The Dominican Order and Convocation

Google

This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project

to make the world's books discoverable online.

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject

to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books

are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover.

Marks, notations and other maiginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the

publisher to a library and finally to you.

Usage guidelines

Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing tliis resource, we liave taken steps to
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.
We also ask that you:

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for
personal, non-commercial purposes.

+ Refrain fivm automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.

+ Maintain attributionTht GoogXt "watermark" you see on each file is essential for in forming people about this project and helping them find
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it.

+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liabili^ can be quite severe.

About Google Book Search

Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers
discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web

at |http: //books .google .com/I

I 'irv^'f %:- -J'fiJt^^A3^

^•in

- ^OV;

THE 'DOMINICAN ORDER'
AND CONVOCATION

A STUDY OF THE GROWTH OF REPRESENTATION

IN THE CHURCH
DURING THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY

•I ^'"^ BY

ERNEST gARKER, M.A.

FELLOW OF ST. JOHN^S COLLEGE
AND FORMERLY FELLOW OF MERTON COLLEGE, OXFORD

• « • • • • •

^ ^ ^ .T .J.J ^ ^ J J

<

•#•

OXFORD
AT THE CLARENDON PRESS

1913

^3

OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS

LONDON EDINBURGH GLASGOW NEW YORK
TORONTO MELBOURNE BOMBAY

HUMPHREY MILPORD M.A.

PITBLISHXB TO TBB UHIVERSITT

\

v.-

» 1, '

• »

• • • ■ • « .

% • » * ^ •

4

Vij^

a • • •

•

^M a m » ^ ^ m 2 * * ' ••

» -

»0)a-»< » -to

■> d

PREFACE

This brief study would not have been written had
it not been for M* B6mont, the Editor of the Revue
Historique, and Honorary Doctor of Letters in the
University of Oxford. He is unconscious of his in-
fluence : it is none the less real. He has done so
much to illuminate the English history of the thirteenth
century, that he must not be surprised if others try to
use the light he has shed to explore new paths.

I owe a large debt of gratitude to my old pupil,
Father Bede Jarrett, of the Order of Preachers. When
we were once discussing together the development of
representation, and* I was urging the point I have
urged here, that the Church supplied both the idea of
representation and its rules of procedure, he suggested
to me that the influence of his own Order must have
been considerable within the Church, and he gave me
my first knowledge of the organization of his Order.
He has increased my debt of late by sending me some
references which he had collected. I would refer any
of my readers who may be interested in the Dominican
Order to Father Jarrett's article in the Home Counties
Magazine for June 1910 on * Friar Confessors of
English Kings ', and to his pamphlet on the Dominicans
published by the Catholic Truth Society.

300653

• • • •

- • •

: / : .-pJSESFACE

Mr..j!^cp;t;ittletois:heeri*good enough to read this
study, and to save me from some errors into which
I had fallen. The kindness of the author of the Gr^
Friars in Oxford is all the greater, as I have myself
sought to exalt the Black Friars.

I should explain that this study was originally
intended for a brief article. As I worked upon it, it
outgrew the limits of my original intention, and ceasing
to be a brief article almost grew into a small book.
I have published it as it stands (though I would gladly
have carried further some lines of inquiry which are'
here merely suggested), because other engagements
prevent me from devoting myself to the subject for
some time to come, and because I thought that such
results as I had attained might possibly be of some
immediate use to students of the history of institutions.

E. B.

Oxford, March^ 1913.

CONTENTS

PART I

THE DOMINICAN ORDER.

/

I.
II.
III.

/"

The Dominicans and the Franciscans

The Dominicans and the Praemonstratensians

The early constitutions of the Dominicans

Election of officers

Representative assemblies
Characteristics of the Order

I W Possible ecclesiastical sources of Dominican organiza-
tion : —

f (fl) The Hospitallers

^ [b) The Templars ... . .

{c) The Franciscans

>Tendencies of religious Orders in the thirteenth century

Possible secular sources of Dominican organization : —

(a) Spain

ip) Southern France

The representative idea

Vogue of the Dominicans in England

Cont ribution to English l earning ....

PART II

THE ENGLISH CONVOCATION.

PAGE
9-IO'

II-I2

13-14

14
15-16

17-18

/ V.

VI.

/

19-20
20-21

21-24.
24-25

26
27

27-28
28-29

30

I.

II.

Early history of provincial synods
Their revival in the thirteenth century

(a) German synods in this century .
(^) French synod at Bourges (1225) .
Representation of chapters in the synods of Reims
Also in T<Jarborme and other French provinces .
The Council of Vienne (13 11) .

A3

31-32
32-33

33-34
34-36

37-38
38-40

41

CONTENTS

III. General development of the English provincial synod
Influences active in that development
The proceedings of 1225-6 ....
The influence of taxation on these proceedings .
The representative idea a clerical idea

IV. Clerical assemblies in England from 1226 to 1240
Rapid development from 1254 to 1258
De Montfort and representation

V. The activity of Kilwardby
The beginnings of Peckham
The 'moder Convocation (1283)
Different aspects of Convocation
Diocesan synods

VI. Reasons for the unique character of Convocation

Influence of the clergy on the growth of representation
The share of the Dominicans in this influence
The respublka Christiana of Western Europe

Addenda

Index

PAGE

42-43
43-44
44-50
50-51
51-53

54
55-59
59-^1
61-64
64-66
67-68
68-69
69-70

70-72
72-74

74-75
75-76

77-78
79-83

INTRODUCTORY

The Church of the thirteenth century shows a marked
development, on its institutional side, of the principle and
practice of representation. Three great Councils of the
Church are held: representatives appear in them all. The
provincial synods cease to be composed of bishops and abbots
only; representatives, first of cathedral clergy, and then —
in England but in England only — of the diocesan clergy,
enter. The great Orders of the Friars are penetrated by
representation. . It appears first in the Dominicans : it is
copied from them by the Franciscans. In the same century
representation begins to appear in the State. In Spain,
indeed, it has already appeared in the last half of the twelfth
century: in France it does not properly appear, except in
local assemblies, until the beginning of the fourteenth. But in ,
England, at any rate, the development of representation in the
State synchronizes with the thirteenth century : a representa-
tive parliament begins to be seen in the middle of the century,
and is fully grown by its end.

What was the history of the different phases of this move-
ment, and what were their relations to one another? These
are questions too large for their solution to be attempted
here. Even if we confine ourselves to the Church, we have
still a vast field of research. But an account of the organiza-
tion of the Dominicans, who offer the most finished model of
representative institutions, and a study of that development of
the provincial synod in England which led to the inclusion of
clerical proctors, may together serve to elucidate to some
extent the institutional development which marks the thirteenth
century. In the course of these inquiries we shall be led to

8 INTRODUCTORY

look into the sources of the Dominican organization, and the
extent of its influence (if any influence can be traced) on other
contemporary developments of the same kind ; and we shall
have to ask why the English synod developed on somewhat
different lines from those of other countries, and how far
the composition and procedure of that synod acted as a model
or precedent for our national parliament. -s]

PART I
THE DOMINICAN ORDER

History has not been unmindful of the friars ; and least of
all, perhaps, in England have the friars of the thirteenth cen-
tury gone unrecorded. Mr. Little has laboured on the
records of the Franciscans with ungrudging love ; and the
British Society of Franciscan Studies is itself an 'order'
in their honour. But there were Black Friars as well as Grey
Friars ; a St. Dominic as well as a St. Francis. English
historians have not been equally kind to both.^ It is
true that St. Francis was indeed a saint, and St. Dominic^
rather a statesman. Personality attracts the historian as
much as the contemporary ; there are men living amongst us
about whom we cannot but think and talk, and there are men
who have lived amongst us about whom we cannot but think
and write. The riches of the personality of ilpoverello were
more abounding than those of the canon of Osma ; he who
espoused Poverty, and sang the Canticle of the Sun, who
bore on his body the wound-prints, and talked with the birds
as a brother, was made of other stuff than the founder of the
Order which administered the Inquisition.^ Yet St. Dominic,
like that other Spaniard who founded the Jesuit Order, was
a constructive statesman ; and those who find in the study of
institutions a charm as great as in the study of personalities
are bound to look at his building, to discover its materials and
to trace its influence. He had an eye for the needs of the
occasion ; he could divine the proper methods for meeting

' Mr. Davis, for instance, in England under the Normans and Angevins^
mentions the existence of the Dominicans, indeed, but devotes all his
space to the Franciscans. Professor Tout (The Political History of
England^ 1 216-1377) devotes more space to the Dominicans, and his
sketch of their history in England (pp. 84-92) is very useful.

' On the real nature of the relation of the Dominicans to the In-
quisition (they administered it reluctantly and often under compulsion)
see Mandonnet in the Catholic Encyclopaedia y s. v. Preachers, 368 B.

lo DOMINICANS AND FRANCISCANS

/
those needs with success. His followers said of him that /

he always * looked to the end ' before he spoke ; * and there-
fore seldom if ever did he consent to change a decision once
enunciated with due deliberation/^ He had besides a con-
suming zeal for study, which alone could make a full 'preacher ',
and for whose sake he commanded the student (exactly as
Plato commanded the guardian) to abandon all possessions or
hope of possessions which might distract the mind from its
work.* The student of learning and its history must re-
member St Dominic even before St. Francis. After all, the
Franciscans are here, as they are in their organization, the
debtors and disciples. of the Dominicans. Study is original
and essential to the Dominicans; it is an afterthought with
the Franciscans ; * and the reorganization of the Franciscan
Order in th§ chapter general of 1:^39 is on Dominican lines.*^
As for England — and it is with England that we are mainly
concerned — ^let us remind ourselves that the Dominicans had
been at work here for some three years before the Franciscans
arrived. Gilbert of Freynet came to Oxford in the autumn of
ifZiZi, and when the Franciscans arrived at the end of 1^24,* ^
he gave them a cordial welcome until they could house
themselves.

/^ ' Mt has been said that it is St. Dominic's misfortune to be always
compared with St Francis. It seems to me that he need not be afraid of
this comparison. St. Dominic is etn gereifter Charakter^ St. Francis eine
gliickliche Natur^ — Hauck, Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands, iv. 387. '

* Instituerunt possessiones non habere^ ne praedicatoris officium impe-
diretur sollicitudine terrenorum ; Ehrle-Denifle, Archiv fur Liiieratur^
und Kirchengeschichte^ i. 182, n. i. Father DeniHe maintains that
poverty is as original with the Dominicans as with the Franciscans ,
(cf. Hauck, op, city iv. 387). The object of the cult of poverty is different ; "
St. Francis was poor for the sake of his own salvation, and that he might
imitate in his lowliness the example of his lowly Master ; St. Dominic
chose poverty that he might be the more free for study, and thereby for
preaching, and thereby for the salvation of others. Professor Tout,
following the ordinary view, implies that Dominican poverty is the result

of imitation of the Franciscans : ' St. Dominic yielded to the fascination

of the Umbrian enthusiast, and inculcated on his Order a complete

.renunciation of worldly goods' {op, citj p. 84). It was in 1220 that the

1 jDrder adopted poverty. From 12 16 to 1220 it had enjoyed revenues, but

[/not possessions ; in 1220 it gave up both (Mandonnet, ^. ctt.),

* Ehrle-Denifle, Archiv ^ i. 184.

* Cf. Bohmer, Analekten zur Geschichte des Franciscus von Assisi,
Regesten, s»a. 1239, ^^^ Ehrle-Deniflei Archiv, vi. 20 sqq.

/ r

I

I

THE PRAEMONSTRATENSIAN MODEL ii

We have attributed to St. Dominic constructive atatesman-
shTp.' What then was the organization which he constructed ;
what were the materials he used ; and how far was the
organization which he gave to his Order a model for other
builders ? Briefly, we may say that St. Dominic founded an
Order belonging to the genus, not of religious *, but of clerks ;
that these clerks belonged to 'the" species of clerks called
canons regular ; and that the precise variety of canons reg^ular

imitated by St. Dominic was the Pnaemonstratensian. The
Dominicans are clerks who form a body of regular canons,
after the model of Pr^montr^. Their statutes are avowedly
modelled on those of the Praemonstratensians ; '' and, like the
Praemonstratensians and other regular canons, the friars of the
Order have the cure of souls. But there is a great difference
between the Dominican and the Praemonstratensian. The
latter belongs to a particular abbey, and has cure of souls
in a particular parish. The Dominican is general and uni- ^
versal. He belongs to a house, to a province, but'lar more.to
~ihe whole Order ; and he has a cure of souls wherever he may
preach. He is delocalized, and he is centralized. He is
delocalized ; he is not under the vow of stc^iliias. He is not
a member of a particular abbey, in charge of a particular
parish that is under that abbey ; he is essentially a member
of the whole Order, who will preach at any point in the scope
of its action. He is centralized. He is not primarily under
the control of a particular abbey ; he is a soldier in a militia
spiritualis controlled by its generalissimo. His daily disci-
pline, modelled though it may be on the Praemonstratensian,
is consequently different. A member of an army of ubiquitous
preachers, he must not do the things that will hinder preach-
ing, and he must do all the things that will foster preaching.
He need not be concerned unduly with fasting and the regular
hours of devotion ; for the sake of preaching and the study

^ Ehrle-Denifle, Archiv, i. 172 sqq. Father Denifle quotes the words
of Humbert, the fifth master of the Order : ' The constitutions are largely
taken from those of the Praemonstratensians, who reformed the order of
regular canons, and excelled especially in the government of their order
by general chapters and visitations.'

"l

I a THE INNOVATIONS OF ST. DOMINIC

which preacbii^ needs he inay have dispensalioa.' He need
not labour with his hands: the Dominicans were the first
Of de rto abandon mannal work, and leave it to conversi ; and
^t Dominic even proposed atlSoIogna, though the proposal
was not adopted by the Chapter,^ t hat these lay brethreti
should be su preme in admin istr ation and temporal th ings,
in order that thefri^ m^t be free for study and preaching.

^^^t a friar must do, must always and only dc^^Bto study
y . mi to preach ; to study, that he may preadi, and to preach
^ 1 from the fruits of his study.

' Thus the old Praemonstratensian model slips away. There

I was a strong element of local feding in the model ; there was

' a devotion of the canon to the abbey, of daughter-abbey to

mother-abbey, of all to Pr^montr6 ; the Dominicans knew

w I none of these things. There was an aristocratic flavour in the

^ \ ' organization of the modeL It was a decentralized aristocracy,

■ except for the annual colloquy (always at Pr^montr^, and with

\ obedience to the abbot thereof and his abbey), which however

only consisted of abbots;* the Dominican government is

(otherwise. There was, again, something of the old monastic
habit in their discipline — something of labour and of r^ular
hours : the Dominican discipline is different. In the matter
^ of organization especially St. Dominic must be held to be
/ practically independent Two things he borrowed — the chapter
C \ general (but this is Cistercian in origin),^^ and the annui circa--

" Mandonnet makes a very interesting remark on this point He
points out that the Dominican Order contained two somewhat discrepant
elements— the monastic-canonical element, inherited from the Prae-
monstratensian model, which made/or the ascetic life and the viUi content-
flativay and produced ascetics and mystics ; and the clerical-apostolic
element, the essential new element, which made for the active life of study
and preaching, and produced great doctors smd apostles. There is
a struggle between the two elements; the former tends to check the
latter. The practice of dispensatipn is meant to ease the struggle, and to
secure a free field for study and preaching. But the rigid and ascetic
element in the Order set its face against -dispensation, and a certain
dualism continued to mark the life of the Order.

• Mart^ne, De antiquis ecclesiae ritibusy iii. 334 (Distinction iv, §1).
Mart^ne prints the original constitutions ; for their later form cf. Staiuta
Praemonstrat, (Paris, 1632), p. 188. In the later form the institution of
definitoresy which we shall find among the Dominicans, appears (p. 194) ;
but it is not in the early statutes.

** Cf. Viollet, Histoire des Institutions de la France^ ii. 381. The

THE CONSTITUTIONS OF THE ORDER 13

toresy or visitors, two in number, elected annually by th^-
abbots of a circaria or circle to visit the abbeys of the circle,^^
But the general lines of Dominican organization are indepen-
dent of the Praemonstratensian, just as, and just because, the
aims and objects of the Dominicans are different from those of
the Praemonstratensians. .

The main features of the organization of the Dominican
Order were already fixed in the year 1^21, by the labours of
the two chapters which had sat at Bologna under the pre-
sidency of St. Dominic in 1220 and 1221. It is a point
of some importance for our inquiry that the organization;
of the Order should have been completed in the very chapter'
which made England a province and dispatched Gilbert of
Freynet to England. Of the constitutions of 122 1 we possess
no copy, but we possess a copy of the redaction made at
Paris in 1228. In that year we read that there were gathered
at Paris, in the convent of St. James (from which the
Dominicans at Paris were called Jacobins), round the Master-
General Jordan, the priors of the provinces, each with two
definitores deputed by the provincial chapters, to whom all
the friars had transferred their votes {;uota sua), giving them
plenary authority to act. This assembly added a number of
constitutions (as, for instance, against the holding of property ;
concerning the removal of appeals ; against the making of
constitutions unless approved by three successive chapters
general — a provision which reminds us of the Parliament Act

Cistercians early established provincial chapters also, and they are
prescribed as a rule for the other monks who have not hitherto held such
chapters in the twelfth canon of the Fourth Lateran Council (infra, ii,
n. 12).

" See note 7. The circatores had to be abbots of abbeys in the
circaria : Mart^ne, p. 335, Dist. iv, § 7. In the Dominican Order the
visitors are friars freely elected. In the later constitutions of the Prae-
monstratensians provision is made for regular chapters in the circariae,
attended not only by abbots and priors, but by one representative pastor
from each abbey, to be deputed by the other pastors (op, ciU, p. 206).
But this seems, like the instance quoted in note 9, to be imitation by the
Praemonstratensians of the Dominican model in later days.

^' It was in 1216 that St. Dominic had adopted the ' rule ' of St. Augus-
tine, which regulated the life of canons regular, and had added consuetu-
dines of his own for the guidance of the Order. But the constitutiones of
1220 are the 'essential and original basis of Dominican legislation',
(Mandonnet, in the Catholic Encyclopaedia, s. v. Preachers).

14 THE GOVERNMENT OF THE ORDER

of 191 1 — ^and against riding, or the eating of flesh except
in illness) ; ^^ and these constitutions, along with the original
statutes of I220 and 1221, form the redaction of 1228.^^ The
importance of the assembly of 1228 lies not only in its work,
but in its own composition. Already we see representative
institutions at work ; and we are justified in believing that
those institutions were incorporated into the Order in the
chapters of 1220 and 1221, and were part of the working
constitution when it came to England in 1221.^^

In 1221 the Order was divided into eight provinces (ana-
logous to the Praemonstratensian circariae, but still more to
the pays of the Hospitallers), each containing a number of
houses {conventus). The Order was to be governed by a
master-general; the province by a provincial prior; the
convent, which must contain at least twelve friars, by a con-
ventual prior. We have to consider the method of the election
of these officers, and the extent to which their action is
accompanied or controlled by representative bodies, (i) The
conventual prior is elected by the friars of his convent (Dist.
ii, § 24) ; ^* the provincial prior is elected by a provincial
chapter composed of the conventual priors of the province and
two friars from each convent elected by a full meeting of all
the friars of the convent (Dist. ii, § 15) ; ^^ the master-general is
elected by a general chapter composed of the provincial priors

*• For the assembly of 1238 see ConstituUones FrcUrum S. Ordims
Praedicaiorum^ Paris, 1886, pp. 478-9. I owe my copy of this book
to the generosity of my old pupil, the Rev. Bade Jarrett, O.P.

^^ The redaction of 1228 is printed by Father Denifle in Ehrle-Denifle,
ArchiVy i, p. 196 sqq., with an introduction which I have used freely.
Father Denifle also prints a reconstruction of the redaction of 1239-41
(made by Raymond of Pennaforte, third Master of the Order), Archiv^ v.
530 saq. The last redaction in the thirteenth century is that of Humbert,
the fifth Master, in 1256.

^* Theodoric of Apoldia teUs us, as a matter of fact, that St. Dominic
decided in 1220 at Bologna that definitores should be appointed, with
power over himself as master and over the whole chapter, to define, decree,
and ordain all things as long as the chapter should last. ' Decrevit ut
statuerentur definitores, qui haberent potestatem super ipsum et totum
capitulum difiiniendi statuendi ordinandi, donee duraret capitulum * (Acta
Sanct.f August, i. 594).

^' The rderences are all, unless otherwise stated, to the Constitutions
of 1228 as printed in £hrle*Denifle, Archivy i, pp. 196 sqq.

^^ This IS slightly altered in the modem constitutions ; see op. cit.^

P- 337.

THE COMPOSITION OF THE CHAPTERS 15

and two friars from each province elected by the provincial
chapter (Dist. ii, § 10).^® The free use of election, and of repre-
sentatives in election, clearly emerges. {2) By the side of the
elected officials stand assemblies also in part elected. Of the
capitulum quoHdianum in each convent we need not speak ;
but the constitution and action of the provincial chapter and
the chapter general are vital to our argument The provincial \
chapter consists of the priors of the convents of the province, \
of the general preachers of the province (friars, that is to say>
who have studied theology for three years, Dist. ii, § 31), and '
of a representative elected by each convent (Dist. ii, § i).n
For its guidance the provincial chapter annually elects a com-
mittee of four definitores from the more discreet and proper
friars.^^ It is the office of this committee to treat and define
all things with the provincial prior; it has the power of
hearing and amending excesses of the provincial prior, whom
it may, in case of need, suspend (Dist. ii, § 2-3). The chapter
general is constituted in the same manner.*® There is a general
body and there is an effective inner circle of definitores. -^lie
general body consists of conventual priors with their socii and
the general preachers of the province in which the general
chapter is being held (Dist. ii, § 12). The arrangement for
the constitution of the inner circle of definitores is peculiar
(Dist, ii, §§ 5-8). According to the constitutions of 1228 the
general chapters are held annually. In two successive annual
chapters the ^^^^//^r^j are recruited by election: one is elected
for each province by the provincial chapter, and each has a
socius assigned to him by the provincial prior and definitores
to take his place if he cannot be present at the general chapter.
In every third general chapter the definitores cease to be an
elected body: the provincial priors ex officio and by themselves

^^ Four provinces created since 1221 are to send each its provincial
prior and one friar to the chapter.

