Skip to main content

Full text of "Henry the Third and the church : a study of his ecclesiastical policy and of the relations between England and Rome"

See other formats 


iOJ 


HENRY  THE  THIRD 
AND  THE  CHURCH 


LONDON  :  G.  BELL  &  SONS,  LIMITED, 
PORTUGAL  STREET,  KINGSWAY,  W.C. 

CAMBRIDGE:  DEIGHTON,  BELL&  co. 

NEW   YORK  :     THE    MACMILLAN    CO. 
BOMBAY  :     A.     H.    WHEELER    &     CO. 


HENRY  THE  THIRD 

AND  THE  CHURCH 

A   STUDY   OF   HIS   ECCLESIASTICAL   POLICY 

AND  OF  THE  RELATIONS  BETWEEN 

ENGLAND  AND  ROME 

BY 

ABBOT  GASQUET,  D.D. 


Juvatque  tntegros  accedere  fontes 

LUCRETIUS 


LONDON 

G.  BELL  AND  SONS,  LTD. 
1910 


CHISWICK  PRF.SS:   CHARLES  WHITTINGHAM  AND  CO. 
TOOKS  COURT,   CHANCERY   LANE,   LONDON. 


TO 
MY  OLD  AND  TRIED  FRIEND 

EDMUND  BISHOP 

TO  WHOM 
I  OWE  MORE  THAN  MERE  WORDS  CAN  EXPRESS 


CONTENTS 

CHAP.  PAGE 

I.  ENGLAND  A  FIEF  OF  THE  HOLY  SEE  i 

II.    THE  WORK  OF  GUALO  THE  LEGATE          .  .  .27 

III.  PANDULPH  REPLACES  GUALO  AS  LEGATE       .        .  40 

IV.  ECCLESIASTICAL  REORGANISATION         ...  56 
V.  THE  NUNCIO  OTHO 83 

VI.  ENGLISH  ECCLESIASTICAL  POLITICS  FROM  THE  DE- 
PARTURE OF  THE  NUNCIO  OTHO  TO  THE  DEATH 
OF  ARCHBISHOP  LANGTON  .  .  .  .102 

VII.  TROUBLES  AT  CANTERBURY  AND  THEIR  RESULT    .  119 

VIII.  ARCHBISHOP  LE  GRAUND 128 

IX.  ST.  EDMUND  AS  ARCHBISHOP         ....  144 

X.  THE  LEGATE  OTHO 162 

XI.  FROM  THE  DEPARTURE  OF  OTHO  TO  THE  ELECTION 

OF  INNOCENT  IV 190 

XII.  THE  FIRST  YEARS  OF  POPE  INNOCENT  IV     .        .  208 

XIII.  THE  ENGLISH  AT  THE  COUNCIL  OF  LYONS     .         .  228 

XIV.  THE  YEAR  AFTER  THE  COUNCIL  OF  LYONS    .         .  246 
XV.  HENRY  III  PREPARES  FOR  THE  CRUSADE      .        .270 

XVI.  ARCHBISHOP  BONIFACE          .....  283 

XVII.  AYLMER  DE  VALENCE,  BISHOP  OF  WINCHESTER     .  302 
XVIII.  THE  ENGLISH  CHURCH   IN  THE  LAST  YEARS  OF 

BISHOP  GROSSETESTE       .....  325 
XIX.  THE  POPE'S  GIFT  OF  THE  SICILIAN  CROWN  TO 

HENRY'S  SON,  EDMUND   .....  347 

XX.  THE  CHURCH  AND  THE  PROVISIONS  OF  OXFORD    .  375 

XXI.  THE  WORK  OF  OTTOBONI  THE  LEGATE  .        .        .  392 

INDEX 419 


VII 


INTRODUCTION 

ALMOST  every  historical  inquiry  is  beset  with  difficulties. 
It  might,  perhaps,  seem  to  the  ordinary  observer  that 
it  should  be  an  easy  matter,  with  the  expenditure  of  just  a 
little  trouble  and  labour,  directed  with  an  honesty  of  pur- 
pose, to  determine  what  are  the  undoubted  facts  in  the 
story  of  the  past,  and  to  disentangle  the  certain  from 
those  elements  of  the  uncertain  with  which  most  human 
relations  are  overlaid  and  embroidered.  This,  however,  in 
practice  is  frequently,  if  not  generally,  found  to  be  most 
difficult,  and  the  reason  is  not  far  to  seek.  The  human 
mind  is  so  constituted  that  it  intrudes  itself  and  its  own 
views  into  most  considerations  in  such  a  way,  that  facts 
become  distorted  to  accord  with  the  individual  method  of 
regarding  them.  Many  people  come  to  history  to  find 
evidence  for  something  they  wish  to  prove,  and  their  eyes 
consequently  magnify  what  they  expect  to  see,  whilst, 
probably  quite  unconsciously,  they  obscure,  or  diminish, 
or  discount  what  does  not  accord  with  their  preconceived 
notions.  If  this  be  true  in  regard  to  facts,  all  the  more  cer- 
tainly is  it  the  case  with  respect  to  inferences  or  deductions 
which  have  to  be  drawn  from  them,  in  order  to  explain 
their  existence  or  to  point  their  moral.  Everyone  who 
has  made  the  endeavour  will  recognise  how  difficult  it 
is  accurately  to  determine  the  sense  of  even  one  docu- 
ment, and  what  stern  self-discipline  is  requisite  as  the 

ix 


x  INTRODUCTION 

first  condition  of  every  critical  inquiry  or  historical  in- 
vestigation. 

In  briefly  introducing  the  present  study  of  the  relations 
between  the  Church  and  State  in  the  reign  of  Henry  III, 
it  is  perhaps  well  to  make  one  or  two  remarks  upon  the 
way  in  which  I  would  desire  to  approach  the  question. 
That  attitude  of  mind,  to  which  I  have  just  referred,  so 
detrimental  to  any  fair  examination  of  the  facts,  is  con- 
fined to  no  party  and,  as  far  as  I  know,  is  induced  by  no 
special  views  on  religious  matters.  As  a  rule  it  is  obviously 
increased  by  direct  controversy;  as  the  immediate  neces- 
sity of  gaining  a  dialectic  triumph  over  an  adversary,  of 
defending  a  chosen  position  or  of  pushing  forward  an 
advantage,  is  not  conducive  to  the  tone  and  temper  of 
mind  needful  for  the  formation  of  a  balanced  judgement. 
My  endeavour  in  this  volume  has  been  to  state  the  facts 
as  far  as  possible  in  the  language  of  the  old  chroniclers  and 
of  the  letters  and  other  documents  of  the  reign. 

