deemed, adjudged, convicted and attainted of high treason for his rehearsed traitorous deed, and forfeit to the king our sovereign lord all honours, castles, manners, lordships, hundreds, franchises, liberties, privileges, advowsons, nominations, presentations, knight`s fees, lands, tenements, lands, services, reversions, remainders, portions, annuities, pensions, rights, possessions and other hereditaments [3] in England, Wales, Calais, or marches of the same, whereof he, or any other person or persons to his use, were seized of estate of inheritance the 20th of June, the second year of the reign of the king our sovereign lord, or into the which he or any of them had lawful cause of entry the said 20th of June, or any time after, and all other honours, castles, manors, lordships, etc, as above, that the said Francis or his heirs [4] should or might have grown, descended, remained, or reverted, after and by the death of any of his ancestors [5], as if he had not done nor committed the said heinous treason, and that the said Francis and his heirs were in plain life, when the said descent, remainder or revertory shall move, fall, or grow, and to them or any of them should or might have done, if this present act against him had never been had nor made, saving to every person or persons and their heirs, other than the said Francis and his heirs, and such other person or persons and their heirs, that had any thing in the premises to the use of the said Francis and his heirs, and such persons to whom any of the premises should descend, remain or revert, such right, title, claim, action, entry or interest in, of and upn the premises and every part thereof, as they had, should, or might have had, if this act had never been had nor made.
Provided always, that all letters patent, made by the king`s highness to any person or persons of the premises or any part thereof, or of any annuity or office granted by this letters patent to any person or persons out of the same, that now be in strength and force, or that was in strength and force the twelfth of October last past, stand and be good and effectual in the law, after the tenors and purports of this same, this present act in any wise notwithstanding.
Provided also, that by this act the king has no such right and title of any of the premises, that be or hereafter shall descend, remain or revert from any ancestor or cousin of the said Francis, which right and title be or shall be in the said ancestor only in [?] time of his or their decease, whereof their entries, at the time of the same disease, shall be tolled and taken away, by the course of law of this land.
Be it ordered by the said authority, that every of the king`s liege people, their successors, heirs and assigns, have and enjoy all manner of rents due and of rights to them, their ancestors or predecessors belonging, before making of this act, of any of the premises, during the time that the same premises remain and abide in the possession of our said sovereign lord or his heirs, and if any of the premises hereafter be granted by the king or any of his heirs [6], by letters patent, or that it be granted by act of parliament or otherwise, to any person or persons for term of life, in fee simple or in fee tail, that then those persons so seized, hold the same manors, lands and tenements, or other premises, were or should have been holden and charged with, and that they may distrain for the same rents and services, and have all other lawful remedy for recovery or non-payment or non-doing of the same, as they or any of them might have had, before the making of this present act, homage of tennants for term of life only except.
Provided always, [7] that this act of attainder, nor any act or acts made or hereafter to be made in this present parliament extend not, nor be in no wise prejudical nor hurtful to Anne Viscountess Lovell, late wife of the said Francis late Viscount Lovell, to or for any estate made of any of the premises to the said late viscount and the said Anne, nor to any other person or persons to or for any estate made of any of the premises by the said late viscount or any other to the use of the said Anne [8]; but that the same Anne, or such other person or persons to whom any such estate or estates has been made of, as they should have done had this act, or any other act in this present Parliament, had never been had nor made."
(Text in the original spelling and language found here.)
****
[1] The Battle of Stoke actually took place on the 16th of June 1487, not the 20th. This mistake is repeated throughout the whole attainder.
[2] For Francis, this part of the charge was technically incorrect, for unlike John de la Pole, he had never sworn allegiance to Henry or in any other way accepted him as his king.
[3] Inheritances.
[4] Francis`s heirs were his his sisters` sons: Brian Stapleton, George Stapleton, John Norris and Henry Norris.
[5] The only "ancestor" Francis could still have inherited anything from at this time was his uncle William Beaumont, 2nd Viscount Beaumont.
[6] This is phrase somewhat misleading, suggesting at the time of the act being passed, all of Francis`s former possessions were under control of the crown. This is due to the fact that it is a second attainder. Had it been Francis`s first, all his lands would have technically only fallen to the crown with it being passed, and could therefore only legally be granted to others afterwards. The wording of the act reflects this. Since Francis had been attainded for ten years by this point already, the crown had already granted plenty of his possessions to others.
[7] This part protecting Anne Lovell`s right was appended to the act.
[8] This is incorrect; Anne did not get any of the manors Francis had made provisions for her to have. This was a sadly normal reality for widows of attainted traitors. The bit protecting her rights was largely symbolic, showing that her husband`s treason did not reflect on her and she was not seen as guilty by association.
No comments:
Post a Comment