" The
missaires

institution of definitores (^ c]ui jouent k peu pr^s le r61e des com-
dans nos assembles d^hb^rantes ', Viollet, op, cit»^ ii. 382)

— — y — — ^ ^ . - -, _ - ^ — ^

becomes common in the thirteenth century, and appears for instance
in the constitution of the Cluniac Order. . . ^

^ The chaptef9^neral met alternately at Paris and Bologna till 1244. ^ ^
Afterwards they met in different places (e. g. London in 1250), and thus ; /
knowledge of the organization of the Order would be spread.

j6 DEFINITORES AND VISITATORES

act as definitares for the year. Any new constitution must
pass through three successive chapters general before it is
finally valid. In this way the provincial priors get some
share of authority, while the greater weight is nevertheless
reserved for the elective definitares?^ The committee of
definitores^ whether elected or ex officio, is the chief organ.
It defines, constitutes and treats all things ; its members have
plenary power, extending even to removal from office, over
the master-general ; and careful provision is made for counting
a majority of their votes. Beyond the chapter general stands
the capitulum generaltssimuniy a body which only met twice
in the history of the Order — once in 1228, and once in 1236.
It contains in one body, and in a single meeting, both pro-
vincial priors and elected definitares^ twa from each province,
appointed by the provincial chapter. It was therefore equiva-
lent to three successive chapters general of the ordinary
kind ; and consequently it could pass finally and at once, if
there were urgent need, a new constitution.*^ Two further
points may conclude this sketch of Dominican organization.
St. Dominic borrowed from his Praemonstratensian model
the office of visitatares, of whom four were to be elected from
the friars of each province,assembled in their provincial chapter,
to visit the province and to hear and amend all excesses (Dist.
ii> § 19)5 but the fact that the visitors are to be elected itotrP
the friars, and not from the priors, is a democratic modificati(>n
of the Praemonstratensian rule, which only allowed abbots to
be elected as circatares. Further, he assigned to the provincial
prior the same power and the same reverence in his province

^ Humbert de Romanis (q^uoted in Archivy vi. 22-3) explains that
among Orders like the Cistercian and Praemonstratensian the authority
rests with the greater prelates, and they alone act as definitores ; with the
Franciscans authority is shared among the prelates and a number of their
subjects ; but among the Dominicans there is abundantia discretionis
etiam in subditis , , , el ideofiunt diffinitores apud nos non solum praelati
majoresy ul provinciales^ sed eliam subditi quicunque per electionem in
majore numero. Evidently he regards the Dominicans as carrying
furthest what we should call the principle of democracy, and he is quite
conscious of the strength of representation in his Order.

^ See Constituliones S. Ord. Praedic. (Paris, 1886), !>. 478. The
capitulum generalissimum is not mentioned in the constitutions of 1228,
though they were passed in such a chapter ; it is from the later constitu-
tions that we learn its composition.

DEMOCRATIC ORGAN IZATION OF THE ORDER 17

as that of the master-general, and he laid it down that on the
death of the general master, the provincial priors should
exercise the full powers of a general master (Dist ii, § 16, § 9).
What arfe^he general characteristics^ of. .thi^ organization ?
In the first place it is democratic. If Cluny is * monarchical ',/^ "
ir C!tcatix'^(and we may add l^ridmontr^, in many respects
modelled on Citeaux) is ' aristocratical', we may call the
friars democratic.^^ There is no speech in their organization
of abbots or of paternal authority coming from above;
authority springs^from the general body, and the officials
are-lratfceFservants of That' body t han its^lords. This demo-
cratic flavour is, as we shalt see, ahnostas striking iii the
Franciscan as in the Dominican Order; but the whole
mechanism of the latter Order, as it has been just described,
is obviously democratic in comparison with previous Orders.
True, the democracy is de facto, and in its actual working
compatible and connected with what we may call Caesarism ;
the Master-General of the Order is often its moving spirit.
But the point remains, that the constitutional arrangements,
as they stand de jure, are of a kind which we should to-day
call democratic.^* And^jo.- the. second .place, it is aj;eEre2 ^

^ H. O. Taylor, The Mediaeval Mind, i. 361-3. Mandonnet speaks
>f modem absolutist governments as showing Mittle sympathy for the
democratic constitution of the Preachers ' (s. v. Preachers, 368 E, coL 2),

** The Constitution of the Third Order (or Tertiaries) has not been
described in the text ; it is dubious whether the Third Order was
instituted by St. Dominic himself (see J. Guiraud, Life of St. Dominic^
English translation, p. 166), and the Constitutiones S. Ord. Praed. only
give a transcription made from the papal registers in 1439, ^^ ^1^^ ^^^''
mand of Eugenius IV, of a papal bull of Innocent VII which sets forth and
confirms the rule of the brethren and sisters of the Third Order as
hitherto observed (pp. 682-93). According to Mandonnet, the Rule of
the Third Order dates from 1285, and was confirmed in 1286 by
Honorius IV. Each Fratemity of Tertiaries, it appears, has its Master
or Director, a friar appointed by the Master-General or Provincial Prior
at the -;-e(]uest of the Fratemity, and its Prior, an officer appointed by the
Master with the counsel of the llncient of the Fraternity. Each year the
Master and the ancients scrutinize the Prior ^nd his actions, ^he Order of
Tertiaries would spread knowledge of Dotiiinican organization^ aAd has in
itself some approach to self-government. But we must note (i) that the \ /
Rule of the Third Order of the Dominicans was modelled on that of the
Franciscan brothers of Penance ; and (2) that it was oppp^d by the
Franciscans as an encroachment, and by some of the Dominicans as
an excrescence, and it grew but slowly (Mandonnet, p. 369, col. 2).

1S61 B -

i8 THE CONSTITUTIONS AS A MODEL

sentative democracy. There is repeatedly election of free
Representatives, wlio are not delegates, but have (as we read
of the assembly of 1228) 'plenary power, so that whatever is
done by them shall remain firm and stable*. The characteristic
feature of the Order, says Mandonnet, is its elective system ;
it is the ffngjal chapters, built largely on this s}rstem, which
wield supreme pow er, and are the great regulators of Dominican
life in the Middlj^ Ages-f from them springs that spirit ^eHh-m-
ness and decision whidi marks the whole Order. Thirdly and
lastly, the constitutions of the Order are clear-cut in their
outline, and show something of a l^al nicety and precision.
* It is the most perfect example that the Middle Ages have
produced of the faculty of monastic corporations for con-
stitution-building/ ^ Its institutions are adjusted to probable
emergencies ; they define, for instance, the conditions of a
valid majority ; they are institutions meant, and likely, to
work. We may conjecture that they will also be likely to
impress men who come into contact with them,** and that
they will tend to be imitated. And if they are imitated, the
use of representation is the thing which will in particular be
imitated.

But before we can verify that conjecture, we must ask to
what extent these institutions are original and to what extent
they are unique. Was St. Dominic borrowing? Did other
orders or bodies share these institutions? We may lay it
down at once that St. Dominic was not borrowing from the
Franciscans ; but that is a point to which we shall have to
return. On the other hand, we may readily guess that the
Military Orders contributed to his scheme of organization.
They too formed a militia spiritualis', they too followed, like
the Dominicans, the rule of life of canons regular.

We shall perhaps do best, in seeking to trace the relations
of the Dominican Order to the Military Orders, to consider
the Hospitallers first. Their connexion with Spain, and with

^ Hauck, Kirchengeschichte Deutschlandsy iv. 390.

*' The Order spread widely, and would be well known in most coun-
tries. By 1228 there were eight provinces; by 1256 there were 5,000
priests in the Order (besides 2,000 other clergy and lay brethren) ; by
1277 there were 404 convents (Mandonnet).

DOMINICANS AND HOSPITALLERS 19

St. Dominic's quarter of Spain, was eaiy and intimate, As/ /
early as 11 16 they had received dotjjpions in Castilfe andl/
Leon;*^ and when a gjwnd master arose for Spain about 11 70
{magnus magisier in V regnis Hispaniae\ he was specially
accredited in Castile, which was under his immediate super-
vision. About 1 1 90, however, a separate organization was
given to the Hospitallers of Castile and Leon, such as those
of the other kingdoms had^enjoyed before. A priory of Castile
and Leon is created : the chapter of the priory meets in 1 190. J'
Its organization is likely to come to the notice of the young \
Dominic, who is studying in Falencia in 1190, and becomes \ \

a canonofOsma in 1 1 94. ^

/ ^nie general ^asis of t&e organization of the Hospitallers is \
the^soverei^nty of Uhe Chapte r^j The general chapter of the ) J
whole Orda^irsovereign inTegisiation and discipline, but while -
reserving a right of control it leaves executive power to the
Grand Master and the officers of his appointing, who are its
delegates or representatives. The same principle applies to
the subordinate chapters in their degree ; (t is the principle,
in a sense, of representative or parliamentary government.
At the centre the general chapter proper, in the twelfth and
even in the thirteenth cen^Mry, meets irregularly and at/
variable intervals. Nor is it very determinate in its com-
position; the Grand Master summons the officials of the
Holy Land, the priors of the West, and those of the simple
knights whose discretion or testimony in any affair renders
their presence necessary. The regular and permanent body
which the Grand Master consults (when it is not a matter of
general legislation or discipline) is the * Convent *, which is
always in attendance and consists of the officers of the central
administration. If we see in this central government a germ
of Dominican organization, we must admit that that organiza-
tion is more highly diflFerentiated and more strictly regular
than its germ. Locally, the Hospitallers are organized in
commanderies or houses of brothers, living in community
under a praeceptor or commander, and meeting every Sunday

" Delaville Le Roulx, Les Hospitaliers^ p. 377.
«« Ibid., p. 380.

20 HOSPITALLERS AND TEMPLARS

in ordinary chapter ; in priories, or groups of commanderies^.
under a prior, who holds a chapter of the priory about
St. John's Day; and in grand commanderies, or groups of
priories, under a grand commander.^* The chapter of the
priory is open in theory to all the brethren of a priory ; in
fact it is composed of the brethren resident at the chief place
of the priory and of the commanders of commanderies attend-
ing as representatives of their knights. There are here no
representatives proper, as in the Dominican Order; and yet
the spirit of this Military Order is, as we said above, in a sense
representative. The Chapter General is the one legislative
authority : if it leaves administration to the officers, it nomi-
nates and controls those officers. Each chapter, from the
chapter general to the ordinary chapter, assists its superior
in government^ and shares with its superior in responsibility.
The central officers must be renewed in each chapter general :
they bear a burden rather than an honour {onus non kanos) :
they are servants of the chapter.^®

The organization of the Templars was somewhat similar in
detail, but somewhat different in spirit. By the time that the
organization of the Order was fixed (in the twenty-four years
between Alexander IITs bull Omne datum optimum of 1 163
and the loss of Jerusalem in 11 87) the Grand Master has
achieved a great position. He has indeed to consult the
chapter general on all important matters, and to submit to
its decisibn such matters as the alteration or repeal of a
decision of a chapter, the alienation of property, and the
military policy of the Order. But he has his own treasure ;
he has no Conventus at his side, but only two adjutants ; and
if he needs the consent of the chapter in appointing the Grand
Praeceptors of provinces,^^ he appoints himself the lower

^' The Grand Commandery is a pays or (in later phrase) a langue.
This suggests the Dominican provinces. The nomenclature of the
Hospitallers (e. g. ma^ster) also suggests that of the Dominicans.

*• In practice, as time went on, the Grand Master grew more auto-
cratic, and in 1295 the knights ask for a permanent council of seven
definitores at his side.

'^ Aragon and Portugal were provinces, but not Castile, though the
Order had a position in Castile. Prutz, Entwickelung und Untergang
des TempelherrenordenSi pp. 44, 61.

\

1

EARLY FRANCISCAN ORGANIZATION 21

officers. Nor was there any great amount of local indepen-
dence ; the provincial praeceptors controlled the lower officers,^
who had little independence.^* It is to the Hospitallers
rather than to the Templars that we must look for light
on the Dominican Order; and we must admit that even if
St. Dominic borrowed elements from the Hospitallers, he did
not simply copy, and that he did not find there any use of
representation. 1 7

We have considered the relations of St. Dominic to the I X
Military Orders ; but what of his relations to St Francis ? Jf
We are only concerned with those relations at one point ; oud^I
one inquiry concerns the relations of Dominican to Francisc^ ■
organization. The earliest copy of the Franciscan Rule which
we possess, the regula non bullata^ whose date may be fixed as
a little posterior to the end of Mjay, I2ai, enables us to give
an answer.^^ The rule is simple ; it shows 'nothing"' of
St. Dominic's genius for organization. We hear of officials,
* ministers and servants of the other friars,* whose duty it is to
visit and spiritually warn and comfort in all provinces and in
places, and to give to friars their licence to preach. In eaclv^
year each minister may assemble with his friars, wherever they
will, to treat of the things that belong to God. Every year
the Italian ministri (the ministri outside Italy need only
come once in three years) shall gather at Whitsuntide at the
Church of St. Mary de Portiuncula, unless by the minister
and servant of the whole Order it be otherwise ordained.
The friars are now too numerous to permit of the old broad
primary assemblies of all the ' brethren ' : the last of those
assemblies, held in 1221, had contained 5,000 members ; and
the old democratic gathering has now to give place to a conci-
lium principum. In all this we have adumbrated the outlines
of an organization ; b ut\St. Fra ncis is not in love with organi-
_ z^tion. He will not have any one called prior,^* but rather

■ ■

'* Prutz, <?/. aV., pp. 42-4.

* The rule is printed in B5hmer, Analekten zur Geschichte des Fran
ciscus Von Assist, pp. 7 sqq. We have no copy of the original r
of 1209. (The view has, however, been held that the regula non bull^
is itself the original rule of 1209.)

'* Is this possibly a reference to the Dominican title ? If so, St. Francis
may have had the Dominican constitutions before him.

B3

\

I

22 FRANCISCAN DEVELOPMENT '

2J^ caMitA fr aires minores] he will not have the brethren bear
ypower^or dominion, especially among themselves. A friar is
not^^iihd to obey a minister who commands anything against
the ' life ' ; and the friars are to consider the doings of minis fri
and serTHf and if they are doing wrong after the third admoni-
tion, to renounce them in the Whitsuntide chapter. Some of .
these rules would be the despair of any statesman ; and some
of them (as for instance the rule authorizing a friar in disobesring
a minister) are dropped in the next redaction of the Rule ^e
poss ess^tHat oTi 22^ .^ Tn thls^iiew redaction we also see an
advance m organization. The titles minister generalis and
minister pravincialis appear ; the general minister is to be
elected in a chapter general composed of provincial ministri
and custodes^ the latter a new title, which designates the head
of a group of friars. If the chapter, forming the universitas of
ministers and custodes, considers the general minister inade«
quate, it may elect another friar for custodian (custos) of the
Order. After the general chapter the ministers and guardians
may severally, if they will, summon the friars in their * custo-
dies ' once to a chapter. But the general chapter is now only
triennial ; and the subsidiary chapters, which are to follow on
the general chapter, are therefore also intermittent. It is not
chapters, but the general minister, of whom St. Francis thinks.
In his Testamentum, about 1226, he speaks of his obedience
to the general minister and the other guardians whom he is
pleased to give ; ' and I wish so to be caught in his hands as
not to be able tp go or to do outside my obedience and his
will '.^® If in the Dominican Order it is the General Master
and the Chapter who together form the sovereign body^ it is
the General Minister, and the General Minister only, who is
sovereign in the Franciscan Order down to the revolution of
1239-40. He is undisputed Caesar : he nominates subordinate
officers, and he legislates either without any chapter (Elias held
no chapters in his nine years' tenure of office from 1230 to 1239),

'^ A redaction of the year 1222 is lost (Bdhmer, op. at,. Introduction).
The redaction of 1223 is printed by B5hmer, pp. 30 sqq. For an account
of it, and of the constitutional history of the Franciscan Order in the
thirteenth century, see Ehrle in Archivfur Lit,- und Kircheng.y vi.

'• See §§ 9-10 of the Testamentum in Bdhmer.

FRANCISCAN DEBT TO DOMINICAN ORDER 23

or with a chapter composed only and entirely of officers
whom he has himself appointed. There is a complete absence
of representative institutions : the change introduced by
Gr^ory IX in 1^130, according to which the custodes of
a province ceased to attbnd chapters in person, and elected
one of their number to go in their stead, can hardly be called
a step towards representation.

Such was the organization of the Franciscan Order when it
reached England in 1224. By 1240 that organization had
been greatly changed; but it had been changed by bein
assimilated to the Dominican model. Each of the three main
features of the revolution achieved in the two chapters of 1239
and 1240 is a Dominican feature. The powers of the general
minister and his subordinates are restricted, and partially, in
some cases wholly, transferred to the general and provincial
chapters. The nomination of subordinate officers passes out
of the hands of the general minister ; they are henceforth
appointed by the free choice, or at any rate with the consent,
of the chapters. Finally, provision was made, exactly on the
Dominican model, ^"^ for the election of definitares to attend
the general chapter; and henceforth a freely elected repre-
sentative element was added to the officials who had hitherto
alone composed the chapter. This was the form of organiza-
tion definitely codified at Narbonne in 1260, and henceforth
regfular.'*® It follows, therefore, that if we are looking for the

^ Strictly speaking, the exact Dominican model was only followed once,
or perhaps twice ; cf. Eccleston (ed. A. G. Little), p. Zj^ and n. * ; cf. also
Ehrle, Archiv^ vi. 20 sqq. The Franciscan chapter general, by 1260,
differs from the Dominican in being triennial, not annual ; and in admit-
ting the provincial minister in every chapter to the committee of
defimtores,

^ See Ehrle, Archiv^ vi, who prints the Constitutions of 1260. In
these constitutions we may note {\) ^^ guardiani and custodes are nomi-
nated by the provincial minister with counsel and consent (pp. 127-8), the
provincial mmister is elected by the provincial chapter (p. 125), and the
gen^nl minister is elected by the provincial ministers and custodes (p. 123) ;
(2) the annual provincial chapter consists of custodes and fratres of the
province, but to avoid a multitude of members there is an election in
each convent of one discretus (p. 129) : four definitores are selected by
three men named by the minister, the custosy and the guardian of the
place of the chapter (p. 131) ; (3) the triennial general chapter is attended
by the provincial ministers each with a socius, by one custos from each
province elected by the custodes (as laid down in 1230), and by one discretus

24 CENTRALIZATION IN THE RELIGIOUS ORDERS

organization of the friars, and the effect of that organization
on the rest of the Church, we must start from the Dominican
The early Franciscan organization is too simple and
choate to have served as a model: the later Franciscan
orsranizatiouJi^ tafilLbased on the Dom inican. But we may
allow, nevertheless, that part of the early rranciscan organi-
zation (the broad primary assembly down to T2ai,and the
whole tone of the regula non bullatd) showed a still stronger
democratic tendency than that of the Dominicans, and would
foster a feeling for liberty such as inspires the Franciscan
author of the Song of Lewes ; and we may allow that the
Dominican organization acted through the Franciscans, who
had modelled themselves upon it, as well as through the
Dominicans themselves.^^ Indeed we may go further, and
admit that the type of institutions employed by the Dominicans
was becoming common among religious orders generally in
the thirteenth century.*^ There was a movement towards
centralization ; and this movement involved on the one hand
a central executive, on the other hand a central legislature,
while the central legislature needed the guidance of a com-
mittee like the Dominican definitores^ and the central executive
needed the help of local representatives like the Praemonstra-
tensian circatores and Dominican visitors. To this movement
the Military Orders had contributed, ruled as they were by
grand masters and general chapters ; to it the widespread
Cistercians had contributed, united as they were by the annual
chapters at Ctteaux in a fraternal bond of charity ; to it the
Praemonstratensians had contributed, divided as they were
into circles, from which possibly the provinces of the Military
Orders, and thus indirectly those of the Friars, were borrowed.
Of this movement the organization of the Friars is the culmi-
nation, though even old Orders like Cluny came under its

elected by the provincial diapter— the ministri and discreti acting as
definitores (p. 134),

'* M. VioUet inverts the truth when he says: La constitution des
DominiccUnSy je dirais volontiers politique, fut ccUquie sur la constitution
franciscaine (op, cit,y ii. 392).

*^ See VioUet, op, cit,, ii. 381. Thus even the Benedictines were
enjoined by a canon of the fourth Lateran Council to hold provincial
chapters, in which visitatores were to be elected ; cf. infra^ ii. n. 12.

THE ORDERS A PROGRESSIVE FORCE 25

influence.*^ Nevertheless we would still urge that the precise
form which the culmination took is due to the statesmanship
0f St. Dominic ; and we would further urge that the Dominican
Order is original and unique in its use of representatives elected
by local communities for the conduct of the affairs of the
Order. y-

It was this use of representatives elected by local commu-
nities which was perhaps imitated in England by the secular \
clergy, and which gave us our representative Convocation. '^
For whatever the disputes and struggles between the Orders /
and the secular clergy, it cannot be denied that the Orders
represented the advance guard of the Church militant, and
that they drew after them the seculars to a higher level of
discipline and a more developed form of organization. The
Orders were the field for progressive experimentation: they
represented, particularly in the field of organization, the liberal
and radical element of the Church. Each new Order, however
much it might lean on the past and on previous models, meant
a new possibility of institutional development. The Dominicans
had availed themselves of that possibility ; and the vogue and
the prestige which this compact and admirably organized
community enjoyed in the thirteenth century, both with '^
statesmen like de Montfort and prelates like Langton, would
tend to the spread of its institutions. Here was an approved
type ; and it is a law of human nature that the approved t3^e \
should at once be imitated. The majority of the religious^^p-
Orders of the thirteenth century, says Mandonnet, followed |
quite closely Dominican legislation, and the Church considered
it the typical rule for new foundations.**

How far, if at all, secular models were followed by
St. Dominic in his adoption of this principle of the election
of representatives by local communities it is difficult to say*

^^ In the course of the thirteenth century Cluny acquired a chapter
general, with definitores elected by the chapter general (not, be it noted,
by local units, as in the Dominican Order). See supra^ n. 19.

^' The Friars of the Sack adopted the Dominican organization in toto :
cf. E,H.R,i ix. 121 sqq. Grosseteste, in his struggle with his chai>ter,
appeals to the example of Dominican practice in the matter of visitations
{Epistolae^ pp. 377-8).