On  the  one  side  and  on  the  other,  in  regard  to  the 
relations  between  England  and  Rome  in  the  thirteenth 
century,  there  has  been,  it  seems  to  me,  a  tendency — I 
may  call  it,  perhaps,  a  natural  tendency — to  minimise 
and  exaggerate.  Those  holding  one  set  of  opinions  have 
been,  perhaps,  too  blind  to  the  difficulties  which  un- 
doubtedly did  exist  between  England  and  Rome  at  this 
period,  and  which  were  certainly  not  light  difficulties. 
Those  holding  other  views  have,  it  seems  to  me,  been 
equally  hasty  in  assuming  that  these  difficulties  were  re- 
ligious or  spiritual  difficulties.  I  make  every  excuse  for 
the  mistake — as  I  hold  it  to  be — because  to  them  the 
word  Rome  has  become  almost  a  symbol  for  a  certain 
body  of  religious  views  and  the  expression  for  a  system  of 
religious  teaching  opposed  in  many  things  to  that  of  mere 


INTRODUCTION  xi 

nationalism  in  religion.  When,  then,  it  was  seen  that  dif- 
ficulties really  did  exist,  and  existed  for  a  considerable  time 
and  to  a  considerable  extent,  in  the  thirteenth  century 
between  this  country  and  the  Roman  authorities,  it  was 
easy  enough  to  rush  to  the  conclusion  that  the  conflict  be- 
tween them  must  have  more  or  less  affected,  even  if  it  did 
not  lead  to,  any  complete  rupture  in  the  religious  relations 
between  England  and  the  Roman  See.  It  would  be  easy 
enough  to  illustrate  this  view  from  current  literature,  but  I 
fancy  that  it  is  so  well  recognised,  that  there  is  no  need  to 
occupy  the  reader's  attention  further  in  this  matter.  The 
question  of  importance  and  interest  really  is,  how  far  this 
position  is  tenable  in  view  of  the  documents  and  papers 
of  the  period.  In  the  following  chapters  I  have  en- 
deavoured to  set  forth  the  materials  for  forming  a  judge- 
ment. Here,  perhaps,  I  may  be  permitted  to  state  what, 
after  much  study,  I  think  is  the  only  verdict  which  can  be 
passed  consistently  with  the  facts;  and  to  sum  up,  what 
I  believe  to  be  the  story  of  the  reign  of  Henry  III,  so  far  as 
the  Church  is  concerned,  (i)  The  pope,  by  the  act  of  King 
John,  had  obtained  a  position  of  paramount  importance  in 
this  country.  What  a  suzerain  was  to  a  feudatory  state, 
that  the  pope  of  Rome  was  to  England.  The  country  was 
a  fief  of  the  Holy  See;  and  the  name  of  feudal  overlord, 
possessed  by  the  pope,  was  no  mere  empty  title,  but  re- 
presented a  power  which  was  acted  upon  and  insisted  upon 
again  and  again  in  spite  of  opposition.  (2)  This  opposi- 
tion was  fully  as  strong,  if  not  indeed  stronger,  on  the 
part  of  the  bishops  and  clergy  than  it  was  on  the  side 
of  the  laity.  (3)  That  there  was  grave  discontent  against 
the  Roman  officials  cannot  be  doubted  for  one  moment. 
In  fact  it  could  hardly  have  been  deeper,  and  was  mani- 
fested by  ecclesiastics,  if  possible,  even  more  than  by  lay- 


xii  INTRODUCTION 

men.  (4)  But  it  was  a  discerning  discontent,  and  it  was 
absolutely  confined  to  opposition  to  the  pecuniary  policy 
of  the  papal  officials  in  their  constant  demands  made  upon 
the  revenues  of  the  English  churches  and  to  the  appoint- 
ment of  foreigners  to  English  benefices.  (5)  Throughout 
the  agitation — and  it  was  both  considerable  and  extending 
over  a  long  period  of  time — not  only  was  there  no  attack 
made  upon  the  spiritual  supremacy  of  the  popes,  but  that 
supremacy  over  the  Church  Universal  was  assumed  in  every 
document  emanating  from  England,  and  this  spiritual 
supremacy  was  constantly  asserted  to  have  been  esta- 
blished by  Christ  Himself.  Moreover,  as  those  who  will 
read  my  pages  can  see  for  themselves — or,  better  still, 
having  read  my  pages,  will  go  to  the  original  documents 
— the  spiritual  side  of  the  papacy  is  frequently  insisted  on 
in  unmistakable  terms.  Men  who,  like  Grosseteste,  were 
the  most  determined  in  their  opposition  to  what  I  may  call 
the  claims  of  the  papacy  in  temporal  matters,  were,  like 
him,  the  most  clear-sighted  in  their  perception  of  the 
pope's  indefeasible  and  divine  right  and  duty  to  rule  the 
Universal  Church  in  matters  spiritual.  In  fact,  Grosseteste 
even  went  beyond  this,  and  fully  conceded  to  the  Apostolic 
See  in  theory  the  power  of  dealing  out  to  whom  it  would 
the  ecclesiastical  benefices  of  this  or  any  other  country. 
"  I  know  and  truly  acknowledge,"  he  says,  "  that  to  the 
lord  pope  and  the  holy  Roman  Church  belongs  the  power 
of  dealing  freely  with  all  ecclesiastical  benefices  >n  through- 
out the  world.  This  is  an  important  declaration  on  the 
Catholic  theory  of  papal  authority ;  whilst  the  whole  of  the 
bishop's  acts  are  a  practical  protest  against  local  abuses  of 
that  power. 

