William de Luyton, merchant and burgess of London; Robert Persone, merchant and burgess...

Petitioners

William de Luyton, merchant and burgess of London; Robert Persone, merchant and burgess of London; Roger le Vyroler, merchant and burgess of London; Richard de Wanlesworthe, merchant and burgess of London; William le Fullere (Fuller), merchant and burgess of London; Henry de Arderne (Ardern), merchant and burgess of London; William de Kent, merchant and burgess of London; Hugh Puerce, merchant and burgess of London; John Gombard, merchant and burgess of London; Piers de Blakeneye, merchant and burgess of London.

Name(s)

de Luyton; Persone; Vyroler; de Wanlesworthe; Fullere (Fuller); de Arderne (Ardern); de Kent; Puerce; Gombard; de Blakeneye, William; Robert; Roger; Richard; William; Henry; William; Hugh; John; Piers

Addressees

King.

Occupation

merchant and burgess of London

Nature of request

The merchants and burgesses request remedy as they were imprisoned and their goods taken and detained at Sluis by the bailiff of the king of France at the suit of burgesses of Ghent for an obligation made by the commons of the city of London to the burgesses of Ghent. They applied for remedy to the mayor and burgesses of the city of London but they will do nothing without the king's order.1)

Nature of endorsement

To Monday because it concerns London.2) Coram rege.

Places mentioned

London

Sluis, [Netherlands]

Ghent, [Belgium].

People mentioned

Simon de Rud, burgess of Ghent

Henry le Jeoneve, burgess of Ghent

John Fitz Souke Fitz Mary, burgess of Ghent.

For a related letter of Edward I to the bailiffs and echevins of Ghent, see no.49 in SC 1/13

For a petition of the citizens of London on the same matter, see SC 8/121/6004

For a letter from the bailiffs, echevins and consuls in reply to the king's letters, see no.20 in SC 1/18

For a petition by certain citizens of London on the same matter, see SC 8/193/9650

For a petition from certain merchants of London on the same matter, see SC 8/121/6003

For a petition by certain merchants of London, see SC 8/271/13504

For a related letter on the same matter, see SC 8/271/13503