1

26 REPRESENTATION IN SPAIN

\/5n

>ne naturall^tums to .Spain and to Southern France. The
early" constitutional history of Spain has still to be written.
The first meeting of the Castilian Cortes at which representa-
tives of towns were present was in 1169.*^ In Leon itself
St Dominic's home, we hear of electi cives {deputados 6 pro*
curadores de las ciudades) attending along with all the bishops
and magnates at a meeting in 11 88, and again in 1208.^^
These things were doubtless known to St Dominic (who in
1 188 was canon of Osma in Leon). How far they influenced
him — how far the founder of an ecclesiastical Order would
take heed of any but ecclesiastical precedents — we cannot say.
If we could tell at what date prelates and chapters of cathedral
and collegiate churches began to send plenipotentiary repre-
sentatives to the Cortes, as we are told they did,** we might
be able to make some tentative statement ; but in default of
n)ore precise knowledge we can only return an ignoramus.

te do not know whether Spanish precedent influenced
. Dominic : all that we know is that communities {universi-
des and especially ciudades) were represented in Spain, and
Ithat, at any rate in time, these representatives were of the
'nature of proctors, and had powers of attorney.

Southern France, the home of Roman influence and of

^ Stubbs, Const, Hist. ii. 168 ; Schafer, Sfanien, iv. 192. The meet-
ing was at Burgos. In Aragon procurcuiores of towns and districts are
attested at Huesca in 1162 : Schafer, iii. 208. In Aragon the cortes were
more settled and permanent in form than in Castile (ibid., p. 229, n.).
Here there appeared promovedores^ who are like the ecclesiastical
definitoreSi and whose office it was to submit matters to the proper ' arm *
(brazoy or House), to receive its decision, and to get that decision written
down by a notary (ibid., p. 232). We may notice (ibid., p. 216) that the
fourth arm in Aragon is the brazo de universidadeSf or house of corpora-
tions or communities (cf. our House of Commons, or domus communi-
tatum). According to one historian of Spain (Burke, i. 343) every
corporation was entitled in theory to send a representative. Further, the
representatives of these bodies are personeros^ ox procuradores : they have
powers of attorney, sometimes in writing. Here we have th6 two cardinal
ideas of the English parliament under Edward I,— the representation of
communities, and the procuratorial character of such representation
(cf. the Writ of Summons of the parliament of 1295). But these ideas are
later than the twelfth century, though in the absence of any readily
accessible ' constitutional documents ' for Spanish history it is difficult to
fix the date of their emergence.

*^ Coleccidn de Cortes , Madrid, 1885.

*^ Schafer, op, cit.^ iv. 221. The first instance I have noted of proctors
of chapters in Spanish provincial synods is in 1302 {infra^ ii. n. 37).

THE IDEA OF REPRESENTATION %^

a precocious culture, gives us cases of representation early in
the thirteenth century. In Languedoc, at the end of the ^
twelfth century, we find t^yo towns re2re3eAted.aJ;.thfi-a^^t^ '
generalis of their lord. In \%\% Simon de Montfort summons*'
to a great parliament at Pamiers bishops, nobles, and notable
burgesses, and has statutes made therein for the regulation of
the country ; and a similar assembly ^fz^^^^A at Bdziers after
his son Amaury had ceded Languedoc to Louis VIII.*® The
representatives at another assembly at B^ziers (but this is not
until 1271) bring procuratorial powers from their towns. The
interest of these instances lies in the fact that St Dominic was >
closely connected, after about 1203, with the South of France,
and with the elder Simon de Montfort. When one sees
St. Dominic and de Montfort in conjunction in Southern
France — when one remembers what St. Dominic did for the
principle of representation in the Church, and de Montfort's
son for that principle in the State — one is tempted to find some
common ground for their allegiance to the principle, and to
find that common ground in Southern France. But that would
be pure conjecture ; and it would be safer to say that the com-
mon ground between the two was a common adhesion to the
same idea, an idea always cherished by the Church, of power
as a trust given by the community, and of the community
in some sense sovereign of itself, even if it delegates its sove
reignty to a magister. It is an idea with a long history. It
is expressed by Ulpian {Quod principi placuit legis habet vigo-
rem^ utpote cum populus , , , ei et in eutn ontne suunt imperium
et .potestatem confer at) i it is expressed in Peter Damiani
{Potestas est in populo A summo data Domino) : it is expressed
in the Song of Lewes by de Montfort's partisan. It underlies
the organization of the Hospitallers : it underlies that of the
Dominicans. Whenever men conceive of a group clearly and
strongly as a community or brotherhood, they must conceive
of it as sovereign of itself; whenever they seek to realize that
self-sovereignty in deed as well as in word, they are driven
beyond the conception of power as in its nature representative
to the actual use of representative institutions. The Military

*• VioUet, Histoire des institutions de la France^ iii. pp. 180-1.

a8 THE DOMINICANS IN ENGLAND

Orders and the Friars were such a brotherhood {commilitones
and fratres) ; and in the friars, if not in the knights, the full
consequences of their brotherhood were drawn. Perhaps
through St Dominic, perhaps through the example of
Southern France, perhaps independently, the family of do
Montfort (or so to some of us it may seem) became imbued
with this conception — a conception continued by the Lancas*
trians, their dispossessors and successors (if sometimes, as with
Thomas of Lancaster, for selfish ends, and sometimes, as with
Henry IV, under compulsion), and continued further in the
Whig theory of Locke.

Let us for a moment seek to realize the vogue of the
Dominicans in England during the thirteenth century, before
we seek to trace the development of representation in the
provincial s3aiods of the Church. Even before the Dominican
mission came to England in 1221, connexions had been loiit
l)etween the Order and England. St. Donii njc was al ready
^^the close friend of Jhe elder Simon de Montfort ; Laurence of
"^^JEngiand was already a friar.*^ When Gilbert of Freynet
»* came in 1221, he travelled with his twelve brethren in the
company of Peter des Roches, Bishop of Winchester, who was
returning from the Holy Land by way of Bol(^;na. When he
reached Canterbury, he was cordially received by the great
Langton (father of Magna Carta, and father of a representative
Convocation), at whose request he preached in a church where
Langton himself should have preached* The archbishop was
so greatly edified by his discourse, that ever afterwards he
bore a special affection for the Dominicans.^ At the end of
the year Gilbert settled in Oxford, and St. Edward's School
was soon b^^n. A house was established in London at
Holbom; de Montfort founded another in Leicester; and the
Order was multiplied. In 1229, after a great dispute of town
and gown at Paris,^^ there was an emigration of Dominicans
to Oxford ; and the Master himself, Jordan, came to Oxfor^,
where Grosseteste met him, and was admitted by his ' s^vect

/ ^^ J. Gairand, Life of SL Dominic (Eng. trans.), p. 105. I

^ Trivet, AnnaUsj s. a. 122 1 : toto sua tempore religionem fratn^

Praedicatorum et officium prosecuius est gratia etfavore,
*• Rashdall, History ofAfediaeval Universities^ i. 337.

i 1:

THEIR INFLUENCE IN ENGLAND %9

aflfabiHty' to many conversations. In the house at Oxford X
was held the Mad Parliament in 1258, and a general chapter /
of the Order in laSo; in the house at Holborn generay
chapters assembled in 1250 and 1263, and at the lattejA ,

St. Thomas Aquinas was present as definitor of the Roman I y^
province. Grosseteste, friendly as he was with the Franciscans^^.^^
was also the friend of the Dominicans. As soon as Tie *
becomes bishop of Lincoln, in 1235, he writes to the
provincial prior, and afterwards to the provincial prior and
the definitores sitting in provincial chapter at York, to ask ^
for the attendance of two friars, John of St. Giles and another, ^ /
for the ensuing year. He seems to have had two Dominicair^
friars in regular attendance: in 1242 he complains to the
provincial prior that they are frequently changed. What he
did himself he would have had Canterbury do : in 1245 ^^
writes to a cardinal to urge that the archbishop should be sup-
ported on either hand by friars from the two Orders, who
alone can give such support as he needs.*^ The archbishop
who succeeded Boniface was himself a Dominican ; Kil wardby, [
Archbishop of Canterbury from 1273 *o 1278, had been Pro- >
vincial Prior. Eleanor of Castile, the wife of Edward I, was
greatly attached to the Order, and contemplated the founda-
tion of a convent of Sisters, which was eventually founded by
her grandson Edward III. From all this it is plain that the ;
Dominicans and their institutions were well known in the!'
central places of England, at Oxford and at London ; we can seef
that the heads of Church and of State, Langton and Kilwardb^l \
de Montfort and Edward I, were familiar with the Order. '^
Meanwhile much was done by English Dominicans in the \
realm of learning.^* We read of nearly a dozen writers and
commentators in this century. Kilwardby, representing the

*' Grosseteste, Epistolae, pp. 59-61, 305, 336. Trivet, Annates^ s.a. 1253.

'^ See Ehrle-Denifle, Archiv, ii.227 sqq. ; B^mont, Simon de Montfort y

p. 85 ; and Mandonnet, 363 sqq. Dominican studies were arranged/

on the following plan. In each convent there was a doctor, who gavef

lectures which all the friars, even the prior, must attend, and which secular

clerks could attend : larger convents were termed studia sollennia, Thej

studium generate in a University was conducted by a jaaster or regent,

t-ind two bachelors, one dibibticus, who lectured for a year on the Bible, the

>thei a sententiariusy who lectured for two years on the Sentences. The

'ork done by the Dominicans on biblical concordances and on the

/

(
I

30 THE DOMINICANS AND LEARNING

old Augustinian and pre*Thomist tradition^ wrote on Aristotle's
/ Organon (including the Prior and Posterior Analytics); on
Aristotle's physical and metaphysical writings (including the
De Anima) ; on Priscian ; on the Sentences of Peter the
Lombard ; on the unity of forms, on the origin and division
of knowledge, and on the nature of relation.*" William, after-

ards Archbishop of Dublin (11298), wrote on the first book
of the Sentences, on the unity of forms, and on the immediate
vision of the Divine Essence. Thomas de Sutton attempted
a concord of the books of St. Thomas, and commented on
Aristotelian Logic and the Psalter. John of St Giles, the
friend of Grosseteste, who was already a Master in Theology
when he assumed the Dominican habit in the midst of a sermon
on poverty, was the first professor in the School of St. Edward.^^
Maurice of England wrote a book oi Distinctiones as an aid for

e composition of sermons. One of the English Dominicans

ote postillae on St. Paul, another on Isaiah^ a third on
Ecclesiastes ; two of them wrote to vindicate Aquinas against
attack ; three English Dominicans composed a Biblical
Concordance.^ Nor should we forget Robert Bacon the
Dominican, obscured by the fame of his relative and namesake

oger,or his friend Richard Fitzacker or Fishacre,commentator

n the Sentences.**

exegesis of the Sentences was the fruit of such lectures. It is this
organization of studies which has led one writer to call St. Dominic ' tihe
Vnrst minister of public instruction in Europe '.

/ '"It was the Thomist doctrine that there was one form in the human
composition. Kilwardby*s treatise on the origin and division of knowledge
has been styled ' the most important introduction to philosophy of the
Middle Ages'.

^ Trivet, AnnaleSy s. a. 1222. Trivet says John was Suavisstmus
moralizaior and also in arte medicitMe experiissimus : he had lectured
in Montpellier as well as at Paris. Under 1223 Trivet mentions the resigna-
tion of the bishopric of Carlisle by Walter Mauclerck (some years after
he became bishop in that year) and his entry into the Order.

^ These concordances are still used, and still called Concordanticu
Anglicanaey Bdmont, ibid. Mandonnet dates them 1250-75, and men-
tions John of Darlington as their chief composer. On the work of the
Dominicans in Oxford see Rashdall, The Friars Preachers v, the University
(Oxford Historical Series, xvi,pp. 195 sqq.),and Fletcher, The Black Friars
in England, An interesting question, which cannot here be investigated,
is that of the influence of the Friars on the growth of colleges ; cf. Rashdall,
Mediaeval Universities^ i. 487, and Little, Grey Friars in Oxford, p, 9.

•' See Addendum I, p. 77. (

i

;

PART II

THE ENGLISH CONVOCATION

Early in the history of the Church we find the Metro-
politans convoking and presiding over provincial councils of
bishops. Before the twelfth century these assemblies are not
purely ecclesiastical assemblies ; laymen may attend, and lay
matters may be transacted.^ In the course of that century
these assemblies acquire a specifically and exclusively eccle-
siastical character.' ' The restoration of discipline is generally
the object of their deliberations ; or their purpose may be the
defence of the rights of the Church, which is increasingly
engaged in struggles with the secular power.'* But their
powers are generally inconsiderable : the centralization of the
Church in the hands of the Papacy cannot admit of any great
vigour in these assemblies.* Gratian lays it down — Concilia
sunt invalida ad diffiniendum et constituendutH^ non autent ad
corrigendum. Sunt enim necessaria episcoporum concilia ad
exhortationem et correctionemJ^ In composition these councils
are essentially as Gratian says, and as Eadmer also says of
English councils in the time of the Conqueror,^ episceporum
concilia^ though abbots will also be present, along with other
churchmen of importance such as archdeacons, deans, and

^ Cf. VioUet, op. cit,^ i. 355-60; ii. 354. VioUet remarks that the
councils which enacted the Treuga Dei were of the nature of * great
popular assisses ', which laymen and even women attended. The Anglo-
Saxon polity hardly knows a distinction between the ecclesiastical council
and the lay assembly.

' For the reasons of this development in England see Stubbs, Con"
stitutioncU History y ii. 178-80.

* Viollet, op, cit,j ii. 354.

* See Mdller, Lehrbuch der Kirchengeschichte, ii. 286, 306. While the
Pope acts as a check above, the cathe£:al chapters below (claiming to be
an episcopal presbyterium and the representatives of the diocesan clergy)
impose another limitation (ibid., p. 307).

^ Quoted in Viollet, op, cit,y ii. 354. But the disciplinary power over
bishops is disappearing in 1200, see M5ller, ^. cit,^ ii. 306.
^ Eadmer, Hist, Nov, i. 6, in Stubbs, Select Charters^ p. 82. • ^

32 CONCILIAR ACTIVITY AFTER 1215

priors.'^ Above these provincial synods we find larger synods
from a number of provinces, and national synods froiii^ all the
provinces in a country; below them we find (side by side
with the episcopal chapter which represents or claims to
represent the clergy of a diocese) a diocesan s3aiod composed
of the priests and even the deacons of a diocese.

By the end of the twelfth century provincial synods were
almost becoming extinct. As the bishop declined in power
and authority (partly because he took more interest in his lay
fief than in his spiritual position, partly because he was ousted
by the growth of the chapter and the archdeacon), so, too, did
the archbishop ; and as his power declined, so the provincial
synods, which he convoked, became more and more infrequent.
Ceasing to ' find themselves ' in regular synods, the provinces
ceased to be living communities, and became mere aggregations
of bishoprics.® A revival, however, came in the b^inning of
the thirteenth century. In the first place an impulse to synodal
activity may be said to have been given by three great synods
of the whole Church — the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215, and
the two Councils at Lyons in 1^45 and 1274. The composition
of these great councils is especially noteworthy. A new step
is taken when Innocent III, in summoning the Fourth Lateran
Council, asks bishops to enjoin the chapters of churches, not
only cathedral but others, to send their provost or dean or
other suitable men on their behalf ^ since some things are to be
treated which will specially pertain to chapters.^ Here is
representation in the highest assembly of the Church — repre-
sentation, indeed, not of the community of the diocese, but at

' VioUet, op, cit»i ii. 354 ; Makower, Constit. Hist, of the Church
of England (Eng. trans.), p. 359.

• Hauck, Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands, iv. 17. The mediaeval
communities naturally found their centre of unity and source of life in the
courts in which they issued. The shire is a community in and through
the shire-court — ^the borough in and through the borough-court. Indeed we
may say that the shire is the shire-court : the same word comitatus covers
both. The shire ceases to be a living community of persons, and sinks
into a geographical expression as the shire-court decays.

* Labbe and Cossart, Concilia^ xi. i> 124. This may be regarded as
the first germ of owr praemunientes clause. Hefele, History of Councils^
i. 21-2, says that deputies of chapters appeared in Councils as early
as 516 (at the Council of Tarragona). But the Fourth Lateran Council
marks a new epoch for the Middle Ages.

THE FOURTH LATERAN COUNCIL 33

any rate of the community of the chapter. Similarly in 1245
Innocent IV enjoins archbishops to bid their suffragans come
and their chapters to send providi nuncii et fideles qui vice
ipsorum utile nobis consilium largiantur \^^ and a similar
method is adopted by Gregory X in 1274 when he asks for
viri idonei from chapters of churches, both cathedral and
others.^^ In the second place, the Fourth Lateran Council
expressly enjoins, in its sixth canon, the observance of the old
canonical custom of annual provincial synods to control eccle-
siastical life and to secure the observance of ecclesiastical law.
' Let metropolitans with their suffragans omit not each year
to celebrate provincial synods, for the correction of excesses
and reformation of manners, especially in the clergy ; and let
persons be appointed to investigate what needs correction and
reformation and to report to the metropolitan and his suffragans
and others in the next council, that they may proceed with
prudent deliberation and cause to be observed what they have
enacted, publishing their enactments in episcopal synods to be
celebrated yearly in each diocese/ ^* Of itself the re-enactment
is of no great importance, and by itself it would not have
achieved much. But the tendency of events made for the
revival of such synods. In Germany the comparative fre-
quency of provincial synods from 1230 to 1310^* is ascribed
by the historian of the German Church partly to the disuse
during the reign of Frederic II of synods called by the king,

w Ibid., xi. 1. 636.

" Ibid., xi. I. 941.

** Ibid., p. 153. The twelfth canon (pp. 163-5) is also important. It
commands triennial chapters to be held in each kingdom or province
of abbots and priors who have not been accustomed to hold such chapters.
This refers to the Benedictine abbeys, who are here commanded to
modify their principle of local autonomy, and to conform to the Cistercian
model. Only in England was the command obeyed : it was re-enacted
by the legate Otto in 1238 in a meeting of the Benedictine abbots at
London (Matt. Paris, iii. 508-10) ; and chapters are recorded in 1225 (cf.
Dugdale, Mon, AngLy I. xlvi) and in 1249 (Matt. Paris, vi. 175 sqq.). But
during the thirteenth century no representatives attend these meetings.

^' Between 1230 and 13 10 there is a provincial synod in one province
or other every second year ; between 13 10 and 1400 there are only eight
or nine provincial synods in the whole of Germany. In the provmce of
Mainz there are ten provincial synods from 1230 to 13 10: there are none
after 1310 during the whole of the fourteenth century. Hauck, op, cit,^
v. I. 137-43-

16B1 C

34 THE COUNCIL OF BOURGES

partly to the example of the national synods held by papal
legates, especially Conrad of Porto.^* It must be noted, how-
ever, that these synods dwindle and disappear after 1310, and
that in their composition they present a close corporation of
bishops and other prelates. As at Magdeburg, in ia6i, bishops,
abbots, priors, archdeacons, and other prelates of churches
form the synod : there is very little trace of representation,^^
and what representation we find is of chapters and abbeys and
not of diocesan clergy. When we turn to France we find
a development during the thirteenth century which deserves
especial notice. It concerns the chapters of cathedrals. The
legatine Council of Bourges in 1225 is the first stage of this
development. Here we see the influence of papal pressure on
institutional development in the Church. At this council the
legate Romanus put forward the papal demand, made in the
bull Supra muros Jerusalem (January a8, 12^25), for prebends
in all conventual churches. Proctors of chapters had been
summoned, as the matter obviously concerned chapters. But
the legate gave these proctors leave to depart, keeping only
bishops and abbots. The proctors protested ; they feared that
in their absence f who were of greater prudence and experience,
and from their numbers more able to refuse ') he should hold
conference with each chapter severally, and not with all in
common, and so should determine something to the general
prejudice. They expressed their surprise that he had not
made the proposal in their presence, as they were specially
concerned, and they warned him that, if some consented, there
would yet be no real consent in a matter which concerned all
(a reference to the dictum in the Institutes ^iitrvidLvds quoted by

" Hauck, op, cit.y iv. 17, v. i. 135-6.

*• Hauck, V. I. 149, n. i, writes: 'Die Halberstadt-Stifter in Aschaf-
fenburg waren durch BevoUmachtigte vertreten, die vice ac nomine
omnium handelten. Es wird auch anderwarts so gewesen sein,* In the
national KCidi legatine synod at Wiirzburg in 1287 each chapter and abbey
was to be represented by two proctors (ibid., v. i. 172) ; and in diocesan
synods Siegfrid of Cologne introduced in 1280 representation, by one or
two proctors, of the members of chapters and collegiate churches (ibid.,
n. 2 ; cf. Labbe and Cossart, xi. i. 1108). In diocesan synods representa-
tives of capitular clergy already appear in the twelfth century (Hauck, v.
I. 172); and in the fourteenth century representatives of the ordinary
diocesan clergy begin to appear (ibid., p. 173).

ITS IMPORTANCE 35

Edward I), when all, subjects as well as their kings and princes,
were ready to resist to the death.^®

This meeting at Bourges is especially noteworthy for several
reasons. In the first place, it shows a strong feeling of the
chapters that they are a community with a common interest,
which must be expressed by the common voice acting through
representatives. The root idea of representation is clearly
visible: the reference to the dictum quod omnes tangit ab
omnibus approbetur is significant : the demand of the chapters
reminds one of Edward Ts substitution of consultation with
the federated shire-communities for separate negotiations with
the several shire-courts. In the second place, there is a close
connexion between the French assembly and the first meeting
in England of proctors of chapters in i^a6 (not, as Stubbs
says, 13^5) : the same papal pressure was responsible for both,
and the proceedings of the French assembly formed the model
for those of the English. In the third place, this use of
proctors is new and, as far as I know, unprecedented in
France. It will not support the view, which it is used by
Stubbs to support, that *the procuratorial system had long
been used in foreign churches'. As far as I can discover,
apart from one or two instances of representation of collegiate
churches in German diocesan synods of the twelfth century,
the first great instance of the use of proctors in clerical
assemblies ^"^ appears in the summons of the Fourth Lateran
Council quoted above. Finally, the general position of the
chapter in the economy of the Church demands some con-
sideration.^^ Under the Carolingians the canons of cathedral

" See Walter of Coventry, ii. 227 (cited in Stubbs, Const. Hist, ii. 207),
and also Matt. Paris, iii. 105-9, and the Register of S, Osmund, ii. 51-4.
Not only do English writers pay heed to this assembly : its proceedings were
made the model of the English assembly held to answer the same papal
demand in April, 1226. The papal demand was then refused juxtaformam
responsionis in concilio apud Bituricas (Reg, S, Osmund, ii. 51}. For the
proceedings of Bourges of. also Labbe and Cossart, Cone. xi. i. 291-4.