Without  wishing  in  the  least  to  justify  the  constant 

1  Grosseteste,  Efistolae,  145. 


INTRODUCTION  xiii 

demands  made  by  the  popes  upon  England  for  money,  or 
still  less  the  packing  of  English  benefices  with  foreign 
ecclesiastics,  we  should  in  justice  remember  the  position 
and  responsibilities  of  the  popes  at  this  period  in  European 
politics.  Ancient  history  could  show  nothing  like  the 
system  which  bound  the  nations  of  Christendom  together. 
Previously,  States  consisted  of  but  one  nation ;  the  new 
Roman  Empire  embraced  vigorous  and  flourishing  nations 
united  in  one  faith  and  one  empire  in  the  papal  system, 
which  had  its  origin  in  the  opposition  of  Catholic  countries 
to  those  in  schism.  A  modern  historian  has  said,  that 
in  the  ages  of  faith  "it  was  considered  no  disgrace  to 
pay  tribute  to  St.  Peter;  and  it  was  considered  a  par- 
ticular honour  to  receive  from  the  successor  of  St.  Peter 
a  crown  which,  being  sanctified  by  papal  protection, 
could  not  be  withdrawn."  In  other  confederacies  of  States 
each  lost  something  of  individual  independence  and  their 
princes  something  of  sovereignty  when  they  were  merged 
in  a  supreme  power.  In  the  papal  system,  which  made 
and  preserved  mediaeval  Europe  as  it  was  entering  on 
modern  times,  the  nations  found  the  guarantee  of  their 
independence  and  the  princes  the  support  of  their  sover- 
eignty in  the  protection  afforded  them  even  by  the  spiritual 
sword  of  the  Roman  pontiffs. 

In  this  voluntary  submission  to  the  pope  as  to  their 
feudal  lord,  the  princes  of  the  middle  ages  did  not  per- 
ceive any  such  loss  of  dignity  as  we  to-day  might  imagine, 
or  indeed  any  loss  at  all.  By  the  beginning  of  the  thir- 
teenth century  Spain  and  Portugal  had  become  tributary 
to  the  pope,  and  the  act  of  King  John,  discussed  in  the 
first  chapter  of  this  book,  was  only  the  legitimate  con- 
sequence of  that  of  Henry  II.  When  the  first  of  the 
Plantagenets  stood  in  need  of  assistance,  he  acknowledged 


xiv  INTRODUCTION 

the  feudatory  dependence  of  England  on  the  Holy  See  in 
terms  hardly  less  distinct  than  those  used  by  John  him- 
self. The  step  taken  by  Henry  II  in  1173  was  the  dis- 
tinct forerunner  of  that  of  1213,  only  that  at  the  latter 
date  the  need  for  protection  was  more  obvious.  It  was 
better  to  be  feudatory  to  the  pope  than  feudatory  to  the 
king  of  France,  who  alone  of  all  the  sovereigns  of  Europe 
kept  aloof  from  the  system  of  the  papal  league,  which  at 
the  beginning  of  the  thirteenth  century  already  over- 
shadowed the  Germanic  Empire. 

The  crusades  added  a  new  motive  to  induce  nations 
to  recognise  the  popes  as  their  leaders.  They  alone  could, 
and  in  fact  did,  organise  the  opposition  to  the  infidel,  who 
at  one  time  threatened  to  overrun  all  the  Christian 
countries  of  western  Europe  and  sweep  away  the  civilisa- 
tion which  had  been  slowly  built  up  on  the  ruins  of  the 
Roman  empire.  Then  the  Latin  West  had  to  defend  the 
Latin  East,  and  this  seemed  naturally  to  devolve  upon 
the  popes  ;  whilst  the  invasions  of  the  Tartars  and  the 
frequent  wars  with  the  Hohenstaufen  demanded  constant 
vigilance  and  the  expenditure  of  much  money  on  the  part 
of  the  head  of  Christendom.  It  is  admitted,  I  believe, 
that  it  was  to  carry  out  these  public  duties  and  benefits  to 
the  world  that  the  popes  were  obliged  so  constantly  to 
appeal  to  the  generosity  of  their  spiritual  children,  whose 
temporal  quarrels  they  were  really  fighting.  It  was  not  out 
of  a  passion  for  wealth,  nor  indeed  to  gratify  any  love 
of  personal  splendour,  that  the  mediaeval  popes  made 
those  unpopular  demands  for  money  about  which  much 
will  have  to  be  said  in  the  following  pages. 

The  estates  of  the  Church  could  not  possibly  suffice 
to  supply  money  for  all  the  necessary  works  undertaken 
by  the  papacy  as  the  centre  of  Christendom.  Sometimes, 


INTRODUCTION  xv 

indeed,  the  pope  was  entirely  dispossessed  of  his  lands 
by  his  enemies,  and  in  fact  when  they  were  in  the  hands 
of  the  emperor  Frederick,  we  have  the  most  numerous 
instances  recorded  of  Italians  being  beneficed  in  England 
and  France.  The  popes,  reduced  to  great  straits  in  the 
government  of  the  Church  and  Christendom  at  one  of 
the  most  critical  moments  in  the  history  of  Europe,  were 
unable  to  reward  faithful  services  except  by  conferring 
benefices  in  foreign  lands.  Whilst  wholly  condemning  the 
practice,  we  should  remember,  in  fairness,  that  England 
was  not  altogether  without  some  return  for  what  was  thus 
taken  from  her.  If  the  papal  design  in  regard  to  the 
crown  of  Sicily  had  been  carried  out,  and  Henry  Ill's  son 
had  been  established  on  that  throne,  the  story  of  which 
proposal  and  of  its  failure  is  briefly  told  in  one  of  the 
chapters  of  this  volume,  who  shall  say  how  different  might 
have  been  the  subsequent  history  of  the  Church  and  of 
Europe?  It  was  the  policy  of  the  popes  to  keep  the  Sicilian 
crown  distinct  from  the  German  imperial  crown,  and  had 
not  Innocent  III,  as  feudal  lord,  protected  the  rights  as 
well  as  the  person  of  the  heir,  it  would  have  been  lost,  as 
Henry's  would  have  been  at  his  father's  death  if  the  pope 
had  not  come  forward  to  protect  his  youthful  vassal.  It 
is,  perhaps,  idle  to  speculate  on  what  might  have  been ; 
but  it  does  not  require  much  knowledge  of  the  sequence 
of  events  to  say  that  had  one  of  England's  sons  been 
established  in  Sicily,  for  one  thing  the  long  period  of 
papal  exile  in  France  could  hardly  have  taken  place.  In 
their  design  to  connect  Sicily  with  England  the  popes 
failed,  but  they  succeeded  better  in  other  matters.  Had 
it  not  been  for  the  papal  forethought  and  protection, 
England  might,  and  in  all  probability  would,  have  become 
a  feudatory  State  under  the  French  crown,  or  it  may  be 


xvi  INTRODUCTION 

even  an  outlying  part  of  the  German  Empire.  Indeed, 
as  late  as  the  Council  of  Constance,  in  1417,  the  French 
endeavoured  to  maintain  that  rightly  England  was  not 
a  country  apart,  but  that  legally  it  was  an  integral  portion 
of  Germany.  If  in  the  making  of  the  nations  England 
was  saved,  it  was  in  some  measure  at  least  because,  as 
the  late  Lord  Acton  once  declared,  the  union  of  this 
country  with  the  papal  system  "  tended  to  increase  con- 
siderably the  national  power  and  national  greatness." 

