THE CAREER OF SIR THOMAS TRIVET (1330-88)

Parliament was called for the 26th October 1383, and the process of impeachinent against Bishop Despenser began and was quickly followed by the trial of the captains themselves. Trivet among them. Saul states how '..the four threw themselves on the King’s mercy, pleading somewhat curiously that they had given the realm good value for money’,²⁵ He suggests that the blame for this debacle was slightly misplaced since the English force could not have hoped to defeat a well-maintained French royal army. Retreat was the only viable option.²⁶ However, this did not stop the rising tide of criticism directed at Despenser and his men. Among this criticism is a direct attack on Trivet himself by the Westminster Chronicler. The Chronicler, who tends never to write favourably of Trivet, scornfully states

that Trivet threw himself on the king’s mercy and was therefore aUowed to go free.²⁷ The

Chronicler is mistaken, however. since Trivet was imprisoned albeit briefly.²⁸

Why, then, has he singled out Trivet for criticism? Martin suggests that Westminster took his account of the expedition from a newsletter, which Despenser probably wrote.²⁹

Despenser's hostile feelings towards his captains were well-known as a result of his words

against them in Parliamemt. He had suddenly turned on his captains during the second hearing of his impeachment and was trying to place the blame on them. Whereas before he had praised his captains, saying they were both ‘good and sufficient' he now criticised them for refusing to fight the French once the latter had begun to advance.³⁰ He implied that it was due to his captains' actions that he was forced to retreat.³¹ He also turned the blame on them for the loss of Gravelines, saying that the cession of the captured forts back to the French and the subsequent lawlessness of the evacuated English armies on the shores near Calais meant he had to give up Gravelines to come and rescue them.³² This seems hardly plausible since the troops who left Bourbourg under Trivet and Elmham had been allowed to retreat with their booty and luggage.³³ He also answered the charges accusing him of not having the specified number of troops at Calais, by stating that he had the full compliment by the time he had reached Ypres. As Kingsford suggests that Trivet and his retinue only caught up with Despenser's army at Dunkirk, this certainly seems a plausible argument.³⁴

Despenser's spirited defence in the parliament of 1383 must have been well-known since Walsinghmn also blames the debacle on the captains. He writes that 'the knights who were with the bishop in Flanders were imprisoneded because they had disobeyed the bishop, and, what was worse, were traitors; but soon they were bailed out by their friends', making payment in gold’.³⁵ Trivet in fact spent little time imprisoned in the Tower for his actions before he was released after obtaining royal fayour.³⁶ A payment of 1,400 francs was made

25 Saul,Richard 11,p.106

26 Ibid, pp. I05-6

27Hector and Harvey, Westminster Chronicle,p53

28 Along wiih William Elmham, Henry Ferrers and Robert Fitz Ralph - lbid p.52n (from Rot. Parl. III. p.158)

29 Martin Knighton's Chronicle p Ixvii

30 Aston, BIHR, (1965),p.129. Westminster singles out Trivet, Elmham and William Farringdon as refusing this request made by Despenser and the well-respected, Hugh Calveley (Hector and Harvey, Westminster Chronicle,p45)

31 Aston,BIHR, (1965) p 130
32 Ibid.

33 Froissart, vol, XI,p.149

34 Kingsford,DNB, p.1164

35 Cited in A.R. Myers ed, English Historical Documents IV; 1327-1485, (1965),p.147

36 Kingsford, DNB, p.1164 (taken from Rot.Parl III, p.152-3 & 156-8), He was certainly out oi' prison by