" No doubt clerical proctors had appeared to represent their chapters
or abbeys, in business at Rome that concerned the individual chapter or
abbey, for some time past. But I am here speaking of joint representation
of communities in a clerical assembly.

" See Hauck, op. cit., v. i. 185-221 ; cf. also VioUet, op. cit., ii. 356,
and on the English chapters Makower, Const. Hist, of the Church of
England, § 37.

56 THE CATHEDRAL CHAPTERS

chapters had been brought under the rule of a common life :
the common life had involved the allocation of separate
revenues for its support : the separate revenues had brought
to the chapter first a share in the administration, and then
a right of separate administration, of the properties from which
they came. The chapter had thus by the thirteenth century
developed into a corporation, owning property and electing its
own members, of such as had stallum in choro et votutn in
capitulo. As such it became practically independent of the
bishop : it elected him ; it imposed conditions on him at his
election ; it excluded him from its meetings ; and it began to
share with him control of the diocese. Meeting twice a year
in its general chapter (capitulum generate) it became the parlia-
ment, as it were, of the diocese. The old presbyteriutn or
synod of diocesan priests still subsisted as the ' folk-moot ' of
the diocese ; but the real presbyteriutn was the permanent and
powerful chapter. The Pope, willing to check the bishops,
fostered the chapter: he encouraged both its right to elect
the bishop and its claim to consent to his acts. The common
life had indeed disappeared : the daily chapter {capitulum
gtwtidianum) {or the reading of the rule and for edification
had gone; the canons were scattered about, busy in divers
offices, and * vicars * took their place in the cathedral ; but the
power of the chapter general only grew. It is this development
which explains at once the summoning of representatives of
the chapters by Innocent III, and the tone of the chapters at
the Council of Bourges in 1225." Above all, the separate
financial position of the chapter, its corporate ownership of
a property of its own, will explain the need of its direct con-
sultation when matters of finance arise.

^* The history of the English Church seems to show the diocesan clergy
in a stronger position. We must remember that the English Church was
peculiar in having a large number of monastic chapters which, as monastic,
could hardly claim to represent the secular clergy. In any case it is
striking that in the final form of Convocation in the province of Canterbury
two representatives of the ordinary clergy of each diocese sit side by side
with one representative for the clergy of each chapter. The protest of the
Berkshire rectors in 1240, and the complaint of the beneficed clergy of the
archdeaconries in 125 5 that a tithe has been given without their being
consulted, point the way to this development.

THEIR INCLUSION IN FRENCH SYNODS 37

Gradually the use of proctors of the chapters becomes
common in the provincial synods of the French Church. The
position which the chapters have attained by the thirteenth
century demands their presence. As a French commune is
a collective seignory, so a chapter is, as it were, a collective
prelacy : it stands in the ecclesiastical hierarchy by the side of
the bishop or abbot. It is a corporation owning property ;
it is an elective body which imposes Wahlkapitulationen on
its nominee; it is the equal, almost the successor, of the
diocesan synod ; in all three capacities it must be represented.
The province of Reims shows the way. Here there is a peculiar
development. *The chapters of the province federate (1234-
1428) and hold regular annual assemblies. These chapters
wish to defend their rights and privileges against the arch-
bishop and his suifragans; they wish to guarantee their
common interests by union.' ^® In 1277 ^^^^ produced a
counter-confederation of the bishops. In a council of the
province at Compi^gne they protested against the * damnable
usurpations ' of the chapters, and bound themselves into a con*
federacy to meet annually at Paris, with money contributions
on behalf of the common cause.^^ It was perhaps through this
struggle that the chapters gained an entry into the provincial
council by the side of the prelates. Already in 1235 synods
of the province at St. Quentin and at Compi^gne are attended
not only by bishops, but by proctors of all the cathedral
chapters of the province ; and the synods protest against the
attacks of the king on the liberties of the province. It is
attacks on the chapter which come first in their complaints :
the king has outlawed a canon of Reims ; he has seized the
property and otherwise infringed the rights of the chapter of
Soissons.^^ Here it is royal pressure, as in \%%^ it was the
pressure of the Papacy, which brings capitular representation
to the front. Henceforth the chapters seem to form part of
the provincial synod. In 1^39 the acts of the provincial synod
of Reims are dated consentientibus nobis episcopis . . . inter-

^ VioUet, Histoire des institutions, ii. 356. VioUet does not mention
the counter-confederation of the bishops.
^ Labbe and Cossart, Cone, xi. i. 103 1-2.
"* Ibid., p. 501-3.

C3

38 REPRESENTATION IN FRENCH SYNODS

veniente etiam consensu procuratorum capituhrum ecclesiarum
cathedralium provinciae nostrae?^ In 1^71, when the Bishop
of Soissons held a council during a vacancy of the see of
Reims, the canons of Reims disturbed its proceedings, * for-
bidding any suffragan to be present, when they had not been
consulted, and had not given permission for a synod.' ^ In
1287 the perennial quarrel of the clergy with the friars on
the hearing of confessions led to a provincial synod of Reims,
attended by proctors of cathedrals and other collegiate churches,
in which the bishops were ordered to pay one-twentieth of
their revenue, and chapters and rectors of parochial churches
one-hundredth, to meet the expenses of their cause.**

In other French provinces the same development is to be
seen. In the province of Narbonne in 1246 the archbishop
promulgates the constitutions of a S3aiod assensu . . . suffra^
ganeorum nostrorum et capituli nostri.^ Here the archiepis-
copal chapter alone is mentioned, and it is mentioned as if it
were on a level with the suffragans.^^ In 1255 the synod of
Narbonne is attended by bishops, abbots, many archdeacons,
precentors and other ecclesiastical persons.^ Here there is no
mention of any chapter ; but in 1280 we hear of episcopal
chapters, and not as in 1246 of the archiepiscopal chapter only.
A chapter writes to inform the archbishop that it has elected
a proctor to attend the synod ' to hear discussion of business
touching the whole province, and to do what seems good to
the synod ', and that it will hold firm and valid whatever the

^ Labbe and Cossart, op, cit.^ xi. i. 569. ^ Ibid., p. 922.

^ Ibid., xi. 2. 1 3 17 -1 8. Whether the proctors of chapters were always
present at synods of the province of Reims, or only attended on special
occasions, I cannot say. In 1304 (Labbe and Cossart, xi. 2. 1493) there
are only bishops present : in 131 7 (ibid., 1625) the deans and chapters of
cathedral churches attend through proper proctors. In 1326 (ibid., 1769)
proctors of cathedral churches are present; and on the whole their
presence seems to be the rule.

*« Ibid., xi. I. 677.

^ This form I have also noticed in the German Church at Cologne. In
13 10 the archbishop promulgates statutes de capituli et praelaiorum
nostrorum consilio et assensu (Labbe and Cossart, xL 2. 1517) ; and again
in 1324 he enacts de consilio et consensu nostri capituli Coloniensis ac
venerabilium patrum (ibid., p. 1708). Here the archiepiscopal chapter
comes before the bishops of the province.

*" Labbe and Cossart, xi. i. 753,

THE FORM OF THE FRENCH SYNOD 39

proctor shall do.^ Again in 1299 proctors of chapters attend
a synod of the Narbonne province.*^ A synod of 1374
especially deserves attention. The archbishop had been
armed by a letter and three bulls from Gregory XI, authoriz-
ing him to summon even exempt abbots and prelates to the
synod. Accordingly he addressed a summons to his suffragans
(i) enjoining their attendance; {2) commanding them to
summon to attend in person all clergy who of use, custom, or
law, ought to attend in person, and to summon chapters,
colleges, and convents to attend through proctors, syndics, or
oeconomi, appointed for the purpose, with sufficient and special
mandate ; and (3) ordering them to hold diocesan synods to
deliberate in advance on the business of the provincial synod.
The synod was held : its constitutions are promulgated in
the following terms : ' We the archbishop, the bishops present,
the proctors of the absent bishops, with our venerable chapter
of Narbonne, celebrating a provincial council . . . with proctors
also of others our venerable chapters absent, of abbots, chapters,
priors, colleges, and many other ecclesiastics, exempt and
non- exempt, even friars, and of other orders whatsoever of our
province, ordain . . .* and so forth.^^ This summons seems
almost parallel to Peckham's summons of the * Model Con-
vocation* of 1283, though it is perhaps a uniquely large
assembly. Here, as everywhere else, the one thing that
differentiates the churches of the Continent from those of
England is the absence of proctors of the diocesan clergy.
Nor is there, apparently, any such regular rule or 'canon'
determining the composition of provincial synods in France

^ Ibid., p. 1 126. In 1279 ^he Archbishop of Narbonne had asked the
abbots, priors, chapters, and convents of his province to set their seal to a
power of attorney (procuratorium) authorizing him to treat at a parlia-
ment 'in France' about fiefs, arri^re- fiefs, ^ods, the army, and other
grievances which touched the common state of the monasteries and
churches (ibid., p. 1062).

•® Ibid., xi. 2. 1430.

" Ibid., pp. 2493-9. One notices that the chapter of the archbishop is
mentioned apart from other chapters, and along with the archbishop and
his suffragans (as if all its members attended) : it fonns part as it were of
the inner ring, as apparently before in 1246. The phrase proctors,
syndics, oeconomi is apparently borrowed from the royal chancery.
Philip IV in 1302 summoned ecclesiarum urbiumque oeconomos syndicos
et procurator es.

40 DIOCESAN CLERGY NOT INCLUDED IN SYNODS

as that of 1283 in England. In the province of Tours, for
instance, chapters are summoned in 12^94 ;*2 [^ j^j^ ^jje
preamble of the constitutions of another synod runs — * those
having been summoned who ought to be summoned, and those
being present who wished or were able to be present, we have
ordained by the counsel and consent of our suffragans and
abbots.' 83

On the whole, we may lay it down that the presence of
representatives of chapters in provincial synods was common
in France by the fourteenth century.®* We must remember
that by 1302^ the meetings of the States General had begun.
To these meetings chapters were summoned to send proctors
by royal letters addressed directly to the dean and chapter/^
The parochial clergy, not possessing temporalities or juris-
diction, were not summoned either in person or through
proctors.®^ The chapters, collective seignories as well as
collective prelacies, enter the States General as well as the
provincial synod : the ordinary clergy attend neither. In
Spain, also, in the fourteenth century, proctors of chapters
attend provincial synods. They are present in the province
of Toledo in 130a ;3'^ and a council of 13^4 definitely
enacts, in order that fuller information may be had, that
chapters of cathedral churches shall send fit proctors in-
formed of the state of their churches. ^^ In Germany we
have already seen that representation of any sort is not
frequent. There are two proctors from chapters and abbeys

^ Labbe and Cossart, op. city p. 1395. " Ibid., p. 161 7.

" In the province of Auch proctors of all chapters of cathedral and
collegiate churches attend at Beziers in 1290 (Labbe and Cossart, xi. 2.
1363), and again in 131 5 (ibid., p. 162 1). In the province of Aries
a proctor of the dean and chapter of one cathedral, a proctor of the
bishop, dean and chapter of another, and three proctors of cathedral
churches attend in 1288 (ibid., p. 1336). At a joint synod of three
provinces at Avignon in 1326 proctors of the chapters of the provinces
appear (ibid., p. 1719).

" VioUet, op. cit.y iii. 187-8.

^^ Stubbs, Const. Hist. ii. 180, n. 2 ; 210, n. 2. Exceptionally the
whole clergy of a diocese, regular and secular, may join to elect their
deputies, as at Bourges in 1308; but only the important dignitaries
attend ; all the clergy of the diocese are not summoned — that would be
too slow and costly, VioUet, op. cit.y iii. 188.

^ Labbe and Cossart, xi. 2. 2445.

•' Ibid., p. 17 14.

THE COUNCIL OF VIENNE 41

at the legatine Council at Wurzburg in izSy ; the chapter of
Cologne acts along with the suffragans in the synods of the
province in 1310 and 1324 ; the Archbishop of Cologne enacts
in laSo that proctors of chapters and collegiate churches shall
attend diocesan synods, and in the fourteenth century diocesan
synods begin to include representatives of the ordinary clergy.
But on the whole 'the bishops and prelates of ecclesiastical
provinces acted in the provincial synods as an exclusive
corporation *.^® The constitutional development of the pro-
% vincial organization of the Church went further in France than
elsewhere on the Continent ; but it went no further than
representation of the cathedral clergy. A study of the pro-
ceedings in the different churches at the time of the Council
of Vienne (131 1) for the suppression of the Templars gives us
interesting results. In the first place, the Pope does not
summon, as in 1215, 1245, and 1274, representatives of the
chapters to the general council ; he summons from each
province the archbishop and a number of the bishops to
represent the whole province.*^ In the second place, we may
notice in the different provincial synods which are held in 1310
to prepare the way for the general council some interesting
differences. In England Winchelsea summons to London the
ordinary representative convocation (including proctors of
cathedrals and of the diocesan clei^y).*^ Other synods are
held for Italy, Spain, Germany, and France in the provinces
of Ravenna, Toledo, Mainz, and Sens. At Ravenna there
attend bishops, two Dominicans and a Franciscan who are
inquisitors in the province, a rural dean for the sacrati viri of
Modena, a prior for the bishop and sacrati viri of Parma.*^
In the province of Toledo bishops attended ; *^ and at Sens
and Mainz bishops also apparently formed the council.
Here we find councils in England, Italy, Spain, France, and
Germany ; but in England alone do we find meeting a real
and regularly organized representive body.

We turn to the provincial synod of Canterbury and York,

^ Hauck, op, citi v. i, 149.

** Labbe and Cossart, xi. 2. 1507, 1543.

" Ibid., pp. 1511-12. *' Ibid., p. 1533.

" Ibid., p. 1535.

4a DEVELOPMENT OF THE ENGLISH SYNOD

and to the history of our own Convocation. Before 120,6
there is no representative element in these synods. In 1207,
when John attempted to exact from the clergy a tax on their
spiritualities, it was to bishops and abbots only that he put
forward the demand. There were no representative members
at the assembly of * religious ' on which John imposed a heavy
fine in 1210.** The assembly at St. Pauls in 1213, at which
Stephen Langton produced the charter of Henry I, contained
bishops, abbots, priors, and deans.** In 1 225 Stephen Langton
cites bishops, abbots, priors, deans, and archdeacons.** Only
in 1226, five years after the settlement of the Dominicans in
England, does Stephen Langton at last summon not only
bishops, abbots, priors, deans, and archdeacons, but also
proctors from each chapter of cathedral and prebendal churches
and monasteries and other religious and collegiate houses,
who are all to attend with full instructions.*^ Abbots, priors,
and deans are no longer to come alone, we perceive, but each
is to bring a socius from the body of which he is head, just as
the conventual priors in the Dominican Order came to the
provincial chapter each accompanied by a representative of
his chapter. From 1226 we may leap forward to the b^inning
of the reign of Edward I. A Dominican, Kilwardby, once
provincial prior of his Order, is now on the throne of Canter-
bury. In 1273 h^ summons not only capitular, but also

^ Venerunt . , . ad hone generaiem convocationem abbaUSf priores^
Templarti Hospitetlarii custodes villarum ordinis Clunituensis. Matt.
Paris, p. 230, in Stubbs, Select Charters^ p. 274.

^ Matt. Paris, p. 240, in Stubbs, Select Charters^ p. 277.

^ Wilkins, Concilia, i. 558. The archdeacons may be r^[arded as
representative of the diocesan clergy, and the deans of the capitular
clergy. The representative character of the former is sometimes definitely
emphasized. In 1258 the archdeacons were summoned with letters
procuratorial from their clergy (Stubbs, Select Charters, p. 454) ; and
m 1240 we find archdeacons prominent In that year the l^^te as-
sociated with the Papal coUector Petrus Rubeus summons the bishops
to ask for money. The bishops say, ' We have archdeacons subject
to us, who know the means of the beneficed dergy subject to them :
we do not. Omnes tangit hoc negotium : omnes igitur sunt conrveniendi :
sine ipsis nee decet nee expedit respondere* The bishops and a^^ch-
deacons then meet to give a reply to the legate (Matt. Paris, iv. 37). The
clerical use of the argument quod omnes tangit reminds us of the assembly
at Bourges in 1225.

^ Wilkins, Concilia, i. 602, quoted in Stubbs, Select Charters, p. 453.

CONNEXION WITH THE DOMINICAN MODEL 43

diocesan clergy, not only some greater persons from each
chapter, but also proctors of all the clergy of each diocese.^®
The archdeacon now brings his socius also. The last step of
all is taken by Peckham, a Franciscan friar, who summon
the Model Convocation of the province of Canterbury iiyuie
year 1283. Bishops, abbots, priors, and other h^acds of
religious houses, deans of cathedral and collegiate^hurches,
and archdeacons are all to appear in person or^oy proctors ;
and the bishops are to assemble and instruct their diocesan
clergy, so that from each diocese two proctors in the name of
the clergy, and from each chapter of cathedral and collegiate
churches one proctor, may be sent with sufficient instructions,
having full and express power of treating and consenting.^^
Dean and archdeacon now both appear with their socii, who
are proctors with full power ; the evolution is complete. In
York the evolution is slightly different: here each arch-
deaconry sends two proctors, and here the Model Convocation
is as early as 1280.®^
/ It would be absurd to suggest that this evolution is entirely
( due to imitation of the DxH Xiinican model. It is only suggested
tliat ifissignificant that the first step^Hould have I5een "^en
by Langton, the friend of the Dominicans, and that the final
steps should have been taken by two friars, the one belonging
to the Dominican, the other to the Franciscan Order, in which
the Dominican system had been adopted and in which the pro-
vincial chapters were composed of custodes each accompanied
by a discretus elected by all the friars of the convent. But if
the institutions of the friars perhaps supplied a model, there
must have been some motive force which impelled the Church
to the adoption of that model. And this motive force may be
found intheneed of meeting the demands which both the Papacy

** Wilkins, Concilia^ ii. 30, quoted in Stubbs, Select Charters^ pp. 455-6.
Representatives of the diocesan clergy had attended before, as we shall
see, in the period 1254-8.

*• Wilkins, Concilia^ ii. 93, quoted in Stubbs, Select Charters^ p. 467.

^ Stubbs, Const. Hist, ii. 207. But there are difficulties about this
assembly of 1280, and I am not quite sure that it can be regarded as
a model ; cf. infra^ p. 65 and note 132. In any case the assembly met in
1280, and not in 1279 (though it was summoned in that year), and Stubbs's
date (1279) must therefore be altered.

44 THE ENGLISH CHURCH UNDER HENRY III

and the English Crown made on the Church during the reign
of Henry III, and which the Crown still continued to urge in
the reign of Edward I.

The English Church in the reign of Henry III was in a some-
what peculiar position. The Pope was twice overlord of
England, once as spiritual head of the Church, and once as
temporal overlord since John's submission. This double
power was used, already in the pontificate of Honorius III,
and still more under his successor Gregory IX, to make
England a milch-cow. On the plea' of a Crusade taxes were
imposed, intended for clerg^y and laity alike, but falling in the
issue on the clergy ; while under the shadow of his right of
provisio^^ (and especially of the provision exercised y«r^/r^-
ventionis, which included reservations and expectatives) the
Pope had begun to interfere with patronage and prebends.
Rex . . .foetus est baculus arundineus^ as Matthew Paris more
than once says : the clergy found that they were like sheep
given over to ravening wolves with the king's connivance.
Henry preferred sharing with the Pope to defending the Church ;
and the Church was thrown on itself. It had to reply as
a whole, through some organized representation of itself, to
the demands which first the Pope, then the Pope and king,
and finally under Edward I the king by himself were constantly
making. The principle quod omnes tangit ab omnibus appro-
betur already alleged in France in 1225, and urged in England
in 1240, had to receive its full expression.

We may first study the illustration given by the events of
the years \%%^ and \%%6, Early in 1225, on February 2,
a council at London had granted a fifteenth of all movables
praeterquam de ecclesiis^ in return for a confirmation of the
charters.** Honorius III had apparently been approached by
the king beforehand, and at the same time, February 3, he
wrote to the English Church, commanding that it should pay
a competent subsidy according to the means of its churches.*^

'^ See Stubbs, Const* Hist. iii. 313 sqq., and especially p. 320, n. i.
" Walter of Coventry, ii. 256 ; Malt. Paris, iii. 91-3.
" Walter of Coventr)r, ii. 256-7. The letter is also printed from the
Salisbury Register in Wilkins, Condi, i. 603-4.

THE PAPACY AND ENGLISH CHURCH IN 1225 45

In the same year two other matters drew the attention of the
Pope to England Fawkes de Breaut6 had appealed to him,
and he sent a nuncio, Otto, with letters of intercession on his
behalf/* But Otto was also the bearer of other letters. He
brought the bull of January 28, 1225, Supra muros Jerusaleniy
in which a demand was made for one prebend in each cathedral
and collegiate church, and for a certain revenue from all
religious houses — the bull which the legate Romanus had put
before the French Church at Bourges. The English Church
had thus to face two demands from Honorius, one for
a subsidy for Henry, another for contributions to the Papal
See. Early in 1225 (the letter is not dated) Stephen Langton
sent a letter to all the bishops, warning them to induce their
clergy to grant an aid, according to the papal command, from
the sources on which the fifteenth had not been levied, and so
to make a virtue of necessity/^ Nothing, however, seems to
have been done in 1225, whether owing to the reluctance of
the bishops to act, or to the coming of the nuncio, which may
have suggested that they should wait for the results of his
mission. At the end of 1225, however, Stephen sent a
summons to his suffragans to come to London on the morrow
(? octave) of Epiphany, January 7 (? 13), 1226, with their deans
and archdeacons and with abbots and priors of convents.^^
The business was the discussion of the demands made in the
bull Supra muros Jerusalem. The king, however, was lying
ill at Marlborough, and the archbishop and several of the
bishops were absent. The council accordingly, through the
mouth of the archdeacon of Bedford, replied that in their
absence they could not and ought not to give any answer on
a matter that touched the king, all patrons of churches, and

" Walter of Coventry, ii. 272-4.