FRANCIS  A.  GASQUET. 

Athenaeum  Club, 
26th  May,  1905. 


; 

•, 


HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

CHAPTER  I 
ENGLAND  A  FIEF  OF  THE  HOLY  SEE 

KING  JOHN  died  on  i6th  October,  1216.  He  was  succeeded 
on  the  throne  by  his  son  Henry  III  at  one  of  the  most 
critical  periods  of  our  national  history.  The  Great  Charter 
of  the  previous  year  had  been  thought  by  many  to  have 
finally  settled  matters  long  in  dispute  between  John  and 
the  nation  at  large.  Such  sanguine  expectations,  however, 
argued  ignorance  of  the  king's  real  character.  From  the 
first,  writhing  under  the  stress  of  circumstances  which  had 
compelled  him  to  seal  his  approval  of  the  liberties  con- 
ferred by  the  Charter  on  his  subjects,  he  had  resolved  at 
the  earliest  opportunity  to  shake  off  the  yoke  to  which  he 
had  apparently  submitted. 

The  Magna  Charta  had  received  John's  final  assent  on 
1 5th  June,  1215.  Without  a  moment's  delay  the  king  set  to 
work  by  representations  at  Rome  to  obtain  from  the  pope 
a  declaration  of  its  nullity,  and  a  papal  absolution  from  the 
solemn  oaths  that  bound  him  to  observe  its  provisions. 
Any  grant  of  liberties  to  the  nation,  it  was  argued  by  the 
king's  agent  in  the  Curia,  was  void  legally,  if  the  previous 
consent  of  the  pope,  as  overlord  of  the  kingdom  of  England, 
had  not  been  obtained.  This  had  not  been  done,  and  hence 
the  Charter  was  undoubtedly  void.  Further,  it  was  argued 

£ 


2      HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

that  the  king  should  be  absolved  from  the  oaths  he  had 
taken,  because  he  had  been  forced  to  take  them.  The  pon- 
tiff who  then  sat  upon  the  throne  of  Peter,  was  Innocent 
III,  a  pope  of  great  ability,  and  of  almost  unlimited  power 
in  the  western  world.  Of  him  Mr.  Brewer  writes  that  "  his 
transcendent  genius  ...  is  conspicuous  not  only  in  the 
changes  hewrought  in  thewhole  system  of  European  politics, 
but  still  more  in  his  successful  mastery  of  all  opposition 
from  contemporary  sovereigns.  If  Alexander  desired  to 
find  kings  as  competitors  in  the  race,  Innocent  was  sur- 
rounded by  monarchs  as  able  as  himself,  accustomed  not 
to  render  but  to  receive  homage,  capable  of  resenting  any 
infringement  of  their  dignity.  He  found  Christianity  in  a 
fluid  state  with  a  tendency  to  glomerate  round  different 
centres,  and  revolve  in  different  orbits.  At  his  death  he 
left  the  papacy  the  sole  acknowledged  centre  towards  which 
all  states  gravitated  as  the  law  of  their  existence;  and 
perhaps  what  was  more  difficult  to  achieve,  he  rooted  his 
convictions  for  centuries  in  the  hearts  of  men,  however 
opposite  their  moral  or  intellectual  characters." 1 

From  this  point  of  view  one  of  this  great  pontiffs 
greatest  achievements  was  his  complete  victory  at  the  close 
of  the  long  struggle  with  King  John.  It  issued  in  the  king's 
humble  submission  on  Ascension  day,  1213,  to  the  papal 
envoy,  and  in  his  acknowledgement  of  Innocent  and  his 
successors  on  the  throne  of  the  Fisherman,  as  supreme  over- 
lords of  the  kingdom  of  England  and  Ireland.  Henceforth, 
as  the  terms  of  the  surrender  plainly  state,  the  kings  of 
England  were  to  rule  as  vassals  of  the  pope,  and  in  visible 
token  of  this  new  position  John  put  off  his  crown  and  then 
knelt  to  receive  it  again  at  the  hands  of  the  nuncio  Pandulph. 

1  Giraldus  Cambrensis,  Opera  (Rolls,  ed.),  i.  Introd.  Ixviii. 


ENGLAND  A  FIEF  OF  THE  HOLY  SEE       3 

Is  this  Ascension-day?  Did  not  the  prophet 
Say,  that  before  Ascension-day  at  noon 
My  crown  I  should  give  off?  Even  so  I  have: 
I  did  suppose  it  should  be  on  constraint 
But,  heaven  be  thank'd,  it  is  but  voluntary.1 

As  a  perpetual  memorial  of  this  surrender  it  was  agreed 
that  the  country  should  be  bound  to  pay  to  the  See  of 
Rome  an  annual  tribute  of  a  thousand  marks,  seven  hundred 
for  England  and  three  hundred  for  Ireland.2  The  royal 
charter,  signed  at  Dover  in  the  presence  of  Pandulph  on 
I5th  May,  the  eve  of  the  Ascension,  1213,  states  that  John 
gave  to  the  pope  "the  entire  kingdoms  of  England  and 
Ireland  and  all  their  rights,"  etc.,  "with  the  common  con- 
sent" of  his  barons.  The  same  day,  the  archbishop  of 
Dublin,  the  bishop  of  Norwich  and  several  of  the  nobility 
attest  the  deed  and  that  of  the  act  of  homage  made  by 
King  John  to  the  legate.3  In  this  second  document  the 
king  acknowledged  that  England  and  Ireland  now  form 
part  of  the  patrimony  of  St.  Peter,  the  rights  of  which  he 
was  bound  to  defend  against  all  men. 

