Written by Diana Wallis, research associate at the University of York’s Centre for Medieval Studies, this is the second of two guest blogs focused on the archive of the Company of Merchant Adventurers of the City of York. You can also listen to the companion podcast.
As outlined in the previous blog, The 1478 Petition of the York Mercers, there are two copies of the King’s response to the petition held in the archive of the Merchant Adventurers of York – one contained in the general archive and the other is within the Merchant Adventurers’ cartulary.1 The text of both documents is the same. The response is dated November 1478; we of course know that the petition was submitted to the King’s chancellery in London at the latest in January 1478 by the York MP and merchant Robert Amyas. Neither copy of the response appears to be original, but rather a copy of the text. The cartulary version along with the wording of what would seem to have been the final version of the petition comes first in that collection, before the petition; the storing and retention of this response, along with other important legal documents would appear to indicate its likely value to the mercers.
What is of interest is the time span which elapsed before an answer was received. It looks as though the petition was prepared with a view to the meeting of the parliament in January and February 1478. This parliament was largely taken up with the trial of the king’s brother Clarence, therefore very few parliamentary petitions were actually dealt with, and the York mercers petition is certainly not mentioned in the parliamentary roll for the session. This should not lead us to the conclusion that they were not active in pursuing their quest, which ultimately seems to have been dealt with as a petition to king and council, answered under the privy seal from Westminster in the November.
Looking at the York Chamberlains’ Account Rolls for the period it becomes clear that York’s two MPs Robert Amyas and Miles Metcalfe were both paid by the city in connection with their parliamentary attendance, also specifically in relation to activities relating to ‘petitions’ in the plural.2 At the same time as the York mercers were concerned about John Pickering, the Mayor’s Council had an ongoing issue about fish garths. Fish garths were river or sea-shore enclosures designed to catch fish, particularly salmon, and are known to have been in existence on Yorkshire rivers from 1390s.3 Whilst there is no evidence of a petition relating to this subject, there is similar evidence of both the Council and the mercers drawing on the assistance of the same two local nobles Richard, Duke of Gloucester and Henry Percy, Earl of Northumberland and there seems to be an identical pattern in how both undertook their ‘lobbying’ of these likely King’s Council members. This is perhaps no surprise given that a number of the leading mercers such as Todd and Ferriby, Wrangwish and Tong were equally deeply involved in the Mayor’s Council at this time – indeed Ferriby was actually Mayor. These it will be recalled were the same personalities who were also involved in the 1468 petition.
Given that this was the first parliament which Edward IV had called in some years, it is also likely that there would have been some liaison and lobbying between the various Yorkshire attendees. Space does not permit to describe all the likely networks between the various MPs and the nobles but perhaps one noteworthy Yorkshire connection was Robert Stillington, Bishop of Bath and Wells, whose relative John Stillington was a legal adviser to the York Mayor’s Council. At this time Robert Stillington also held the office for the 1478 parliament as one of the ‘Triers of Petitions’ of whom there were 15 in total, including Richard, Duke of Gloucester. These might have provided useful connections. The parliament concluded towards the end of February although the petition was not answered until later in the year. It seems likely that this was the result of Edward’s presence in the county which is documented for September 1478. He was in Pontefract, and York’s civic authorities particularly Ferriby as mayor and others appeared to waylay him on the road with the result that he diverted with some of his attendants to visit at least the proximity of the city.4 Given the personalities involved in these activities it seems most likely that the outstanding merchants’ petition would have been raised with him, a theory supported by the timing of the response.
The nature of the response has been variously described as a ‘proclamation’ or ‘declaration’ by the king. Comparison with responses to petitions earlier in the century, for which records do exist, would seem to indicate that the format is fairly usual for response by the king under the privy seal. The wording of the response is fairly strong, whilst copying what was requested in the final petition it also goes slightly further in insisting that if Pickering does not improve his treatment of the northern merchants he should appear before the king and explain himself. This seems fairly forceful particularly as the response is directed to him personally. The saving of the response in the York Merchant Adventurer’s cartulary would seem to highlight both their satisfaction with a successful outcome and the resultant importance they attributed to the contents.
- CMAY/1/5/3/1/2 – Copy of King’s Proclamation 12 November 1478 & CMAY/3/1 – Cartulary 1420-1523, 176r and following. ↩︎
- Dobson, R. B. ed., York Chamberlains’ Account Rolls 1396-1500. The Surtees Society, 1980, p.163. ↩︎
- Fish-garth, https://yorkshiredictionary.york.ac.uk/words/fish-garth Yorkshire Historical Dictionary, Accessed 14th April 2026 ↩︎
- Lorraine Attreed. The York House Books 1461-1490, Volume 1,168 & Maud Sellars (ed.) York Memorandum Book II, 240, fo.332, https://archive.org/details/yorkmemorandum200surtuoft/page/239/mode/2up ↩︎