" Ibid., p. 257 ; Wilkins, i. 603-4.

"• Matt. Paris, ill. 102-5 ; Wilkins, 1. 558, 602, 603. Matthew Paris
dates the council on the Feast of St. Hilary, which is the octave of
Epiphany, and that is the date in Wilkins, i. 558 (January 13). But
in Wilkins, i. 602, and the Reg, S, Osmund^ ii. 46, the date given is the
morrow of Epiphany.

^'^ Stephen had gone to see the king at Marlborough (Wilkins, i. 559;
Register of St Osmund^ ii. 45), perhaps to concert a policy with the king
and his advisers in the face of Otto.

46 LANGTON AND THE NUNCIO OTTO

innumerable prelates. Otto sought to fix a time for another
meeting, but he failed to secure the consent of the council.
The failure of this council led to the summoning of a new
council, in which representation was adopted on the model of
the council at Bourges the year before. Stephen sent a new
summons, which was received at Salisbury at the beginning of
March. Not only were bishops, abbots not exempt, priors,
deans^ and archdeacons to attend ; but each chapter was to
send proctors, as well of cathedral as of prebendal churches and
of monasteries and other religious and collegiate houses, to be
present, to deliberate and to come fully instructed to answer
the legate. The meeting was fixed at London for April 26,
In the interval Stephen had been active. He had procured
from Rome letters recalling Otto : while the nuncio was
travelling North in Lent (Easter Day in 1226 fell on April 19),
he received the letters at Northampton, read them askance,
threw them into the fire, and left England in confusion with
his wallet empty.** We can now understand the absence of
Stephen from the council of January ; he had been negotiating
with Honorius. The letters he had obtained from Honorius
commanded him to summon a new council and therein to
gain an answer himself to the papal demand. This will
explain the new summons received at Salisbury at the begin-
ning of March ; and it is thus to Stephen's initiative that we
must ascribe the introduction of the representative principle in
that summons. Once more Stephen shows himself a father of
English liberty. And we should notice in passing the wide
scope of the representation he introduces : it is representative
not only of chapters, as at Bourges, but of monasteries and

" This is Wendover's account (Matt. Paris, iii. 109). I must admit
that Walter of Coventry, in the last paragraph of the Memoranda, contra-
dicts this account He speaks of the nuncio Otto as present at the meeting
at London, which he dates not on April 26, but fifteen days after Easter
(i.e. May 4, not April 13, as Stubbs says in the side-heading, an error
repeated in Cons^. Hist ii. 39), and as reciting the bull Supra Muros,
Not many days after the council the nuncio receives papal letters and
leaves England (i. e. towards the end of May). But this last paragraph is
not found in MS. A ; and the Register ofSL Osmund^ ii. 51, corroborates
Wendovcr (Octone versus curiam Romanam profecto^ tenuit dominus
Cant, concilium).

THE COUNCIL OF 1226 47

other religious houses/' The example of Bourges must have
weighed with Stephen ; ^^ but is it a risky conjecture that he
was also influenced by his friends the Dominicans, and that he
partly borrowed from their organization this use of representa-
tives of religious houses, in which, one fancies, representatives of
Dominican convents may have been themselves included ? ®^

When the representative council met at London at the end
of April, 12,26 y^^ it returned a non possumus to the papal
demands. * The demands of the Pope look to the whole
breadth of Christianity : we, situated as we are on the extreme
confines of the world, will see how other realms behave towards
such demands : when we have done so, and have an example
from other realms, the Pope will find us prompter in obedience.'
The king, fearing for his own interests, had on this question
opposed the Papacy.®^ But there was still to be settled the

"* The papal bull demanded prebends in cathedral and prebendal
churches, and from monasteries and other regular houses and collegiate
churches revenues according to their means. Stephen follows exactly the
wording of the bull (cf. Walter of Coventry, ii. 275, and Wilkins, i. 558,
with Wilkins, i. 603). It is not so much of his own initiative, as in exact
obedience to the wording of the bull, that he goes beyond the French
precedent of 1226. But at any rate he sees that if the bull is to be
answered by means of representation, the representation must be as wide
as the demands of the bull ; and the addition of monastic to capitular
representatives makes his assembly far wider than that at Bourges.

** The proceedings of Bourges were apparently read before the English
assembly when it met, Reg. St Osmund^ ii. 51 ; cf. supra^ n. 16.

•^ Mr. A. G. Little, who has been kind enough to read through this
study, reminds me (i) that according to Trivet, Annates^ s. a. 1230, the
provincial chapters of the Dominicans in England began in 1230 ; (2) that
Dominicans, vowed to poverty, could hardly have attended an assembly
like that of 1226, which dealt with questions of property. I would only
urge, as touching the first point, that Langton may well have heard from
his Dominican friends about the system on which the chapters, and
especially the general chapters, of their Order were organized abroad,
even if that system was not yet operative in England.

*' We should notice the date, 1226. Stubbs, in taking the summons
from Wilkins, i. 603, wrongly dates it 1225. Wilkins heads his excerpts
from the Salisbury Register with the date 1225 ; but the only document
to which that date applies is the first. All the other documents must be
dated (in our reckoning: Wilkins' year began on March 25) in 1226.
A comparison with Matt Paris makes this absolutely dear.

*' He had sent John Marshall and others to the abortive assembly
at London in January, 1226, to tell all the prelates who held baronies of the
king in chief not to bind their lay fief to the Church of Rome, whence he
would be deprived of his service due (Matt. Paris, iii. 103). The papal
bull had demanded de bonis episcoparum, secundum facultates suas • . •
certi redditus (Walter of Coventry, ii. 275).

48 THE CHAPTER OF SALISBURY

matter of the competent subsidy to the king from churches,
of which Honorius had spoken in his letter of February 3,
1 2(1$. Nothing apparently had been done towards its payment,
and the king could now exert the more pressure, as he had
apparently defended the Church in the other and greater
matter. Here the Register of Salisbury gives us interesting
information.** On Tuesday, June 16, 1226, the dean and
chapter of Salisbury received a letter from their bishop, with
two enclosures — ^the first the old letter from Stephen Langton,
belonging to 1225, which recites Honorius's letter of Feb-
ruary 3, demanding an aid for Henry, and suggests the making
a virtue of necessity ; and the second another and recent letter,
in which Stephen recalls to memory {a ptemoHa vestra nofi
credimus excidisse) the proceedings of 1225, and suggests
a twelfth or at least a fourteenth from these sources on which
the fifteenth had not been levied. On the same day the dean
and chapter also received a letter from the king, dated
May 27, in which he recites how the Pope had lately
{dtidum) written to the English Church on his behalf, asks for
an efficacious aid, and mentions that he has conceded to the
Church, on the advice of Stephen and his bishops, tithes of
hay and mills from his demesnes for the future. A chapter
general attended by twenty-eight out of the thirty-seven
canons was at once summoned to discuss (i) whether they
should give the king an aid ; (2) how it might be brought about,
that one and the same form should be observed in divers
churches (in other words, how, whether by use of representa-
tion or otherwise, the rate of the aid might be made uniform —
an important point); (3) whether the rate should be one-
twelfth or one-fourteenth ; and (4) how the creation of a pre-
cedent might be avoided. Thus the chapter constitutes itself
a small parliament, to discuss parliamentary questions of

•* The Historiaet acta capiiulorum ecclesiae Sarum (1217-28: Wil-
kins, i. 551-69) and the excerpts from the Register dealing with 1226
(Wilkins, i. 602-6) have been of great service. The Register of St.
Osmund (Rolls Series) gives Stephen's two summons of Convocation
(I 369-71, and also ii. 46-7 : they are misdated by the editor in 1224 in
the first volume, and vaguely dated 1225-6 in the second). The documents
bearing on the proceedings of 1226 are in vol. ii, pp. 55-76.

INSTRUCTIONS OF SALISBURY PROCTORS 49

representation and precedent. One feels that the leaven of
Stephen's summoning of representatives earlier in the year is
already at work. And the issue corroborates one's feeling.
The meeting was held in the middle of August : the issue was
a letter addressed by the dean and chapter to their bishop.
They desire that, for the sake of uniformity (Honorius had
spoken in his letter of congruae collectae, and Stephen in his of
forma eadem in singulis dioecesibus)^ from each church where
clerks live in common a proctor should be summoned, that
from their uniform provision and counsel a certain and uniform
answer may proceed ; and they further desire a security from
the king that anything now done be counted as no precedent.
The Bishop of Salisbury submitted the letter to Stephen
Langton, and was able to reply, in a letter received by the
chapter on September 8, that he had induced the archbishop
to consent that each chapter should be allowed to send
a proctor to London to a meeting on October 13, and that he
commanded them to send one.^* The chapter at once elected
not one, but two proctors. The two proctors carried to London
a letter from the chapter to Stephen, in which it promised to hold
valid whatever the two proctors together with the proctors
of other chapters thought proper to do. The two proctors
further received from the chapter eleven articles of instruction.
These articles are of great interest. The chapter thinks (§ i)
that it is proper to help the king — if the proctors of other
chapters are of the same opinion ; but it thinks a twentieth
(such as is given for the Holy Land) will be adequate (§ %\
This twentieth should be given on the basis of the assessment
made before for the contribution (of \%^^) in aid of the Holy
Land (§ 4), and on prebends and revenues, not on movables ;
it should be collected by trustworthy men, assigned by the
chapter itself (§ 5). The proctors should inquire what is to be
done if any of the canons singly contradict what has been
provided by the majority of the chapter — which raises the
interesting question of the right of a majority (§ 9). We

«* Whether Stephen*s action was as much due to the influence of Salis-
bury as would here appear we cannot say. Other chapters may have made
the same request.

1661 D

50 CLERICAL TAXATION

gather the issue of the meeting to which these proctors went
from a letter sent by Stephen Langton to the Bishop of
Salisbury towards the end of October. He had treated, so
he wrote, with the deans who were present^ and with proctors
where deans were not present ; with the archdeacons present,
and the proctors of those who were absent ; ^® and with monks
present and the proctors of monks who were absent. They
had granted a sixteenth on all sources not touched by the
fifteenth of the previous year : it was given on the basis of the
old assessment of the twentieth for the Holy Land, and it was
to be collected by the dean and chapter in cathedral churches.
We see that the proctors of Salisbury have carried out some
of the articles of their instructions. The account in the
Register of Salisbury ends with a letter from the king, in
which he promises to make no precedent of the grant, and
a letter from the dean and chapter to their concanonicus N.,
asking for his contribution to the sixteenth.®'^

The developments which mark these years are closely con-
nected with the history of taxation. The papal demand, as
far as I know new and unprecedented, for prebends from
chapters and contributions from other ecclesiastical corpora-
tions, produces the new and unprecedented representation of
chapters both at Bourges in i%2S ^^^ ^^ London in April 1.7,26.
The royal demand, not altogether new and unprecedented as
a demand, but nevertheless new and unprecedented in its
particular character .and in its success, produces representation
once more in England in October imS. For what is touched
by the royal demand is the spiritualities of the clergy ; and
though kings have before sought to tax spiritualities, the
attempt of 1 325-6 is in reality of a new kind. The Saladin
tithe had touched spirituality, but the Saladin tithe was in
sustentationem terrae Hierosolymitanae ; the ransom of Richard

^ The difference of phrase is significant : cumdecanis. . .praesetUtbus,
et cum procuratoribus ubi decani non erant praesentes, cum archidiaconis
Praesentibus et cum procuratoribus absentium,

^ In writing to their fellow canon the dean and chapter say that they
have received letters from Stephen Langton saying that an assembly at
London of deans or their proctors, archdeacons or their proctors, and
monks or their proctors has granted a sixteenth. The phrase is loose : it
does not reproduce Stephen's letter accurately. (Wilkins, i. 606.)

THE IMPORTANCE OF 1226 51

had involved taxation of spiritualities, but the ransom of
a crusading king is an exceptional case. The frontal attack
of the secular power on spiritualities in 1207 had failed ; and
the years 1225 ^"^ ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^ instance of taxation of
clerical spiritualities (for the sixteenth of 1226 is paid from
goods which had not paid the fifteenth of 1225, and these
must be spiritualities), in which the taxation is actually levied
by the lay power — it is true with papal assent— for lay objects.
It is therefore in reality a demand of a new kind which produces
the second representative assembly of the clergy in 1226.*®

The events of the year 1226 are thus of great importance
in the history of the development of procuratorial representa-
tion of the clergy. Twice representative assemblies appear —
on April 26, to answer the papal demand for prebends ; on
October 13, to answer the other demand for an aid for the
king.*^^ A long step has been taken towards the evolution
of a representative Convocation. It has been taken by
Stephen Langton, once more as in 1215 the friend of English
liberty. Whether or no we are justified in seeing the result
of Dominican influence is an insoluble question ; but that
influence is at any rate a possibility. At any rate the canons
of Salisbury have shown a clear grasp of the idea of a com-
munity and of representation as the means of uniform action
of a community: they have even raised the question of
majority rule. Is not this year 1226 after all more important
in the genesis of representation than 1413? John certainly
summoned in 12 13 four men (not knights, as is often erro-
neously said) to talk with him at Oxford on the business of

"^ The sixteenth would affect diocesan cleigy as well as capitular ; but
only the capitular clergy are represented in the assembly which votes the
tax. A precedent had been set for their representation earlier in the year ;
and the precedent is exactly followed, though it should properly have been
extended further. That extension comes in 1254, as we shall see, when
the Crown is demanding an aid ; and when, summoning knights from
shire-courts, it svaamons pari passu clergy from diocesan synods.

'* As far as I can see, Stubbs makes two slips about the aid.
(i) He speaks of it as having been granted twice, m 1225 and 1226,
though he adds in a footnote that the one was the same as the other
{Const, Hist ii. 183). (2) He says * probably the grant was made in
diocesan synods' (ibid., n. 3). It was made in a genoal assembly of the
Churchy as he really himself indicates on p. 39, n. 2.

52 CLERICAL ELEMENT IN REPRESENTATION

his kingdom ; but we know nothing of their meeting, if indeed
they ever met. Earlierin the same year he had either summoned
four men and the reeve from each vill on royal demesne to
St. Albans, or (as Mr. Turner thinks) he had summoned four
men and the reeve from each vill on episcopal demesne, or
(as Mr. Davis thinks) he had instructed the sheriffs, without
giving them time to execute his instructions, to convene four
men and the reeve from each vill on royal demesne to shire-
court to give information which the sheriffs were to bring to
St. Albans. In any case the only question was one of a jury
of recognition to give evidence on the losses of the bishops
since laoS.*^® But the events of 1226 are surely far more
important in the history of representation than those of 12 13.
And the lesson they teach is that of the influence of the clergy
on progress in political ideas. That is just the lesson we should
expect to find in history. As Viollet says, * Le clerg^ se trouva,
du premier jour, habitu^ et comme rompu a ce que nous appel-
lerions aujourd'hui les usages parlementaires.' '^ They had
experience of assemblies : they had experience of representa-
tive procuratores : the new Orders, constantly experimenting
and advancing, as we have seen, had widened and deepened
that experience. It seems paradoxical to go beyond Bishop
Stubbs in exalting clerical influence: yet when he contents
himself with drawing only analogies between clerical and
secular assemblies, and with stating that * the practice of repre-
sentation appears nearly at the same time in the Church
Councils and in the parliaments,' "^^ he really understates the

'® See, for Mr. Turner's view, Eng, Hist Rev, xxi. 297-9, and for the
view of Mr. Davis, ibid., xx. 289-91. I confess I am convinced by Mr.
Turner : the natural assembly to determine the losses and compensation
of the bishops is an assembly recruited from men who live on episcopal
estates. I may add that I am tempted to bring into connexion with the
assembly of 1213 the entry in the Wceverley Anna/s, p. 260, under the
year 1208 (Stubbs, Select Charters^ p. 274). John's commissioners in
1208 had seized the goods of the clergy movable and immovable, and
had entrusted their care in each vill to men of the vicinity, at whose
hands the clergy should receive from their goods what they absolutely
needed. What more natural than that inquiry should be made about the
losses of the bishops from those men of the vicinity in each vill in which
episcopal property lay ?

'^ liistoire des institutions de la France^ ii. 355.

" Const. Hist, ii. 204.

JURY AND PROCURATORIUM 53

case for the clergy J^ He attached too much weight in com-
parison to the old communal institutions of England, such as
the attendance of the four men and the reeve at hundred and
shire-court, and to the influence of the judicial procedure of
Henry II. But though the jury of Henry II may contain
a form of representation, it is representation merely to give
information {ad recognoscendum)^ and not to take action {ad
faciendum). The jurors are picked, often perhaps more or less
at random*, as samples of iht publica fama whose voice the king
and his justices would fain hear, much as the miles argentarius
picked 44 shillings from the sheriffs quota for weighing, and
20 from those 44 for assay, as samples of the whole. Repre-
sentatives who are proxies for their constituents, to determine
a course of action on their behalf, are a different matter ;
they demand as their vital atmosphere a mode of thought
and a set of ideas in which conceptions like procuratorium^
the binding of constituents by representatives, and further of
minorities by majorities, are consciously realized. Only the
clergy can give that atmosphere of thought and ideas. After
all, the creative political thought of the Middle Ages is
clerical : the clergy create the thought of monarchy proper as
opposed to mere feudal suzerainty ; ^* they create or recreate
the Holy Roman Empire ; they create the Crusade as an idea
and an institution. May we not hold, in the light of our
evidence, that they go far to create representation ? "'^

^ Cf. also p. 210, n. 3 : ' Although the procuratorial system as used in
clerical assemblies has a certain bearing on the representative system in
England, it is much less important here than in [other] countries. ... In
England the two forms grow side by side, the lay representation is not
formed on the model of the clerical.'

■'* Cf Luchaire, Histoire des institutions monarchtques sous les premiers
Capdtiensy voL i, ad init, (on the meaning of the elevation of Hugh Capet
in 987, which he interprets as unfait eccUsiastique),

■"* Before leaving the year 1226, I may perhaps correct an error in
Makower, Const, Hist, of the Church of England^ p. 359. He dates the
use of representation in the Scotch Church from 1225. This would be
important if it were true. But the document which he cites to prove the
attendance oli capitulorum collegiorum et conventuum frocuratores idonei^
in 1225, is a letter of Thomas Innes to Wilkins m 1735 (Wilkins, i,
p. xxx). Now Innes does say that the Scotch Church legislated to this
effect in 1225 ; but if we turn to the documents of 1225 themselves,
printed in Wilkins (i. 608), we find that bishops, abbots, and priors form
the council, though any of them may send a proctor on his own behalf if

D3

54 CLERICAL REPRESENTATION DOWN TO 1240

But we must turn to the further history of the development
The principle of clerical representation in I2a6 was incomplete.
Stephen Langton had only summoned proctors from clergy
living a common life, in chapters, monasteries, and collegiate
churches ; he had not summoned representatives of the ordinary
diocesan clergy. After his death, though the peculiar condi-
tions of the English Church in the time of Henry III involve
a frequent and almost annual activity of the synods, the use of
representation does not for some time make any considerable
progress. Langton had died in 1228 ; his next three succes-
sors, Richard le Grand, Edmund Rich, and Boniface of Savoy,
however different from one another in character, were none of
them made of his strong stuff. In 1237, indeed, we find the
l^ate Otto using the idea of procuration to some extent at
a legatine council in London.'* The l^^te, who may have
remembered the history of the proceedings during his previous
visit in 1226, ordered archbishops, bishops, abbots, and priors
to come as well in the name of their convent or chapter as in
their own, bringing procuratorial letters, so that the enactments
of the council should be held valid on both sides ; and the
council, thus composed, * passed canons which form an epoch
in the history of our ecclesiastical jurisprudence.'''^ Still a
further step was taken during his visit in 1240, when, as has
already been mentioned above,^^ the bishops replied to a
demand for money by urging the necessity of the presence of
the archdeacons who were acquainted with the means of their
beneficed clergy, and actually gained their point Here the
archdeacons appear as in some sense representatives of the
ordinary diocesan clergy, and some progress is made towards
the inclusion of diocesan with capitular clergy in a representa-
tive scheme. The pressure of taxation already drives the
clergy further along the path of representation.'^®

he is hindered by any canonical impediment. That, obviously, is quite
another matter.

''^ Matt. Paris, ii. 415.

" Tout, Political History of England, iii. 57.

'• Note 46.

'^^ In 1240 also falls the protest of the Berkshire rectors against papal
demands.

THE DEVELOPMENT IN 1^154 55

It is in 1254 that events beg^n to move fast. In the State
as well as in the Church development appears. Thirty years
of experience of the rule of Henry III are bearing fruit ; and
even if Boniface of Savoy is archbishop, the voice of the clergy
will out, and representation will come. On February 11 of
1254 the regents, Eleanor and Earl Richard, summon for the
first time in our history**^ knights of the shire to a central
assembly. The sheriff is to expound to the knights and
others of his shire the king's needs, and to induce them
thereby to pay a sufficient aid; he is further to cause two
knights of the shire to be elected by the shire-court in lieu
of all and single of the shire, who, instructed by the sheriff's
exposition and by the consequent discussion in the shire-
court, will, along with other knights from other shires, be
able to answer precisely for their shire about the aid. The
preliminary local discussion, in shire-court, and the instructions
given as a result to the shire-knights, remind us of the pro-
ceedings of the Salisbury chapter in 1226." It is important
to notice that the assembly, which in the issue proved fruitless*
probably also included representatives of the clergy of each
diocese.®^ This clerical representation is doubly important.
Here we have mentioned, for the first time, representatives of
the diocesan clergy; and here we see these representatives
meeting not in a separate clerical assembly, but in a national
parliament along with the knights of the shire. In both points
the event is new and unprecedented. In 1255 a further step
was taken. At a parliament at Westminster after Michaelmas,
whkh included clerical proctors who were there/r<? universitate^
the king asked the clergy to grant an aid from their lay fiefs,
intending afterwards to extend the same demand to the laity.

^ Not, as Stubbs and Professor Tout say, ' for the first time since the
reign of John ' (Const. Hist, ii. 69 and PoL Hist, iii. 'J^), John had not
summoned knights, but simply homines^

■^ Stubbs, Select Charters^ pp. 376-7 ; Const, Hist, ii. 69.