The  terms  of  the  papal  nuncio's  certificate  of  absolution 
are,  if  possible,  even  more  explicit — at  least,  of  what  Pope 
Innocent  III  understood  by  the  king's  act.  "Let  all  men 
know,"  it  runs,  "  that  by  God's  grace  the  king  has  become 
another  man,  since  he  has  adopted  the  Roman  Church  as 
his  mother.  He  has  subjected  England  and  Ireland  to  the 
Holy  Roman  Church  and  has  given  his  territories  aforesaid 
to  God,  to  His  holy  Apostles  Peter  and  Paul,  and  to  the 
Lord  Pope  as.  a  patrimony.  He  and  his  heirs  are  to  hold 
them  of  the  Lord  Pope  and  his  successors.  Publicly,  and 
before  every  one,  he  has  done  fealty  to  the  Holy  Roman 

1  King  John  t  Act  V.  2  Annales  Monastici,  i.  p.  60. 

3  Rymer,  Foedera  (ed.  1816),  i.  111-112. 


4      HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

Church  and  sworn  homage  on  the  Gospels,  and  by  his 
Charter  which  he  has  already  sent  by  his  messengers  to 
Rome."  This  being  so,  Pandulph,  the  nuncio,  charged  the 
English  barons  and  all  others  to  serve  the  king  faithfully, 
under  threat  of  excommunication  should  they  show  them- 
selves disloyal.  In  the  pope's  name  also,  the  king  of  France 
was  ordered  not  to  proceed  with  hostilities  against  the  Eng- 
lish king,  as  he  had  been  invited  to  do,  because,  by  the  grace 
of  God,  John  had  now  become  "  a  son  of  holy  Church." 

It  is  by  no  means  clear  that  the  king's  assertion,  that 
he  had  had  the  full  assent  of  his  people  in  making  his  sub- 
mission, is  quite  correct.  It  is  hard  to  see  how  such  an 
assent  could  have  been  obtained,  and  there  is  little  doubt 
that  to  many  churchmen,  like  Cardinal  Langton,  the  sur- 
render of  England  to  any  "overlord,"  even  were  he  the 
pope  himself,  was  eminently  distasteful.  Moreover,  in  after 
years,  it  was  plainly  asserted  that  the  nation  had  never 
consented  to  King  John's  act,  and  "  that  even  Stephen 
(Langton)  the  archbishop  had  stood  against  it."1  This, 
no  doubt,  refers  to  the  cardinal's  subsequent  action,  as,  of 
course,  he  was  not  in  England  at  the  time  of  the  submis- 
sion itself.  If  we  are  to  accept  the  evidence  of  Matthew 
Paris,  the  people  generally  regarded  the  surrender  of  their 
country,  to  form  part  of  the  patrimony  of  St.  Peter,  as 
"  famosa  "  rather  than  as  "  formosa  " 2 — an  "  astounding  " 
rather  than  a  "  pleasing  "  event.  This  is  probably  not  far 
from  the  truth.  The  act  of  submission  was  acquiesced  in 
for  the  sake  of  peace.  That  it  was  approved  by  anyone  is 
extremely  doubtful :  as  indeed  how  could  it  be?  Probably 
even  John  himself  did  not  understand  at  the  time  what 
would  be  the  effect  of  his  submission,  and  only  looked 

1  Bartholomeus  de  Cotton,  Historia  Anglicana  (Rolls  ed.),  p.  125. 
51  Matthseus  Parisiensis,  Hist.  Majora  (Rolls  ed.),  ii.  509. 


ENGLAND  A  FIEF  OF  THE  HOLY  SEE       5 

upon  it  as  a  ready  expedient  to  bring  to  an  end  a  very 
undesirable  state  of  things  in  the  kingdom.    To  John  the 
humiliation  of  surrender  to  the  legate  brought  relief  from 
the  deposition,  at  the  hands  of  the  French  king,  which 
threatened  him.    This  gain  was  the  main  point,  and  it  is 
hardly  likely  that  he  was  either  serious  in  his  promises,  or 
had  any  intention  of  binding  himself  to  the  conditions  of 
his  absolution  if  it  should  suit  his  purposes  to  cast  them 
aside.    To  the  clergy  and  barons  also  the  king's  action 
brought  relief  from  the  pressure  of  the  papal  interdict,  which 
now  for  a  long  period  had  seriously  affected  all  classes  of 
society,  and  the  punitive  effect  of  which  was  felt  in  every 
parish  and  every  home  throughout  the  country.  They  were 
not  likely  to  inquire  too  minutely  into  the  meaning  of  any 
act  of  homage  on  the  part  of  their  sovereign,  which  re- 
stored the  ordinary  practices  of  religion  and  the  rights  of 
a  Christian  country  to  England.    Whatever  the  king  may 
have  intended,  however,  and  whatever  his  subjects  may 
have  thought,  by  John's  act  of  homage  a  new  position  was 
created  for  the  English  king,  which  was  well  recognised  in 
those  days  of  feudalism.    Of  this  position  the  king  was  not 
slow  to  avail  himself  when  he  needed  the  help,  which,  as 
vassal  of  the  pope,  he  could  now  demand  from  his  overlord 
to  enable  him  to  cope  with  his  old  opponents,  the  barons. 

The  submission  made  by  the  king  in  May,  1213,  was 
renewed  on  3rd  October  of  the  same  year,  under  more 
solemn  circumstances.  John  again  formally  proclaimed  the 
resignation  of.  his  kingdom  to  Pope  Innocent,  and  recorded 
his  oath  of  fealty  to  the  Holy  See,  in  a  Charter  sealed  with 
a  golden  "  bulla."  This  document  was  attested  by  Arch- 
bishop Langton,  now  in  England,  by  four  other  bishops  and 
several  of  the  chief  nobles.1  It  is  this  deed  of  gift  which  the 

1  Rymer,  i.  115.     It  was  apparently  at  this  same  time  that  Archbishop 


6      HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

pope  recites  in  his  subsequent  letter  of  acceptance,  dated 
2nd  November,  and  which  is  countersigned  by  all  the 
Cardinals  in  Curia.1  After  pointing  out  that  those  "  kings 
alone  have  a  right  to  reign  who  strive  to  serve  God  aright," 
Innocent  III  goes  on  to  speak  of  John's  submission.  By 
God's  inspiration,  "  in  whose  hands  are  the  hearts  of  kings 
and  who  directs  them  wheresoever  He  wills,"  he  says,  "you 
the  English  king  have  elected  to  submit  yourself  and  your 
realm,  even  in  things  temporal  to  me,  to  whom  previously 
you  had  acknowledged  yourself  subject  in  spiritual  matters. 
In  this  way  in  the  one  person  of  the  Vicar  of  Christ  the 
body  and  soul,  as  it  were,  that  is,  the  temporal  kingdom 
and  the  priesthood 2  are  united  to  the  great  benefit  and  in- 
creased power  of  both.  He,  therefore,  who  is  the  Alpha  and 
Omega,  has  deigned  to  accomplish  this.  He  has  finished 
what  He  began,  and  so  brought  what  He  had  begun  to  its 
ending,  in  such  a  way  that  the  country,  which  of  old  ac- 
knowledged the  Holy  Roman  Church  as  the  ruler  in  spiritual 
matters,  should  now  have  it  as  its  real  master  even  in  tem- 
porals." For  by  the  common  consent  of  the  English  barons, 
the  king  has  given  over  for  ever  the  kingdoms  of  England 
and  Ireland  to  God,  to  His  holy  Apostles  Peter  and  Paul, 
to  the  Holy  Roman  Church,  and  to  the  pope  and  his  suc- 
cessors "  as  a  right  and  possession." 3  Then  after  quoting 
textually  John's  Charter  and  oath  of  fealty,  the  pope  de- 
clares them  to  be  approved  and  ratified,  and  adds :  We  take 