'' In a writ of the same date, February 11, addressed to each bishop,
the regents ask for the convocation of diocesan synods, in which the
bishops are to induce the clergy to give an aid, and from which representa-
tives are to come to certify the council of the aid granted. These repre-
sentatives are to attend on the same day as the knights. The writ is
printed in Hody, History 0^ Convocation^ Part HI, p. 339.

56 FURTHER DEVELOPMENT DOWN TO 1258

The clergy present, including the proctors, sent their gravamina
to the Pope, Alexander IV, whose predecessor, Innocent IV,
had already in 1254 given the king a tithe from the English
Church for two years.®^ The Annals of Burton quote the
gravamina of the proctors of the beneficed clergy of the arch-
deaconry of Lincoln, who complain pro tota communitate of
the grant of a tithe of their benefices to the king ipsis non
vo€atis\ 'for especially, when it is a matter of binding any
man, is his express consent necessary/ Similar articles were
sent to the Pope from every diocese.®* Here the clergy,
attacked first by the king, naturally take the lead in empha-
sizing the principle of representation. Again in 1256, when
an ecclesiastical assembly was convoked for January 18 to
answer the demands of the nuncio Rustand, who had come
in 1255 with power to collect the clerical tithe, there were
summoned deans of cathedrals with discreet canons as proctors
of their chapter, and archdeacons with three or four discreet
clerks of their archdeaconries both on their own behalf and
with procuratorial mandate for their fellows.®^ The business
hung fire. Again on April 2 the nuncio published his instruc-
tions before an assembly of archdeacons, and it was settled that
deans, prelates, regulars (? abbots) and archdeacons should
treat with their chapters and clerks, so that they might return
in the month after Easter to answer fully through instructed
proctors.®^ Rustand, however, made no progress. In 1257
we again hear of a form of representation: Boniface of
Canterbury summoned to a convocation in London, on
August 22, deans of chapters and archdeacons with procura-
torial letters in the names of their chapters and clergy.®"^
Once more in 1258, when Rustand returned to the charge
with a second nuncio, Boniface summoned a meeting to

*' Annales de Burton^ p« 325 ; of. infra^ n. 90.

^ Ibid., pp. 360, 363. It should be noticed that representative clergy
certainly attend the parliament of 1255 along with the laity — for the last
time until 1282.

" Matt. Paris, vi. 315 ; Stubbs, Const. Hist. ii. 206: Makower, Const.
Hist, of the Church of England^ p. 360. As Makower remarks, this
is the first instance of representatives of inferior beneficed clergy in
a clerical assembly. The assemblies of 1254 and 1255, in which such
representatives had appeared, were not clerical.

®® Ann. de Burton^ p. 389. ^ Ibid., pp. 401-2.

IMPORTANCE OF THE YEARS i254-i^5« 57

Merton for June 6, at which deans, abbots, priors, and
archdeacons were to attend with procuratorial letters from
their subject clergy, propter ecclesiae Anglicanae eventus et
causas^^ A few days later, June ii, 1258, the events of
these four troubled years, 1254 to 1258, culminated in the
Mad Parliament at Oxford. The whole realm was to under-
take that reformation for which the clergy had been travailing ;
and the Mad Parliament was a full assembly of baronage and
higher clergy with that object.

The years 1254 to 1258 are obviously a time of crisis, when
development is rapid. In some respects they repeat the
events of 1225 and 1226. There is a demand for taxation
from the clergy for the use of the king ; the demand is backed
by the Pope ; a papal nuncio is present. The combination of
royal and papal pressure produces, in the one case as in the
other, a demand for representation. In the one case, however,
we only find representation of chapters ; by 1258 we find
representation of the beneficed clergy of the archdeaconries,
which is used in 1254 and 1255 for joint assemblies of clergy
and laity; in 1256 for a purely clerical assembly; and is
again employed, in a lesser degree (the archdeacons having
procuratorial letters from the clergy), in 1257 and 1258. The
reason for the advance is plain. The demands of 1225 had
primarily touched the capitular clergy; the later demands
affected the ordinary beneficed clergy as well. Already in 1240
the papal demand for a tax on all clerical goods ®^ to support
the war against Frederic II, which began in 1239, had produced
the protest of the Berkshire rectors and the refusal of the
bishops to act unless the archdeacons were consulted. The
war continued, and with it the papal exactions.^^ By 1254

^ Ann, de Burton^ pp. 411-12 ; Stubbs, Select Charters ^ p. 454.

* The first demand had already been made in 1229 by Gregory IX
during the first war against Frederic II. Gregory had demanded a tenth
from all movables, lay as well as clerical. The laity had refused ; the
higher clergy had consented, and the clergy had paid (except in Cheshire,
where the earl refused to allow the clergy to do so). Matt. Paris, iii.

^ These exactions are based on the theory that the war against the
Emperor is a Crusade (see H. Pissard, La Guerre Sainte en Pays
Chretien, Paris, 1 91 2, pp. 121 sqq.). In 12 15 it had been enacted at the
Fourth Lateran Council (Labbe and Cossart, Cone* xi> i. 220) that all

58 THE INFLUENCE OF TAXATION

Henry had added to the burden in various ways. In 1250 he
had taken the Cross, and been granted clerical tithes by the
Pope on that ground for some years. In 1253 ^^ ^^^ started
an expensive campaign in Gascony, which led to the summon-
ing of representatives in i!i54. It was a more serious matter
that in 1254 he had dragged England into the papal war
^[ainst the Hohenstaufen, by accepting Sicily for his son
Edmund, and had thus at once imposed new burdens of his
own on England, and given the Papacy a fresh excuse for
pressing its exactions. It is the cumulative effect of these
events which explains the development between 1254 and
1 258 ; and it is the fact that the taxes on the clergy, whether
demanded by the Pope for himself or for the king, fell as
heavily on the ordinary clergy of the dioceses as on other
clergy, which explains their inclusion in the representative
bodies convened to meet such demands. Whether any other
influence than the pressure of taxation made for representation
it is difficult to say. The chief feature of the history of the
Dominican Order between 1254 and 1258 is its struggle with
the University of Paris.®^ Simon de Montfort, friend of the
Order, stiffened resistance in these years ; it was in the convent
of the Order at Oxford that the Mad Parliament met in
1358.^2 But if we are willing to regard clerical representation

clerks, fam suhditi quam praelati^ should pay one-twentieth of ecclesias-
tical revenues for three years, for the aid of the Holy Land, under pain of
excommunication. (It is the assessment for this twentieth of which the
canons of Salisbury speak in 1226.) The twentieth became a tenth
in 1229, when Gregoiy IX sought to extend it to the laity ; in 1240
it became even a fifth. Innocent IV in 1245 at the Council of Lyons
(Labbe and Cossart, Cone, xi. i. 655) repeated the enactments of the
Council of 1215 ; and in 1246 he demanded a half, a twentieth, and a
third from diflferent classes of the clergy (Stubbs, Const, Hist. ii. 70). In
1250 Henry III took the Cross; and Innocent IV, to attach him to the
papal side, authorized him in 1251 to exact for his Crusade a tenth of the
revenues of the clergy for three years on a new assessment (Stubbs,
Const Hist, ii. 67), and added a tithe for two more years in 1254, com-
muting at the same time the Crusade for the Sicilian enterprise. For the
further history of papal exactions in England see Stubbs, Const, Hist, iii.
346-9. For a list of the exactions in the reign of Henry III see Ann, de
Burtony pp. 364-7.

^^ This struggle, which lasted from 1252 to 1259, is noticed by Matthew
Paris, iv. 416, 506, 528, 598, 645, 744, and by the Ann, de Burton^
pp. 430-5 ; cf. Rashdall, op, cit,^ i. 373 sqq.

" Matt. Paris, iv. 697. Little {Grey Friars, p. 72, note), in mentioning

THE PERIOD 1258-1273 59

as at all a Dominican seed, sown by Stephen Langton, all we
can say is that it was growing in this period.

In the troubled period of the Barons* War, with papal and
royal exactions removed, clerical representation is not so
prominent. Not even to Simon's great parliament of 1265,
largely clerical as that assembly was, were clerical proctors
summoned. Later in 1265, however, two proctors from each
chapter were summoned, with full power of treating, to
a parliament at Winchester on the first of June ; ^^ but as
Prince Edward had escaped and begun to raise troops in
May it can hardly have met. Not until 1273 do we again
get a clear instance of clerical representation.®* Why had
de Montfort not incorporated clerical proctors in his parliament
of 1265? Was it that they only came 'when the business
specially touched the clergy ', and there was no such business ?
Or was it that, with so great a majority of the higher clergy
present (some 120, to 23 earls and barons) he was afraid to
overweight the assembly with his clerical supporters ? What-
ever the reason, clerical representation ceases for the fifteen
years 1258-1273, save for the dubious instance of 1265.

The parliament of 1265, in which clerical proctors did not
appear, but representatives of the towns sat by the side of the
knights for the first time in English history^®^ may here claim
some attention. Simon's action in summoning representatives
of towns has been explained by different writers as modelled

this fact, suggests that the Dominicans seem to have been royalist. The
only evidence he adduces is that Friar John Darlington, one of the king's
twelve on the committee of twenty-four, was a Dominican. This evidence
is hardly sufficient for the suggestion ; and the suggestion neglects the
connexion of the Dominicans with de Montfort. On the other hand,
Kilwardby in the next reign certainly seems more of a royalist than
Peckham. See Addendum I, p. TJ,

•• Stubbs, Select Charters y p. 418.

*^ I am not clear about the meeting of 1269 (Wilkins, ii. 20) (Procura-
tores Coventr, Line, Norwyc, &c.) which Stubbs translates as * proctors
of the several dioceses' [Const, Hist, ii, 206). The proctors may only
have been proctors of absent bishops.

'° The supposed instance of 121 3 fades away on examination. If four
men and a reeve had come from each vill on royal demesne, then (since villa
includes town as well as township, and since most towns were on royal
demesne) representatives of towns would have attended. But we have
already seen reason to explain the passage in Matthew Paris other-
wise*

6o DE MONTFORT AND THE CLERGY

on the institutions of Aragon, of Sicily, and of Gascony.^^ It
would seem absurd to add a fresh explanation, or to suggest
the influence of the Church, and particularly of the friars,
as a possible source. We may^ however, raise one or two
considerations. In the first place, de Montfort was closely
K connected with the friars. St. Dominic had been closely asso-
ciated with his father; Simon himself was perhaps the pupil
of the Dominicans; his wife found a refuge, and a resting-
place, in the house of the canonesses of St. Dominic at
Montargis. His library contained at least one Dominican
treatise. He was also connected with the Franciscans through
his friendship with Adam de Marsh and with the friend of the
Franciscans, Robert Grosseteste.®^ In the second place, the
Song of Lewes,*® generally attributed to a friar of the
Franciscan Order, throws light on Simon's ideas on 'the
government of soul and body ', on which he had so often
talked with Adam de Marsh and Grosseteste ; and it deserves
consideration alongside of the Forma Regiminis of 1264, to
which Monsieur Bdmont bids us look for Simon's political
theory. It illustrates the sentiments not only of the Fran-
ciscans but of the Universities, and not only of the Universities
but of Simon himself, who had talked with those teachers
of the Universities, Marsh and Grosseteste, from whom the
doctrine of the Song was drawn.®* That the Song definitely
suggests representation we can hardly say ; the words

Igitur communitds regni consulatur
Et quid universitas sentiat sciatur

may refer only to the * community of the prelates and barons '
mentioned in the Forma Regiminis of 1264. Yet we may say
with Stubbs that * the friars represented the doctrines of civil
independence in the Universities and country at large V^°
and we may urge that the author teaches the lesson that the

^ B^mont, Simon de Montfort^ p. 230.

•^ Ibid., pp. 58, 86. Trivet, Annates^ s. a. 1276.

^ Monsieur B^mont refers to this in a note on p. 219, but does not
consider its teaching, or the bearing of that teaching on the ideas of
de Montfort.

" Mr. Kingsford suggests that it is not impossible that the author may
have been attached to the earrs household (cf. his edition, p. xviii).

*~ Stubbs, ConsL Hist ii. 315.

THE IDEALS OF DE MONTFORT 6i

community must be governed by a power which is repre-
sentative and as such limited, and which, because it is thus
representative and thus limited, must not act without the
advice of the community. Perhaps in Simon's eyes that
limit was to be imposed, and that advice given, only by the
aristocracy, as the Forma Regiminis suggests; perhaps the
wider assembly of February 1^65 was only intended as an
exceptional and as it were * constituent ' assembly to ratify the
constitution of 1264.^°^ Yet it is a matter of opinion, and
some of us may feel that 'community* had for Simon
a broader significance, and that the principle of representation,
not once, but twice admitted by Simon in the course of 1265,
was part of his permanent creed. We may feel that * com-
munity* meant not merely the one particular community of
prelates and barons, but a canimuna to tins terrae^ in which
there were federated into one whole the upper community of
prelates and barons, and the lower communities of shire and
borough ; we may feel that such a community, so broad and
so deep, can only act through representation, which must
always, and not once only, be necessary for its action. And
we may suspect that Simon owed such a creed in some
measure to the teaching of the friars — the Franciscans, it is
true, rather than the Dominicans.^®^

It was left to the two friar-archbishops, Kilwardby the
Dominican and Peckham the Franciscan, to make representa-
tion a permanent and regular part of the organization of the
English Church. Robert Kilwardby, a Dominican who had
been provincial prior of his Order in England, held the chair of
Canterbury from 1272 to 1278. He had been appointed by
Gregory X, in spite of Edward s endeavours on behalf of
Burnell, after the three years' vacancy which followed the
death of Boniface. Kilwardby was not only an administrator,

"* As M. B^mont notes, op, cit., p. 231, the writs of June 1265 do not
summon representatives of towns. But he is not quite right in saying
that this parliament was to be composed ' only of the higher baronage and
the prelates ' ; as we have seen, proctors of chapters are summoned, and
the principle of representation is still admitted.

*^ It may be suggested that, if the February parliament of 1265 is
treated as * constituent *, it is parallel to the capUulum generalissimum in
which the Dominicans made constitutional changes. See Addendum II.

62 THE ECCLESIASTICAL POLICY OF EDWARD I

but a theologian, and also, as we have seen, a considerable
author.^^' The accession of Kilwardby, followed as he was
by men of the same stamp in Peckham and Winchelsea,
inaugurated a new epoch in the history of the English Church.
The scene and the actors were both new, and a new drama
was played. With the accession of Rudolf of Habsburg in
1^73 the conflict of Papacy and Empire was ended, and there
came a relaxation of the papal pressure which that had
entailed. The relations of the English Church to Rome
became less those of hostility and more those of alliance.
The character and policy of the new monarch, Edward I,
tended in the same direction. Directing his energies to the
creation of a united national state, he sought to bring the
clergy within its action, «/ esset clerus sicut et populus}^^ and
to compel the clergy to pay their quota to the expenses of the
state no longer as a matter of clerical obedience to their papal
sovereign, but as a matter of civic duty to the secular govern-
ment. The English Church, which had fought Henry III
because he acted as the colleague or henchman of the Papacy
in its demands, had now to resist Edward because he wished
to act as independent lay sovereign of the realm.

This was hardly the case in the beginning of the reign.
Edward was still the ally of the Papacy, fresh from a Crusade,
and the first years of his reign are in ecclesiastical matters
not unlike the years of his father's rule. The first act of the
archbishop elect, in the beginning of the reign of Edward I,
was to preside over an episcopal council, which, at the request
of two papal nuncios and a bull from Gregory X which they
had brought, voted a tenth for two years to Edward and
Edmund his brother for the expenses of their Crusade
(January 19, 1273).^^^ ^^ ^^ n^^X, year, at the Second Council
of Lyons, Gregory X exacted a tenth from clerical revenues

*^ Supra^ pp. 29-30. Kilwardby must have been a man of considerable
character and originality. His theological attitude is independent ; and
the thorough method he brought to his office of archbishop, and the full
use he made of representative institutions, seem to indicate an organiser
and a statesman.

^^ Ann, OsneVy p. 286, quoted in Stubbs, Select Charters^ p. 432.

^^ Wiikins, Cone, ii. 24-5, from the Register of Worcester.

THE ACTIVITY OF KILWARDBY 63

for the Crusade for the next six years,^^^ * which was no small
grievance and disturbance of all Christianity/ But the new
reign soon settled down to a policy of healing. Already in
September of 1273 Robert Kilwardby has summoned a repre-
sentative council, not to grant or resist taxation, but for
a purpose for which representation has not hitherto been
used — the reform of the Church and the remedy of her
troubles. Since the cares of his office have been imposed
upon him, he has turned his thoughts to the state of churches
and churchmen, and has found much that needs correction
and reform with the help of his brothers and co-bishops. And
that such business may be supported by sounder counsel, each
bishop is to bring three or four of the greater, discreeter, and
more prudent persons of his church and diocese,^®"^ so that by
common counsel the business may have a happy issue. The
scope and function of representation has here widened. It is
used not for taxation merely, but for general deliberation on
the business of the Church. Just as there is an advance from
the knights of 1354, who answer precisely about an aid, to
knights and burgesses of 1275, who treat about the business of
the realm,^^® so there is an advance from the clerical assemblies
of 1254-8 to this assembly of 1273. The same advance
appears in 1277. The issue of some of the reforms attempted
of late is uncertain, others are quite unachieved; new diffi-
culties have arisen to the grave peril of the English Church. «
Once more the Dominican archbishop turns to a representative
assembly. Bishops are to come with some greater persons
from their chapters, and with archdeacons and proctors of all
the clergy of each diocese, to treat of the business aforesaid
and by common consent bring it to a laudable end.^°' Here
ended the activity of Kilwardby. In 1278 he was made
cardinal bishop of Porto, and left England (taking the registers
of Canterbury as he went). It was hardly a promotion, and

^^ Labbe and Cossart, xi. I. 995 ; Ann. Osney, p. 260.

**■' This seems to embrace representatives both of the cathedral church
and of the diocesan clergy. For the summons see Wilkins, Cone. ii. 269
and Stubbs, Select Charters^ P*455*

*•• Eng. Hist, Rev,y 1910, p. 236.

'* WiUcins, Cone. ii. 30 ; Stubbs, Select Charters^ p. 456.

64 THE BEGINNINGS OF PECKHAM

its real motive, Professor Tout thinks, was 'to remove Kilwardby
from England and to send a more active man in his place.' ^^°
Peckham, his successor, certainly proved himself, as soon as
he came, more active ; but he failed to check the development
of Edward's ecclesiastical policy.
Whatever may have been the papal view of Kilwardby's
/ conduct in his office, he had really brought the Dominican
system of government by a representative chapter into the
English Church. He had made a representative provincial
synod the regular organ for the conduct of general ecclesiastical
business, as the provincial chapter was in his own Order, and
no longer an extraordinary method for meeting financial
pressure. In both assemblies too (1^73 and 12J7) he had
included diocesan as well as capitular representatives, and he
was the first, if we may except the assemblies from 1256 to
1258, to include representatives of the diocesan clergy in
a purely ecclesiastical meeting of the Church. His successor,
John Peckham, also a friar, but of the Franciscan Order, who
had already been a doctor at Oxford, continued the work
he had begun. At first indeed Peckham took another line.
In hot haste he convoked a provincial synod of bishops only
at Reading in the middle of 1^79, and passed canons against
pluralities (' which frightened every benefice hunter among the
clerks of the royal household '), and denounced penalties
against all violators of Magna Carta {* in a fashion that sug-
gested that the king was an habitual offender ')}^^ Later in

"« Political HisL iii. 150; cf. also Tout's article in Diet, Nat, Biog,
£dward*s wife, Eleanor of Castile, was a great friend of the Dominicans.
Kilwardby, though appointed against Edward's wishes, may have become
a friend of the Court. But see Addendum III.

^^^ Tout, ibid., p. 151. Was the Statute of Mortmain, passed in
November, already mooted? If so, Peckham may have been trying
to raise a storm which would prevent its passing. His first article of
excommunication is against those who presume to deprive the Church
of its rights or infringe its liberties. The excommunication of all violators
of Magna Carta in the eleventh, and the provision for posting a copy
of ' the charter of the king for the liberty of the Church and realm granted
by the king ' in cathedral and collegiate churches, may have the same
object. Stubbs speaks of Edward as having ' kept back the statute '
(Const, Hist. ii. 117). It would perhaps be too much to suggest that the
prospect of such legislation as the Statute of Mortmain explains the going
of Kilwardby and the coming of Peckham.

EDWARD'S THEORY OF CHURCH AND STATE 65

«

the year, when Mortmain had been passed, and he had been
forced to revoke the obnoxious articles, and to order the
copies of the Charter to be taken down from the churches,^^^
he acted more moderately. On November 15, 1279, Edward I
asked for a grant from the clergy. The language of his letter
throws light on his policy. He has taken the labours of others
on himself to secure the peace of the State : he has spent much
on the Welsh expedition, on making castles and towns in
Wales, and on gaining an alliance with France. It is just and
reasonable that the clergy, who no less than all the rest of the
people live under his rule, and enjoy his protection in their
things temporal, and specially in their things spiritual, should
come to his aid.^^^ The demand is of a different order from
those which the clergy had had to face in the reign of Henry III :
there is no speech of a Crusade, but of secular objects; there
is no papal confirmation, but the king's mere demand ; the
clergy is not asked as a separate Order, but as part of the
realm, enjoying the benefits of its government.^^* Peckham
bowed to the demand. As early as November 6 he summoned
a convocation for January ao, 1280. The bishops were to
convoke and persuade the clergy of their dioceses, and bring
news of the result either in person, or through their proctors,
or certainly through proctors proper for the business,^^^ to the
assembly in January. Similarly, the Archbishop of York
ordered each archdeacon in his province to consult his clergy,
and bring news of the result to Pomfret with two men of
worthy eminence and one dean of the archdeaconry.^^® In
the issue Canterbury granted one-fifteenth for three years, and
York an equivalent amount of one-tenth for two.^^"^

But Peckham, though he had raised no opposition in this
matter, and though he went out of his way to expedite

*" Wilkins, Ccnc, ii. 40. "' Ibid., p. 41.

*" Edward's letter seemed worth quoting at some length, because the
theory it enunciates is responsible for his attempt, which eventually
failed, to incorporate the Church in a united national parliament. It
is in speaking of Edward^s demand in 1279 that the Osney annalist uses
the phrase quoted above, u/ esse/ clerus sicut etfopulus,

"• This seems to leave room for the attendance of proctors of the
clergy at the convocation, Wilkins, Cone, ii. 37.