Langton,  at  the  meeting  of  bishops  and  nobles  in  St.  Paul's,  produced  a  Charter 
of  Henry  I  renewing  the  "laws  of  St.  Edward,"  and  obtained  King  John's 
assent  to  the  same,  and  his  pledge  to  keep  it.  The  French  historian,  M.  A. 
Luchaire,  sees  in  the  act  of  the  archbishop  and  barons  in  thus  founding  their 
claims  for  right  government  upon  previous  grants,  "  the  beginning  of  that  con- 
stitutional rule  which  in  the  modern  world  has  become  the  political  law  of 
civilised  nations  "  (E.  Lavisse,  Histoire  de  France,  iii.  201). 

1  Rymer,  i.  117.  *  Regnum  ct  sacerdotium. 

3  In  jus  et  proprietaiem. 


ENGLAND  A  FIEF  OF  THE  HOLY  SEE       7 

"under  the  protection  of  St.  Peter  and  Ours  your  person  and 
the  persons  of  your  heirs  together  with  your  kingdoms  and 
all  that  pertains  to  them."  Finally  he  declares  that,  by  the 
consent  of  the  Cardinals,  he  bestows  upon  the  king  the 
kingdoms  of  England  and  Ireland,  to  be  held  henceforth  as 
a  fief  "  according  to  the  prescribed  form,"  and  directs  that 
his  heirs,  on  succeeding  to  the  crown,  shall  publicly  ac- 
knowledge themselves  to  be  vassals  of  the  pope  and  take 
an  oath  of  fealty  to  him.1 

The  peace  between  King  John  and  his  subjects,  which 
followed  upon  his  submission  to  Rome,  was  not  of  long 
duration.  Difficulties  soon  began  again  to  arise  between  the 
bishops  and  the  Crown  as  to  certain  ecclesiastical  appoint- 
ments. The  tension  almost  reaching  the  snapping-point, 
Archbishop  Langton  summoned  his  suffragans,  the  abbots, 
and  other  prelates  of  the  province  of  Canterbury,  to  meet 
him  at  Dunstable  in  the  early  part  of  January,  1214.  Their 
grievances  were  found  to  have  a  deeper  foundation  than  a 
natural  irritation  caused  by  any  royal  whim.  The  council 
complained  that  the  Apostolic  legate,  Nicholas,  bishop  of 
Tusculum,  had  in  several  instances  set  aside  the  rights  of 
canonical  election,  and  had  appointed  prelates  to  vacant 
churches  at  the  king's  wish,  whom  they  considered  not  fitted 
to  such  positions.2  At  the  request  of  the  assembly  Langton 
sent  a  formal  prohibition  to  the  papal  legate,  forbidding 
him  henceforth  to  act  in  this  way  against  the  rights  of  the 
Church  of  England.  The  legate  Nicholas  did  not  reply  to 
this  remonstrance,  but  at  once  sent  off  his  associate  Pan- 
dulph  to  Rome,  to  give  his  version  of  facts  likely  to  come 
ultimately  to  the  knowledge  of  the  Curia.  Pandulph  faith- 

1  Wilkins,  Concilia,  i.  544.    For  some  reason  this  same  letter  was  again 
issued  in  the  following  February  (Rymer,  i.  119). 
a  Minus  sufficiens. 


8      HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

fully  carried  out  his  mission,  and  his  representations  were 
undoubtedly  prejudicial  to  the  position  and  authority  of 
Cardinal  Langton  at  the  Roman  court.  The  legate's  envoy 
took  with  him  from  England  to  Pope  Innocent  the  final 
Charter  of  King  John's  submission,  sealed  with  its  golden 
"  bulla,"  and  he  so  extolled  the  king  and  his  virtues  to  the 
Roman  officials,  that  the  representations  of  Simon  Langton, 
the  archbishop's  brother,  on  the  merits  of  the  case,  fell  upon 
deaf  ears.1  In  reality,  however,  the  king's  Charter  and  the 
pope's  confirmation  of  it,  assured  that  freedom  of  election 
for  ecclesiastics  for  which  the  archbishop  and  his  suf- 
fragans had  contended. 

Meantime  Langton's  determination  to  force  the  king 
to  govern  his  people  justly  and  honestly,  was  apparently 
altogether  misconstrued  by  Innocent  III  and  his  advisers. 
As  a  result  of  this  unfortunate  misunderstanding  of  the 
real  situation  in  England,  and  of  the  true  character  of  King 
John,  the  pope  in  March,  1215,  addressed  a  letter  of  reproof 
to  the  archbishop  and  his  suffragans.  "We  are  astonished," 
he  writes,  "  and  are  deeply  moved !  We  regard  it  as  a  very 
grave  matter,  and  one  most  hurtful,  that  after  peace  had 
been  happily  restored,  to  the  honour  of  God  and  His 
Church,  between  you  and  our  beloved  son  in  Christ,  John, 
the  illustrious  king  of  England,  you  should  have  so  far  dis- 
regarded the  settlement,  as  to  aid  in  the  dissensions  between 
him  and  some  of  the  barons  and  their  accomplices.  You 
have  pretended  not  to  recognise  their  existence,  and  have 
not  interposed  your  authority  to  repress  the  discord.  You 
cannot  be  ignorant  of  what  will  take  place  if  these  dissen- 
sions be  not  allayed  by  prudent  counsel  and  unremitting 
care.  From  them  there  may  easily  happen  some  great 
scandal  to  the  whole  kingdom,  which  will  not  be  ended 

1  Matth.  Paris,  Chron.  Maj.t  ii.  572. 


ENGLAND  A  FIEF  OF  THE  HOLY  SEE       9 

without  the  expenditure  of  much  money  and  without  great 
labour.  Some  even  expect  and  say,  that  in  the  dispute  with 
the  king,  you  have  given  both  help  and  countenance  (to 
his  opponents),  since  these  matters  were  never  raised  in  the 
reigns  of  the  king's  father  or  brother,  nor  in  his  own,  indeed, 
until  peace  between  him  and  you  had  been  made." 