"• Wilkins, ibid., pp. 41-2. "^^ Ibid., p. 42.

1561 E

$6 THE DOUBLE PARLIAMENT OF 128a

a similar demand of the king in 1281,"® had by no means
entirely submitted. At the end of July, 1 281, he summoned
bishops, abbots, priors, deans, archdeacons, and proctors of
chapters (this is the first certain use of representation made by
him) to a council at Lambeth, in which he sought to vindicate
for the spiritual courts cases of patronage and pleas which
touched the chattels of the spiritualty.^^^ Before the assembly
met, Edward sent the archbishop two letters, prohibiting any
action to the prejudice of the Crown.^^® The archbishop gave
way: the Constitutions published at Lambeth have nothing
to say of patronage or pleas touching personalty. Though
the question of clerical jurisdiction was raised again by Peckham
in 1285, when the clergy of Canterbury petitioned for the regu-
lation of royal prohibitions, the only result which he achieved
by his persistence was a further limitation of the province of
spiritual courts.^^^

Between 1281 and 1285 two important developments ap-
peared in the history of Convocation, the one in 1282, the
other in 1283. They are the last two that we have to trace.
In 1 28 1 the influence of clerical organization on secular is seen
in a curious way. Corresponding to the two provinces and
two provincial synods of Canterbury and York, the North
and the South, Edward I in 1282 summoned two assemblies,
the one for the North at York, the other for the South at
Northampton, Both assemblies met in two bodies, the one
lay, the other clerical. The lay body in either assembly
consisted of magnates and elected knights and burgesses ; the
clerical body of bishops, abbots, priors, and other heads of
religious houses, with proctors on behalf of the dean and

"• Wilkins, Cone, ii. 49-50.

"• Ann, Osney, p. 285 (quoted in Select Charters^ p. 432).

^^ Wilkins, ii. 50. This suggests the constitutio of William I, quoted by
Eadmer {Select Charters^ p. 82).

**^ Professor Tout goes too far jn saying that in 1281 * once more
Edward annulled the proceedings of a council ' (Political Hist. iii. 152).
Strictly speaking, even in 1279 the proceedings were revoked by the
archbishop (Wilkins, ii. 40) and not annulled by the king ; and on this
occasion, as the proceedings had never taken place, they could not be
annulled. The general reference of the writ circumspecte agatis to 1285
is perhaps wrong ; cf. Pollock and Maitland, H, E, Z., ii. 200. The date
of the writ is dubious : Prynne referred it to c. 13 16.

THE MODEL CONVOCATION OF 1285 6)

chapter of each diocese.^^^ Here we have the first instance
of a royal summons to clerical representatives since 1265, but
the summons, as in 1265, is confined to proctors of chapters.
This limitation explains the issue of the assembly, as far as
the clergy were concerned. Asked for one-tenth of their
revenues for three years, the clergy at Northampton replied
that they could not act in the absence of the larger portion of
their numbers; and it was ordered that all the clergy of the
province of Canterbury should be summoned to give an
answer. Peckham accordingly on January 21, 1283, alleging
in the preamble of his summons this order (and not, apparently,
acting on his own initiative), summoned to a clerical assembly,
to be held in London at Easter, bishops, abbots, priors, heads
of religious houses, deans and archdeacons. He further
enjoined the bishops each to assemble the clergy of his
diocese, and expound the king's demands, so that from each
diocese two proctors in the name of the clergy, and from
each chapter one, should be sent with sufficient instructions and
full and express power of treating and consenting.^*^ The
convocation met at Easter ; but a new meeting, in the same
form, had to be summoned for Michaelmas to give the diocesan
synods more time, and it was not until November that a grant
was finally made to the king.

Here we have the final form of Convocation, in which it
afterwards persisted, with the two proctors from each diocese,
and one from each chapter. It cannot be said that Peckham
himself was to any extent responsible for its determination.
He had indeed summoned proctors of chapters to Lambeth
himself in 1281 ; but the summons of 1282 proceeded from the
king, and the extension of that summons in 1283 to include
proctors of the diocesan clergy was due to the action of the
clergy assembled at Northampton under the royal summons.

'■• Wilkins, ii. 91 ; Stubbs, Select Charters ^ p. 466. Wilkins thought that
the two bodies of the York assembly were treated as one, and summoned
by one writ (not, as in the Southern province, by two separate writs).
Certainly the king directs a single writ, announcing that he has appointed
Antony Bek and the Archbishop of York to act on his behalf, to bishops,
abbots, priors, chapters, and their proctors, knights, freemen, communi-
ties, and all others, as if they were one body (Wilkins, ii. 93).

. *• Wilkins, ii. 93-5 ; Stubbs, Select Charters^ pp. 466-7*

68 CROWN AND CLERICAL REPRESENTATION

It is on the anvil of taxation that Convocation was finally
beaten into shape. The form of 1383 was afterwards treated
as authoritative, and was regarded as a canon, though it was no
canon.^** It applied to the province of Canterbury : the con-
vocation of York, as in the assembly at Pomfret in 1280,
continued to have two proctors from each archdeaconry.^*^
The stamp of royal confirmation served to make the form of
1283 authoritative. In summoning the clergy to Parliament
in 1294, Edward introduces the clause which, except for one
or two verbal alterations made in 1295,^^® is henceforth regular.
Each bishop must attend, ' premonishing (in 1 294 * summon-
ing ') the dean and chapter of his cathedral church and the arch-
deacons and all the clergy of his diocese — causing the dean and
archdeacons to attend in their proper persons and the chapter
through one, the clergy through two fit proctors with full and
sufficient power.' The form the Church had adopted for its
own provincial synod is used by the king for the inclusion of
the Church as one of the estates of the realm in parliament.

Here the development, in Aristotle's phrase, has attained its
end. We ought indeed to note that Edward's plan of including
the Church in parliament as one of the elements of a united
national state failed. Within the next forty years it had been
practically decided that the Church, as such, should have no
lot or part in parliament. Thus what had been attempted
probably in 1254, certainly in 1255, again in 1265, in 1282, in
J 294, and in 1295 — the inclusion of the clergy in general
through their representatives in a national parliament — ceases
after the reign of Edward I to be attempted in fact, though it
is done in l^al theory to this very day. There remains only
the provincial synod (or rather the s)mods of York and
Canterbury) for the clergy sitting by themselves. This,
however, has two different aspects. There are sessions of the
synod summoned by the archbishop propria motu for purely
ecclesiastical business, ' the extirpation of heresy, the reform

*** Stubbs, Const, Hist ii. 207. ^*^ Supra^ n. 116.

**' The forms of summons in 1294 and 1295 are practically identical.
The important difference is that Edward in 1294 summoned the clei;gy for
a different date than that fixed for the laity ; he treated it as separate. In
and after 1295 the clergy and laity are summoned for the same time.

VARIETIES OF THE ENGLISH SYNOD 69

of manners, the dealings with foreign Churches and general
councils.' ^^^ There are sessions held in consequence of a
request or a command issued by the king with a view to a grant
of money, when the synod meets at about the same time as
parliament, and should, if the praemunientes clause were
followed, meet at the same place, and not as a separate synod,
but as a section of parliament. Proceedings in sessions of the
former kind were independent of the king; but he might
nevertheless, as in iiiSi, oppose a practical veto. On the
other hand, proceedings in sessions of the latter kind were not
confined to the voting of taxes, and might be devoted in part
to ecclesiastical matters. We must not conceive the synod,
even in its quasi-parliamentary aspect as a tax-voting body,
as an adjunct or part of parliament. It is not summoned by
the king through writs addressed to the bishops : it is
summoned by the archbishop, at the king's request, through
letters issued to the bishops. In other words, it is still a pro-
vincial synod, an assembly of the Church as such, and no part
of a secular parliament.^^®

Of the diocesan councils of the thirteenth century little
need here be said. They contained the whole clergy of the
diocese {totus clerus dioeceseos)'^^^ meeting as a primary
assembly or presbyterium. In them were issued the constitu-
tions of the bishop ; and as the pressure of taxation grew

*^ Stubbs, Const, Hist, iii. 331.

**" If we apply these distinctions to the period which we have con-
sidered (practically 1226-95) we find four varieties: (i) the provincial
synod proper, which may be convoked to meet a papal demand, as
in 1226, or, more according to its essence, to regulate the state of the
Church, as in 1273 and 1277, or in 1279 (at Reading) and 1281 (at Lam-
beth) ; (2) the provincial synod which meets to answer a royal demand
for taxes, and which is like the later convocation when engaged in voting
a clerical tenth (cf. the second meeting of 1226, the meeting of 1280,
and the meetings of 1283) ; (3) the meeting which is partly a provincial
synod , partly a part of parliament — the former, since it meets either
as a separate body from the lay assembly, as in 1282, or at a separate
time, as in 1294 ; the latter, since it is convoked by royal writ (under this
head may also be placed the meetings of the clergy in 1254 (if a meeting
took place then) and in 1255) ; (4) the meeting of the same elements
as those which compose a provincial synod, but as part of parliament, and
not as a provincial synod (e. g. in 1295). We may add legatine councils
of the whole Church, under the presidency of a papal legatus a latere
(as in 1237) J cf' Stubbs, Const, Hist, ii; 208.

^"^ Wilkins, ii. 25 (the Synod of the diocese of Norwich at Eyam).

E3

70 THE DIOCESAN SYNOD

they, like the shire-court, were consulted about its imposition
and incidence. In 1254, when proctors begin to appear on
behalf of the clei^ of the diocese (or as in 1255 of the arch-
deaconry), the diocesan clergy were possibly thus consulted,
and after consultation appointed their representatives.^^® In
1283 Peckham definitely instructs the bishops to assemble the
clergy of their diocese, and expound the king's demands, that
proctors with full instructions may be sent.^^^ At York in
1280 the archdeacons are directed to convoke their clergy
and expound the king's demands, so that, with representatives
of their archdeaconry, they may come to give an answer on
behalf of the community of all the archdeaconry .^^^ We shall
probably not be wrong in concluding that the diocesan synod
awoke in this way to a more vigorous life under the pressure
of taxation, and that its meetings became far more frequent.^^
On the whole we may say that this English development is
unique. Whatever the constitutional development of the
Spanish Cortes, the provincial synods of Spain attain no
more than representation of chapters. In Germany one can
hardly discover that even the representation of chapters is
regular in provincial synods ; though in diocesan synods,
which ought to be attended by all the clergy of the diocese,
representatives of chapters and collegiate churches and even
of the diocesan clergy appear. The development of France
approaches nearest to that of England ; but France differs
from England. The French provincial synod by the fourteenth
century includes representatives of chapters; it does not
include representatives of the diocesan clergy. The fetats

^^ Supra, pp. 55-6. "^ Supra, p. 67.

"* I take it that the reply would be given in a provincial synod of the
whole of the province of York. Stubbs (Const, Hist, ii. 205) speaks
of the diocesan synods of the province giving their * several consent '.
But, two pages further on (ibid., p. 207), he speaks of the convocation of
the province of York in this connexion ; and though it is true Wilkins
prints only the response of the clergy of the diocese of York (ii. 42), I take
it that the clergy of the other dioceses also responded in the same sense
in a general synod along with the clergy of York.

^^ Cf. supra, note 19. Hauck, op, cit,, v. 1. 180, remarks that generally
speaking the diocesan synod is not a legislative body like the provincial
synod : the bishop enacts constitutions in it, but not by its consent, and
its powers of consent to diocesan taxation are very slight. This would
hardly be true of England at the end of the thirteenth century.

WHY THE ENGLISH SYNOD WAS UNIQUE 71

G&i^raux include representatives of convents and chapters,
because convents and chapters stand on the feudal ladder ;
they do not include representatives of the diocesan clergy.
The proctors of the chapters continue to sit in the Etats
G^ndraux : the representatives of our clergy withdraw from
Parliament. To what shall we ascribe this difference of
development ? Why does the English synod assume a more
democratic form ? And why has it a more regular composition
(for that of the continental synod seems variable) and greater
frequency of action ? One naturally turns in the first place to
geography. The distance of England from Rome permits
England to develop on its own line : the primacy of Canter-
bury makes the developments which take place in the province
of Canterbury authoritative for the whole country. Other
countries stood closer to Rome : other countries were divided
into a number of equal and independent provinces. Canter-
bury was, if we may use the word, more * national * than
Reims or Mainz or Toledo.^^ In the second place, differences
of historical development were active. The papal pressure,
which helped to bring about the representation of the chapters
and inferior clergy, was indeed felt elsewhere than in England,
though England, temporally as well as spiritually subject to
papal supremacy, perhaps felt that pressure more than other
countries. The financial pressure of the lay state, more highly
ot^anized in England, especially on its financial side, than in
other countries, perhaps constituted a greater differentia. On
the other hand, we must admit that the French monarchy,
from the time of the Second Crusade, imposed tenths on
clerical goods, sometimes with and sometimes without papal
authorization.^^* We are thus driven to find a differentia less
in the imposition of taxation, than in the attitude of the
country towards such imposition. Now the English attitude
in the thirteenth century is already something like ' No taxation
without representation*: the French attitude was not. Already

^^ I do not mean to assert that the English Church had any peculiar
independence of Rome in e. g. legislation.

"* Cf. VioUet, of, cit,^ ii. 402-6 ; iii. 477-80. It is noteworthy that the
Avignonese captivity m ide it easy for the kings to get papal authorization,
without troubling about further consent.

^% THE REPRESENTATIVE IDEA IN ENGLAND

in Magna Carta we find that extraordinary aids and scutages
need the consent of jJ/a^««»* Concilium \ already in \i%6 we
find the chapters voting their sixteenth by representatives ;
already in 1240 we find Matthew Paris representing the
bishops as quoting the principle that what touches all must
be approved by all. Strong in the strength of this principle,
the clergy claim and gain representation. The first taxation
for the benefit of the Crown (apart from the ransom of
Richard I, which is exceptional) fell on clerical revenues in
1226; the same year saw the chapters represented in the
assembly that granted the tax. The first taxation to which
the shires are asked to give their consent through representative
knights falls in 1254 ; probably in that same year, and certainly
in 1255, representatives of the diocesan clergy also appear. The
representation of the vigorous local life of the shire (after all
the supreme differentia of England from the rest of Western
Europe) finds its counterpart in, and lends its support to, the
representation of the clergy of archdeaconries and dioceses,
who are bound up in that local life — for has not the priest
gone along with the reeve and representatives of the vill from
early days ? ^^® Similarly, the representative parliament finds
its counterpart in the representative convocation; either
supports and stiffens the other ; and a parliament broad in its
composition, permanent in its membership, regular in its
sessions, postulates a convocation as broad, as permanent, as
r^ular. Thus we should find in the strength of a representa-
tive principle permeating both clergy and laity, in the strength
of a local life in which the clergy share with the laity, in the
strength of a national representative system expressing that
principle and drawing vigour from that local life, the reasons
for the nature of the English convocation.

But does this involve the consequence that clerical repre-
sentation is drawn from and modelled upon secular representa-
tion ? Hardly. We would rather urge that the clergy are
the forerunners, and that through their habits of organized

*•• Stubbs, Select Charters^ p. 86 (priest, reeve, and six villeins of each
vill on the Domesday juries) ; p. 105 (reevCi priest, and four better men of
the vill attending shire-court).

CLERICAL BASIS OF REPRESENTATION 73

action and their legal ideas of procuration they lead the
movement to representation. There are two main ideas
underlying the English representative system of the thirteenth
century — indeed from the thirteenth to the nineteenth century.
In the first place the representation is representation of com-
munities. It is representation not of geographical consti-
tuencies containing some thousands of electoral units, but of
oi^anized and organic communities, that have a real and
regular life of their own. The House of Commons is a federa-
tion of these communities through their representatives : it
expresses the mediaeval conception of the State as a commu-
nitas cofntnunitatum. In the second place the representative
is a full representative. He binds his constituents. He is
a proxy with full powers of attorney; there is no room for
a referendum to his constituents. The knights and burgesses,
says Edward in 1 295, shall have full and sufficient powers for
themselves and their communities^ and business shall in no
wise remain undone for want of such poweif.^^'^ Both of these
ideas are at home with the clergy. Their chapters are real
communities, which can federate in a joint assembly, and are
conscious of the reasons and the need of such federation, as
early as 1^26. With the nature of a procuratarium they are
well acquainted ; their chapters and monasteries have to send
proctors to Rome as a matter of ordinary legal business, and
Rome will invite proctors, from chapters at any rate, to a
general Council of the Church. The reinforcement of the
baronage by shire and borough representatives, which makes
a national parliament^ finds its precedent in the reinforcement
of the episcopate by the proctors of chapters. Representation
in a clerical parliament in 1226 is nearly thirty years prior to
representation in the lay assembly of 1254. We may repeat
the saying of VioUet: *Je suppose que ces reunions eccld-
siastiques ont pu contribuer k faciliter le ddveloppement et la
regularisation des grandes assemblies civiles, des reunions
d'etats. . . . En effet, le premier des trois ^tats, le clerg6, se
trouva, du premier jour, habitud et comme rompu k ce que
nous appellerions aujourd'hui les usages parlementaires.

^" Stubbs, Select Charters^ p. 486.

74 CONVOCATION AND PARLIAMENT

Circonstance heureuse qui a dd contribuer, dans TEurope
entire, sinon k former, du moins k regulariser la tenue des
^tats.'*" Stubbs has remarked that the mediaeval procedure
of parliament is like that of convocation. There is the same
list of gravamina^ the same petition for remedy .^^' And so
we may urge that the Church by its organization, its ideas, its
procedure, was a model and a precedent for that parliamentary
system, which, we must admit and indeed ut^e, in turn reacted
on the Church; for the regular parliamentary system of
Convocation would have been impossible, unless it had found
a parallel and a support in a national parliament, and unless
it had been part of a whole structure of society which was
consonant with itself.

^nd what of the Dominicans ? Well, they are a part of
that development of representation in the General Councils
of the Church, in the provincial synod, and even (in Germany)
in the diocesan synod, which marks the thirteenth century.
In that development they appear early, as early as 1221 ; of
that development they are the highest expression, for the use
of representation was regular and systematic through the
whole Order. They are a new Order, and they have the
attraction of novelty ; they are an Order with a high prestige,
and their prestige will make them a model. They found
friends for themselves in great men, like Stephen Langton and
Simon de Montfort ; and great men can give a vogue to ideas
and practices which would otherwise pass unregarded, making
a commonplace original, and a fantasy a practical policy.
They had communicated their organization to an Order which

"• VioUet, op, cit,, ii. 355.

*'• Const, Hist, iii. 1479. ' It is not improbable that this process was
identical with that by which in the discussions of the ecclesiastical
convocations the gravamina of individuals, the reformanda or proposed
remedies, and the articuli cleri or completed representations sent up
to the house of bishops are and have been from the very first framed and
treated. T^kit gravamina of individual members of convocation answer
to the initiatory act of the individual member in the commons, and the
articuli cleri to the communes petitiones^ One may even suggest that
the two Houses of Convocation may have been something of a precedent
for the two Houses of Parliament, and have helped to produce that
accidental bicameral system which, consecrated by time, has been
defended as a theoretical ideal and imitated as a political model.

THE DOMINICAN INFLUENCE 75

had a greater attraction, and certainly a far greater vogue,
than their own ; the Franciscans after 1239 reproduced many
of the features of the statesmanship of St. Dominic.^*® These
are all so many channels of indirect influence. Direct influence
can hardly be proved. That Stephen Langton had felt their
influence when he admitted representation as far as he did in
1226 is only conjecture. That de Montfort, who from early
years had been connected with the Order, felt and expressed -■
their influence is equally conjectural, if perhaps a little more
possible. That Kilwardby, himself a Dominican and ex-prior
of the English province, was translating their ideas into practice "^
in 1273 ^^^ ^^77 ^s, at the least, very probable. But we may
content ourselves with asserting as a certainty, that .they are
the highest expression of the development of the representative x
principle in the thirteenth-century Church, and that the in-
direct influence of that expression must have been felt in the
Church and to some extent in the State.

One lesson which emerges from this study may be remarked
in conclusion. The study of the institutional development of
the Middle Ages is an organic whole. We cannot isolate
Church and State ; not only do they develop side by side,
but they interact in their development. The development of
representation in Church and State must not be figured in the
mind as the advance of two parallel lines in two separate
squares ; it is the growth of one idea into an institution, in
that one and single respublica Christiana under two govern-
ments (the regnum and the sacerdotium) of which Dr. Figgis

**® This, of course, did not prevent a good deal of friction between the
two Orders. There is an interesting passage of arms, illustrating this
rivalry, in Wilkins, Cone. ii. 109-10. A Dominican at Oxford has crossed
without leave to the Franciscan Order at Oxford, and the prior and
friars of the Dominican house have excommunicated the Franciscans. It
is a canonical rule that a regular may go from a lower to a higher Order
(as for instance to-day one may leave any Order for the Carthusian) ; and
Peckham, assuming that his own Order is higher than the Dominican, at
once is up in arms. Another interesting, if fussy, letter is directed against
the provincial prior of the Dominicans, who had said that Peckham's
friends did not incite him to the martyrdom of St. Thomas (p. iii), and
divulged a private conversation ! This letter reminds one of Trivet's
description of Peckham (Annales, s. a. 1279) as ordinis zelator prae-
cipuus, gestus affcUusque pompaticu On the whole matter of. A. G. Little,
Grey Friars in Oxford^ pp. Ti sqq.

76 UNITY OF CIVILIZATION IN MIDDLE AGES

has taught us to conceive.^*^ Further, we must not in our
insular way isolate the institutional development of England
from that of continental Europe. We have learned of late not
to contrast English with continental feudalism, but to see in
both the same plant growing under somewhat different condi-
tions. We have been taught by recent historians to think
of the municipal development of the Middle Ages in Western
Europe as a single whole, and of its problems as not to be
solved country by country, but rather to be treated on the same
lines for all countries taken together.^** The development
of representation must be treated in the same way ; it is a
general movement in all Western Europe in the thirteenth
century, and it must be regarded as such if it is to be under-
stood in its fullness.

"* Trans, Roy. Hist Soc.^ 191 1 , vol. v, pp. 63 sqq. Cf. also Dr. Troeltsch,
Die SozicUlehre der christlichen Kirchen^ cap. II, esp. p. 182.