"  We  altogether  condemn  this  attitude,  if,  as  is  asserted 
by  many,  conspiracies  and  plots  are  being  made  against 
him,  or  the  people  irreverently  and  undutifully  are  pre- 
suming to  demand  by  force,  what  they  should  have  asked 
for  with  humility  and  submission,  if,  indeed,  there  were  any 
occasion  at  all  to  request  anything."  The  pope  then  orders 
the  English  bishops  to  try  and  end,  if  necessary  even  by 
means  of  the  spiritual  sword  of  excommunication,  all  these 
discords.  They  are  to  warn  the  nobles  that  they  must 
be  reconciled  with  the  king  and  serve  him  as  faithfully  as 
their  ancestors  had  served  his  predecessors.  On  his  part, 
the  pope  says,  he  has  asked  and  begged  the  king  to  listen 
to  any  just  demands  that  may  be  made  to  him,  and  to 
remedy  any  real  grievance.1 

On  the  same  day  Pope  Innocent  III  addressed  a  letter 
to  the  barons  couched  in  almost  the  same  terms.  This 
was  followed  a  few  days  later  by  a  brief  epistle  likewise 
directed  to  the  barons,  in  which  he  wrote  that  the  king 
had  complained  to  him  that  his  nobles  would  not  pay  the 
accustomed  scutage  which  he  had  great  need  of  in  order 
to  pay  his  army.  The  pope  expressed  the  hope  that  they 
would  not  prevent,  by  their  refusal,  this  pious  intention — 
pium  propositum — of  the  king  to  pay  his  debts ;  and  he 
"  commanded  them  by  his  apostolic  letters  "  not  to  persist 
in  their  refusal  to  satisfy  their  king  in  this  matter.8 

Innocent  III  was  evidently  quite  misinformed  as  to 

1  Rymer,  i.  127.  a  2 bid. 


io     HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

the  real  state  of  affairs  in  England  and  completely  ignorant 
of  John's  true  character.  By  his  mock  humility  in  resigning 
his  crown  into  the  pope's  hands,  when  he  had  come  to  the 
last  extremity,  and  by  his  promise  of  a  yearly  tribute  to  the 
coffers  of  St.  Peter,  the  English  king  had  secured  the  ear  of 
the  pope  and  the  important  influence  of  his  legate  in  Eng- 
land, even  as  against  Cardinal  Langton  and  the  English 
bishops.  What  was  to  be  done?  As  we  ponder  over  the 
documents  to-day,  even  in  the  light  of  subsequent  events, 
the  situation  appears  difficult  enough.  What  must  it  have 
been  for  true  churchmen  and  loyal  patriots  like  Langton 
and  his  suffragans,  who  knew  their  king  only  too  well, 
and  who  felt  that  his  astute  diplomacy  had  completely 
hoodwinked  Nicholas  the  legate,  the  able  Pandulph,  and 
through  them  the  great  pontiff  who  ruled  the  Church? 

In  the  ever  memorable  year  1215  Easter  fell  on  ipth 
April,  and  in  that  week  the  barons  met  at  Stamford.1  In 
the  matters  at  issue  between  them  and  the  king  there  was 
no  room  for  discussion.  The  barons  were  determined  to 
force  their  sovereign  once  for  all  to  keep  the  solemn  promises 
he  had  so  frequently  made  to  confirm  the  Charter  of  King 
Henry  II.  "  They  were  all  leagued  together  and  bound  by 
oath,"  writes  the  chronicler,  "  and  they  had  Stephen  (Lang- 
ton),  archbishop  of  Canterbury,  as  their  main  support."* 
King  John  sent  for  the  archbishop  and  deputed  him  and 
the  earl  of  Pembroke  to  find  out  from  the  barons  what 
their  exact  demands  were.  These  were  drawn  up  and  a 
paper  written  containing  the  headings  of  what  they  asked, 
which  were  mainly  taken  from  the  old  laws  of  Edward  the 
Confessor  and  the  Charter  of  Henry.  The  king  refused  to 
consider  what  he  held  to  be  monstrous  restrictions  on  his 

1  Roger  de  Wendover,  Flares  Historiarum  (Rolls  ed.),  ii.  114. 
3  Ibid.,  115,  capitalem  consentaneuni. 


II 

regal  rights :  and  both  sides  prepared  for  the  final  stage  of 
the  struggle,  which  ended  with  John's  capitulation  at  Runny- 
mede  a  few  weeks  later  and  the  royal  assent  to  Magna 
Charta.1  It  is  important  to  note  that  throughout  the  nego- 
ciations,  the  bishops  with  Langton  at  their  head  and  some 
few  of  the  nobles,  although  determined  to  force  King  John 
to  grant  the  long  promised  liberties  to  his  subjects,  were 
able  to  maintain  throughout  friendly  relations  with  him. 
They  were,  what  Roger  de  Wendover  calls,  quasi-partisans 
of  the  king  (quasi  ex  parte  Regis]  and  they  were  thus  able  in 
the  end  to  bring  him  to  reason. 

Meantime  John  was  very  busy  in  Rome.  Events  had 
moved  somewhat  more  rapidly  than  was  anticipated,  or  the 
Roman  authorities  were  too  slow  in  acting,  and  in  the  issue 
the  king  was  for  the  moment  left  unprotected  by  his  suzer- 
ain, and  was  forced,  as  we  have  seen,  to  make  what  terms 
he  could  with  his  long-suffering  subjects.  But  so  far  as  the 
pope  was  concerned  matters  were  not  allowed  to  rest  where 
the  king's  capitulation  had  left  them.  In  the  previous  Feb- 
ruary of  the  year  1215,  "  induced,"  writes  the  chronicler, 
"  rather  by  fear  than  love,"2  John  had  taken  the  cross.  His 
cunning  had  detected  in  the  privileges  accorded  by  the 
Church  to  the  person  of  a  Crusader  additional  security  for 
postponing  the  evil  day.  He  hoped  that  his  crusading 
design  would  be  another  motive  to  induce  the  pope  to 
interpose  his  supreme  authority  to  save  him  from  the  hard 
necessity  of  keeping  faith  with  his  subjects. 