"• Cf. M. Pirenne, Revue Historique^ liii. 82 : * De meme qu'on ne
distingue pas une f^dalitd frangaise et une f^dalit^ allemande, de m me
aussi il n'y a pas lieu d'dtablir une ligne de demarcation entre les villas
allemandes et les villes frangaises.' As M. Pirenne refuses to distinguish
France from Germany, so the English historian must refuse to distinguish
England from either.

ADDENDA

I. p. 30. The vogue of the Dominicans in England during the
thirteenth century may be still further illustrated. Father Jarrett has
drawn my attention to the fact that Hubert de Burgh, the justiciar
of Henry III, left land in Ireland and his London house to the
Order, and was buried in one of its chapels (Matt. Paris, iv. 243).
John of Darlington, one of the most striking figures in the early
history of the Order, became confessor and councillor to Henry III
in 1256; was one of the Committee of Twenty-four in 1258; and
was employed in political negotiations as well as in ecclesiastical
business afterwards. A considerable scholar, and joint author with
Richard of Stavensby and Hugh of Croydon of the English Con-
cordances (Qu^tif and Echard, Scriptores Ord, Fraed. i. 209), he
was Archbishop of Dublin when he died in 1284 (see Trivet, Annales,
s.a. 1276, 1279, 1284). The fact that Dominican friars were as much
the favourites of men like Stephen Langton and Hubert de Burgh
as of Henry III seems to show that they did not belong to one side
in politics (supray p. 58, n. 92), but had friends equally in both camps.
With the English episcopate they were in especially close connexion.
Edmund Rich, Archbishop of Canterbury, had continually members
of the Order in his company, and had been the companion of the
Dominican Robert Bacon in the schools (Trivet, s.a. 1 240) ; Richard,
Bishop of Chichester, had a Dominican confessor {ibid,^ s.a. 1252).
These instances belong to the reign of Henry III ; but the Dominicans
did not cease to flourish under Edward I. A story in Trivet's Annals
(s.a. 1 281) shows Hugh of Manchester, provincial prior of the Order,
in intimate contact with the king; and in 1294 Hugh was sent by
Edward I on a political mission to France along with a Franciscan
friar. In 1286 Trivet records the presence both of Edward I and of
Philip IV at a meeting of the general chapter of the Order at Paris.

The main authority for the Dominicans in England in the thirteenth
century is Trivet, himself a Dominican. Details of the lives and
writings of particular friars are given in Qu^tif and Echard's Scriptores
(see especially under the year 1228, on John of St. Giles; 1248, on

78 ADDENDA

Bacon and Fishacre ; 1248, on Mauclerk ; 1279, on Kilwardby ; 1284,
on John of Darlington; 1290, on Claypole; and 1298, on William
of Hutton, Archbishop of Dublin).

II. p. 61. It is a question deserving of consideration, how far
clerical machinery was ever adopted and utilized for political and
secular purposes during the Middle Ages. The constitutional
novelties which occur in the years 1258-65 seem certainly to be
baspd in some cases on ecclesiastical precedents, such as would
readily offer themselves to de Montfort and his clerical colleagues.
The employment, for instance, of electors to elect an executive com-
mittee, which we find both in the Provisions of Oxford and in the
Forma Regiminis^ seems to me a direct imitation of the plan adopted
by the Dominican Order (and on its analogy by the Franciscan ; see
suprUy p. 23, n. 38) of electing definitores per disquisitionem of three
nominators. In fact de Montfort in the Forma Regiminis employs
just the same number of nominators (cf. Stubbs, Select Charters^
p. 413, with ConsHt Fr. Praed.y Paris, 1886, pp. 419-20). I would
almost venture to suggest that the use of the committees themselves,
which is so marked a feature of the years 1258-65, is the result of
imitation of the ecclesiastical institution of definitores,

III. p. 64. Pere Mandonnet suggests to me that Kilwardby, who
was not a Thomist, was recalled owing to the representations made
at Rome by the Thomist party. Certainly the division between the
Thomists and the other body of opinion to which Kilwardby
belonged (see supra^ p. 30) led to controversy in the Order. On
this hypothesis the Pope's motive in recalling Kilwardby would be
theological, and not, as Professor Tout suggests, political.

INDEX

Alexander III : 20.

Alexander IV : 56.

Aquinas : 29, 30.

Aragon : 20 " ", 43 *^ ^, 60.

Archbishops : their decline of power in
1 2th century, 32.

Archdeaconries: represented by proc-
tors, 54.

Archdeacons: regarded as representa-
tive, 42'' *•, 54» 56-7- .

Aristocracy : characteristic of Pre-

montr^, 13,17; among Cistercians, 1 7.
Aristotle : 30.
Augustine : the * rule ' of St. Augustine,

13"*'; his theology, 30.

B

Bacon (Robert) : 30.
Barons' War : 59 sqq,
B^mont (cited) : 60.
Benedictines : 24 " *«, 33 " ".
Berkshire rectors : 36 » »», 54 " ^'j 57.
Bishops: their decline of power in

1 2th century, 32 ; their relations to

cathedral chapters, 36-7.
Bologna: 12, 13, 14^1*, 15°*^, 28.
Boni^ce (Archbishop of Canterbury) :

a9»54»55»56, 61.
Bonrges (Council of 1225) : 34 sq., 36,

45» 46, 47.
Breaute (Fawkes de) : 45.

Bulls: Omne datum optimum^ 20;

Supra muros JerusaUm, 34, 45.

Canons : (i) of cathedral chapters, 36,
37-8 (see also Chapters) ; (2) canons
regular, 11, 18.

Canterbury : 28. (For archbishops see
Langton, &c. ; for synod of province
of Canterbury see Convocation^

Castile: 19, 26.

Centralization: in the Dominican
Order, 11; in the religious Orders
generally, 24.

Chapters : I. of religious Orders : {a)
Chapters of Dominicans : (i ) Chapter
general, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 23 "87^
29, 61"^**'; (2) provincial chapters,

13, 14, 15. (b) Chapters of Fran-
ciscans : (i) Chapter general (com-
posed of all brethren, to 1221 ; of
ministriy 122 1-3; of ministri and
custodes, 1223-30; of ministri and
representative fwj/^?*/^, 1230-9; with
discreti and definitoresj after 1239),
21 sqq. ; (2) provincial chapters, 22,
23**", 43. {c) Chapters of Hospi-
tallers, 19, 20. (d) Chapters of
Templars, 20. (e) Chapters of Prae-
monstratensians, 12, 13"". {/) Chap-
ters of Benedictines, 24 "*<^, 33"".
{g) Chapters of Cluniacs, 25"*^.
{h) Chapters of Cistercians, 12 " ^o.

— II, of cathedrals. Chapters repre-
sented in Spanish Cortes, 26 ; act as
presbyterium, 32 ; represented in great
councils of Church, 32-3 ; at Bourges,
34-6 ; history of chapters, 35-^ :
their relation to bishop, 36-7 ; repre-
sented in French provincial synods,
37 sqq. ; represented in States General,
40 ; represented in convocation, 42
sqq. ; the Chapter of Salisbury,
48 sqq.

Church courts : 66.

Circariaei 13, 14.

Circatoresi 13, 16, 24.

Cistercians: 12, 16 "'S 17, 24, 33"*'.

Clergy: their influence on political
development, 52, 73-4 (see also
Diocesan),

Cluniacs: I5*»", 17, 24, 25"*i.

Cologne (province of): 34"", 38"",

41-
Commanderies (of Hospitallers) ; 19.

Communes: 37.

Community: conception of communi"

taSf 27 ; parliament a union of com-

munitates, 73,
Concordances: 30.
Convents: Dominican convents, 14,

39 »W; *conventus' of Hospitallers,

19, 20.
Conversii 12.
Convocation (see also Synod) : 25, 35,

36 "i*, 39, 41, 42 sqq.; importance

of 1226 in history of convocation,

45 sqq, esp. 51 ; development of

8o

INDEX

convocation 1254-8, 55-9; onder
Kilwardby, 61-4 ; * model* convoca-
tion (1283), 67 ; its different aspects,
68-9 ; its relations to parliament,
68-9, 72-4; the English Convocation
compared with continental synods,
70 sqq.

Cortes : 26, 70.

Council (see Synod) : great councils of
13th century, 32 (see also LcUeraiiy
Lyons ^ Vunne). Legatine council,

34.

Crusade : plea for taxation, 44 ; twen-
tieth for a Crusade in 1219, 49-50;
Crusades a clerical institution, 53 :
taxes for Crusades, 57 " •^j 63.

Custodes (Franciscan) : 22, 23, 43.

D

Damiani: 27.

Dean (of chapter) : 42 (see Chapter ^ \\\
Definitores (executive committee): 12"*,
13, 14"**, 15-16, 20, 23, 24, 25»«

26»«

Democracy : characteristic of Domini-
can Order, 16"'*, 17 ; in early Fran-
ciscan Order, 24.

Diocesan clergy : position in England,
36 ■ *•, 39 ; included in Convocation,

43. SI"**, 54» 55» 56, 58, 63-4,

69-70.
Discipline (of Dominicans) : 11-12.
Discreius (Franciscan representative) :

23"", 43.
Dispensation (among Dominicans) : 12.

Dominic, St.: his personality, 9-10;

statesmanship, 9, 21, 25 ; originality

as organizer, 12 ; at Bologna (i 220-1),

12, 13; borrows from Praemonstra-

tensians, 16 ; at Palencia and at Osma,

19, 26 ; connected with S. France,

27-8 ; friend of elder de Montfort,

28, 60; St. Dominic and learning,

30.
Dominicans : in learning and organiza-
tion models for Franciscans, 10; ar-
rival in England, 10 ; compared with
Praemonstratensians (their model),
11-13; discipline relaxed by dis-
pensation for sake of study and
preaching, their end, 11-12; two
discrepant elements in Order, 12*^';
organization, 13-17 ; its features
(democratic, representative, definite),
17-18,27; their Third Order, 17"";
their wide extension, i8*''; how
far their organization original, 18 ; its
relation to that of Hospitallers, 18-20,
of Templars, 20-21, and of Francis-
cans, 21-4; imitated by Franciscans,

23; their vogue, 25; influence in
England, 28-9, 74; contribution to
learning, 29-30 ; connexion with
Grosseteste, 29 ; influence on Convo-
cation, 43, 47, 51, 58, 74-5 ; quarrels
with University of Paris, 58; on
royalist side in Barons' War? 59"'';
relations with de Montfort, 60 ; their
part in development of representation,
74-5; disputes with Franciscans,

Eadmer (cited) : 31.

Edward I: 29, 34, 35, 42, 44, 59, 61,
62 sqq., 73. (His conception of rela-
tion of Church and State, 62, 65.)

Eleanor (of Castile) : 29, 64 "^"^

Election: among Dominicans, 15,16^'^,
18.

Elias: 22-3.

England : the Dominicans in England,
10, 28-30.

English Church : its councils, 31 ; its
diocesan clergy (see Diocesan) ; its
position under Henry III, 44 ; under
Edward I, 62, 65 ; causes of its differ-
ence from continental Church, 71 sqq.

Figgis (cited) : 75.

Fishacre (or Fitzacre) : 30.

Forma RegiminU : 60, 61.

France : representation of towns in
S. France, 26-7; representation of
French chapters, 34-4 r ; comparison
of French Church with English,
70 sqq.

Francis, St. : his personality, 9 ; his aver-
sion to organization, 21-2.

Franciscans : debtors to Dominicans,
10; arrival in England, 10; con-
trasted with Dominicans, 16 " " ;
democratic element in their Order,
17; their Third Order, 17"**; Do-
minicans did not borrow from Fran-
ciscans, 18 (cf. 10°^); Franciscan
organization, 21-4 ; how far based on
Dominican, 23, 43, 75 ; Franciscans
and Grosseteste, 29 ; their provincial
chapters, 43 ; connected with de
Montfort, 60 ; disputes with Domini-
cans, 75""*^.

Frederic II : 33, 57.

G

Gascony : 58, 6a

Germany : synods of German Church,

33-4i 35> 40-1. 70-

INDEX

8i

Gilbert of Freynet : lo, 13, a8.

Grand Master : of Hospitallers, 19-ao ;

of Templars, ao.
Gratian (cited) : 31.
Gravamina'. 56, 74.
Gregory IX: 23, 44, 57 »««»,»».

Gregory X : 33, 61, 6a.
Gregory XI : 39.
Grosseteste : a8--9, 30, 60.

H

Hauck (cited) : 10, 33.

Henry II: 53.

Henry III: 44, 45, 47, 48, 54, 55,

Holbom (Dominican convent): aS-p

(cf. IS''").

Honorins III : 44 sqq.

Hospitallers: dividal into pays, 14;
their organization and its relation to
that of the Dominicans, iS-ao; re-
presentative principle in their Order,
19-20, 27.

Humbert (fifth Master-General of the
Dominicans) : 14 » ", 16 "^ ^.

Innocent III : 32, 36.
Innocent IV : 33, 56, 58 ^ •®.
Inquisition: 9^^'.

Jacobins (name of Dominicans at Paris) :

John (King) : 43, 51.

John of Darlington : 30, 59 » •*♦

John of St. Giles : 29, 30.

Jordan (second Master-General of

Dominicans): a8.
Jury : 53, 53.

K

Kilwardby : provincial prior of Domi-
nicans, 29; his writings, 30; Arch-
bishop of Canterbury, 43 ; summons
representatives to Convocation, 42-3;
a royalist? h9^^t ^^i* activity as
archbishop, 61-4, 75.

Knights (in parliament) : 55.

Labour: not exacted by Dominican

rule, 13.
Lambeth : council of 1 281, 66.
Langton : 25, 38, 39, 43, 43, 45-54, 59,

74-5-
Lateran (Fourth Lateran Council):

Laurence: 38«

1B6I F

Learning: Dominicans and learning,
10; their contribution to English
learning, 29, 30.

Leicester (Dominican convent) : 38.

Leon : 19, 36.

Lewis (Song of): 34, 37, 60-1.

Lyons: Council of 1345, 33-3, 58*'**;
Council of 1374, 63-3.

M

Magna Carta : 38, 64-5, 73.
Majority: rule of majority, 18, 49, 51,

53-

Mandonnet (cited) : 18, 35.

Marsh (Adam de) : 60.

Master-General (see Dominic, Jordan^
Raymond, Humbert) : his position
in Dominican Order, 14, 17; how-
elected, 14 ; controlled by definitores,
14"^*, 16; relation to provincial
prior, 16, 17.

Maurice : 30.

Metropolitan: 31, 33.

Military Orders: 18 sqq., 34, 38 (see
Hospitallers and Templars),

Ministri (Franciscan) : relation of
ministri to friars under regula of
1331, 33; general minister and pro-
vincial mi>»f>/n', 33 ; election of general
minister, 33, 33"**; his position,
1223-39, 23-3; change in 1339-40,
24.

Montfort : (i) the elder Simon de Mont-
fort, 27, 28; (3) the younger, 37, 38,

29,58. 59 sqq., 74-5-
Mortmain: 64-5.

N

Narbonne (province) : 38-9.
Northampton : parliament of 1 3 83, 66-7 .

O

Orders (religious) : tendency to centrali-
zation in 13th century, 34; progressive
force in Church, 35, 53 (see Military
Orders, Dominicans, Sec),

Osma : 9, 36.

Otto : 45, 46, 54.

Oxford : 10, 38-30, 51-a, 58.

Palencia: 19.

Papacy: checks provincial synod in
1 3th century, 31 ; attitude to cathedral
chapters, 36 ; its pressure responsible
for growth of representation, 34, 37,
57; pressure on England under
Henry III, 44, 57-8, 71; pressure
relaxed) 62.

s%

INDEX

Paris (Uniyeraity) : 38, 58.

Parliament: of 1254, 55, 73; of 1258,
a9.57»58; of 1265, 59-61; of 1275,
63; of 1282,66-7; of 1 294 and 1295,
68. Relations of Parliament to Con-
vocation, 69, 72-4.

Pays (of Hospitallers) : 14, 20***.

Peckham : 39, 43, 59 » •", 61, 62, 64 sqq.,

75-
Pirenne (cited) : 76.

Poverty : a native feature of the Domi-
nican Order, 10.

Praeciptori of HospitallerSy 19; of
Templars, 20.

Praemonstratensians : 11-13,14,16,17,

Praemunientes clause : 32 '^'j 68, 69.

Preachers: 'general' preachers, 15.
(For Friars Preachers see Domini-
cans,)

Preaching : the final aim of the Domi-
nicans, 11-12.

Precedent (sense of) : 48, 49, 50.

Presbyterium (see Synod (3)): 31"*,
36, 69.

Priors: of Dominican provinces, 13,
14; of convents, 14; provincial priors
and definitores of province, 15 ; they
act as definitores of general chapter
every third year, 15-16 ; their position
in their province, 16-17.

Proctor: proctors of chapters at
Bonrges, 34 ; in England in 1226, 35 ;
in French Church generally, 37 sqq. ;
proctors of chapters in convocation,
42 sqq. ; proctors of diocesan clergy
also, 55. Conception of representative
as proctor (and not delegate), 53, 73.

Procuradores (in Spain) : 26.

Procuratorium \ 39*", 53, 73.

Prohibitions: 66.

Promovedores I 26"**.

Province : provinces of Dominicans, 14,

I5*«, 20»»

Raymond (of Pennaforte, third Master-
General of the Dominicans) : 14 ' ^^

Reading: council of 1279, ^4*

Regula: regula non bullata of 1221,
21-3, 24; regtda of 1223, 22.

Reims : representation of chapters in
the province of, 37 sqq., 71,

Representation : among the Dominicans,
14, 15, 16"*^, 25; their representatives
not delegates, 1 8 ; principle of repre-
sentative government among Hospi-
tallers, 19, but no representation
proper, 20; representation among
Franciscans (after 1239), ^3 9 ^^

Spain and S. France^ 26-7; idea
cherished by Church, 27; chapters
represented in great councils of
Church, 32-3; in German synods,
34tti»; at Bourges (1225), 34-5 ; in
French and other continental Churches,
37-41 . Representation in the English
Convocation, 42 sqq. ; Langton and
representation, 46 ; Salisbury chapter
and representation, 48 sqq. ; impor-
tance of the year 1226 in this respect,
51 ; influence of clergy in promoting
the representative idea, 53. Repre-
sentation of two kinds, 53; its
connexion with taxation (see under
taxaiion), De Montfort and repre-
sentation, 60-1 ; Kilwardby, 63 ;
final form of clerical representation
under Peckham, 67. Why representa-
tion developed more in English
Church than elsewhere, 70-2 ; its
character in England, 73 ; it must be
studied as one whole (0) in Church
and State, and {b) for all Western
Europe, 76*

Romanus : 34, 45.

Rudolf of Habsburg: 62.

Rustand: 56.

Sack (Friars of) : 25"*».

St. Albans: meeting of 12 13 at, 52,

6i»»«
St. Edward's School : 28, 3a
Saladin tithe : 50.
Salisbury: proceedings of chapter, 46

sqq., 55-

Scotland : representation in Church of,

53"^.
Sentences : 29, 30. •

Shire : importance in England of, 72.

Sicily : 58, 60.

Socius: elected representative among
Dominicans, 15, 42, 43*

Sovereignty: 27.

Spain: Hospitallers in, 18-19; Templars
in , 20 " •\ Representation in Cortes,
26, 70 ; in provincial synods, 40, 41,
70.

Spiritualities : taxation of, 42, 50-x, 6^^
67, 72.

Stadi/itas: not exacted among Domi-
nicans, II.

States General : 40, 71.

Stubbs (cited) : 52-3, 60, 69, 74*

Studium generate : 29"*^.

Study : its importance among the Do-
minicans, 10, II, 12 ; its organization^

29'»«.

Synods: (i) national, 32, 34 ■^•, 35,

INDEX

83

37 1 W provincial (see Comwcatton) ;
attendance of laity before 12th cen-
tury, 31 ; decline in power, 32 ; re-
vived in 13th century, 32-3; their
history in France, 37 sqq.y and in
England, 42 sqq. ; English provincial
synod compared with French, 70 sqq. ;
(3) diocesan (see Presbyterium)^ 32,

33, 34''^^3^»39>69-7o•

Taxation {^%ct Spiritualities and Tithes) :
prodaces representation at Bonrges,
34; in England, 44; its part in the
developments of 1226, 50-1, and of
1254-8, 57-8; its inflnenoe on the
growth of convocation, 68 ; taxation
hi France and England, 71 ; English
demand that representation should
accompany taxation, 71-2.

Templars: 20, 21,41.

Testamentum (of St. Francis) : 22*

Third Order: i7»«*.

Tithes : for Crusade, 56, 57, 58, 62-3,

7^

Toledo : 40, 41, 71.

Tours: 40.

Towns : representation of, in Spain and

S. France, 26-7; in England, 59 sqq.,

76.

U

Ulpian (cited) : 27.
Universidades : in Spain, 26.
Universities : 40 (see Oxford zsA Paris),

Vienne : Council of, in 131 1, 41*
VioUet (cited) : 52, 73.
Visitatoresi 16, 24.

W

William : archbishop of Dublin, 30.

York : convocation of province of, 43 ;
model convocation of 1280, 43'''^,
65, 68, 70; parliament of 1282 at
York, 66.

> • •

« « • • •

OXFORD : HORACE HART M.A.

!- ;"; friiItrr' ig'-xHtf university

V

-^ »

ZJU^

LC

6-r

RETURN TO the circulation desk of any

University of Ca<ifornia Library

or to the

NORTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY
BIdg. 400, Richmond Field Station
University of California
Richmond, CA 94804-4698

ALL BOOKS MAY BE RECALLED AFTER 7 DAYS
2-month loans may be renewed by calling

(415) 642-6233
1-year loans may be recharged by bringing books

to NRLF
Renewals and recharges may be made 4 days

prior to due date

DUE AS STAMPED BELOW

>n Desk
bte

NOV 5 mi

A

FOR

CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY
/LEY, CA 94720

»:v

,1 »^^Vj 'A^'

fis5/

U.C. BERKELEY LIBRARIES

3 V y/-.^ . -

:.rt.-?'J.(

./

^\.>r:^ <

.J

<" /

LIBRARY

rg^':j%i

^

•n^ C--*^ <i

L^\/ — *-r^''- >L'-':i---, if-v-r^sri*

I