As  time  went  on,  and  the  collapse  of  John's  resistance 
seemed  inevitable,  he  wrote  a  piteous  letter  of  appeal  to  the 

1  Copies  of  the  Great  Charter  were  ordered  to  be  deposited  in  the  cathedral 
churches  and  monasteries  of  the  realm,  but  it  was  not  enrolled  on  the  Patent  or 
Charter  Rolls.    This  Dr.  Reinhold  Pauli  regards  as  "  an  evident  proof  of  the 
king's  intention  that  it  should  never  become  a  law  of  the  realm." 

2  Matth.  Paris,  ii.  585. 


12     HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

pope.  This  was  on  29th  May,  less  than  three  weeks  before 
the  sealing  of  the  Great  Charter  at  Runnymede.  It  could  not 
have  reached  Rome  before  that  event,  but  it  is  most  in- 
structive as  to  the  king's  real  sentiments  at  the  time.  After 
thanking  the  pope  for  the  letters  he  had  written  to  him,  and 
in  his  behalf  to  the  bishops  and  barons,  he  says  that  the 
papal  admonitions  had  fallen  on  deaf  ears.  He  complains, 
too,  that  the  archbishop  and  his  suffragans  had  omitted  to 
execute  the  pope's  commands  to  put  a  stop  to  the  discon- 
tent by  a  few  timely  excommunications.  "  For  our  part," 
he  continues,  "  we  declare  to  our  people  that  our  kingdom 
is  part  of  the  patrimony  of  St.  Peter,  and  that  we  hold  it 
of  St.  Peter,  from  the  Roman  Church  and  you." 

Over  and  above  this,  "  we  tell  everyone  that  we  are  one 
of  the  cruce  signati,  and  claim  the  benefit  and  privilege  of 
crusaders,  namely:  that  we  be  not  disturbed  in  our  pos- 
sessions, so  as  not  to  be  forced  to  consume  in  defending 
them  what  we  have  proposed  to  expend  on  an  expedition 
to  the  Holy  Land.  For  this  reason  we  have  appealed 
through  William  Marshall,  earl  of  Pembroke,  and  Earl 
Warren  against  the  disturbers  of  the  peace  of  our  kingdom. 
But  even  because  we  are  a  Crusader  we  have  desired  to  act 
with  all  humility  and  gentleness,  and,  without  prejudice  to 
our  appeal,  we  have  offered  the  barons  to  abolish  all  bad 
customs,  by  whomsoever  introduced  in  our  times,  and  also 
to  eradicate  all  such  evil  practices  as  had  come  into  exist- 
ence in  the  reign  of  our  brother  Richard.  With  regard  to 
the  customs  introduced  in  the  days  of  our  father,  we  have 
further  promised  that  we,  with  the  advice  of  our  faithful 
counsellors,  will  amend  any  that  can  be  shown  to  be  in- 
jurious. But  the  barons  are  not  content  with  these  pro- 
mises nor  with  others,  and  have  refused  them  all." 

King  John  then  passes  on  to  say  that  he  had  requested 


ENGLAND  A  FIEF  OF  THE  HOLY  SEE      13 

the  archbishop  of  Canterbury  to  compel  the  obedience  of 
his  barons,  according  to  the  tenor  of  the  pope's  letters  by 
the  spiritual  weapon  of  excommunication,  but  that  Cardinal 
Langton  had  demurred  to  this  course.  He  had  persistently 
refused  to  pronounce  any  such  sentence,  saying  that  he 
knew  well  what  the  pope's  mind  was  on  such  matters.  He 
had,  however,  undertaken,  if  he,  the  king,  would  get  rid  of 
the  foreign  mercenaries  he  had  imported,  to  do  what  he 
could  for  him.  After  this,  he  continues,  we  offered,  through 
the  archbishop,  to  submit  the  whole  matter  to  you,  the 
pope,  through  eight  representatives,  four  appointed  by 
me,  and  four  elected  by  the  barons.  This  too  they  rejected. 

Further,  the  king  desired  to  remind  the  pope  that,  as  a 
necessary  consequence  of  these  continued  disturbances,  he 
had  been  obliged  to  give  up  his  journey  to  the  Holy  Land, 
and  consequently  he  could  not  now  say  when  he  would  be 
able  to  undertake  it.  Moreover,  in  thus  abandoning  his  ex- 
pedition, many  others  who  were  going  with  him  had  been 
prevented  doing  so.  "  Finally,  O  venerated  Father,"  he 
concludes,  "  in  the  presence  of  Brother  William,  a  member 
of  your  court,  and  of  the  venerable  Fathers,  the  bishops  of 
Coventry  and  Worcester,  we  offered  the  said  barons  to 
submit  to  your  Benignity  all  the  demands  they  have  made 
of  us,  that  you,  who  enjoy  the  plenitude  of  power,  might 
determine  what  is  just;  and  they  refuse  all  these  offers. 
Wherefore,  loving  Father,  we  have  determined  to  expose 
the  present  state  of  things  to  your  Lordship,  that  in  your 
kindness  you  might  determine  what  should  be  done." a 

Innocent  III  replied  at  once  on  the  receipt  of  John's 
letter.  He  wrote  in  haste,  for  his  reply  is  dated  June  18, 
only  three  weeks  after  the  dispatch  of  the  king's  communi- 
cation. It  was  too  late,  however,  to  affect  the  situation. 

1  Rymer,  i.  129. 


14     HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

Although  of  course  the  pope  did  not  then  know  it,  the 
Great  Charter  had  been  agreed  to  and  sealed  three  days 
before  the  issue  of  the  papal  letter,  which  is  addressed  to 
Langton  and  the  other  English  bishops.  The  king's  agents, 
he  says,  had  represented  to  him  the  difficulties  which  sur- 
rounded their  royal  master.  He  does  not  understand  the 
situation.  Long  ago  he  had  urged  the  king,  in  remission  of 
his  sins,  to  treat  the  barons  with  mildness  and  listen  to  their 
just  petitions.  "  Why  cannot  they  put  an  end  to  these  con- 
tentions by  the  means  sanctioned  by  the  laws  and  customs 
of  their  country?"  The  barons  had  not  even  waited  for  his 
reply;  but  after  the  king  had  taken  the  cross  and  had  pro- 
mised them  more  than  justice,  they  had  taken  up  arms 
against  him.  They  did  not  appear  to  feel  concern  that  their 
action  prevented  the  work  of  liberating  the  Holy  Land,  and 
forced  the  king  to  spend  money  intended  for  the  Crusade 
upon  resisting  the  destruction  of  their  own  country.  What 
was  most  "  wicked  and  absurd  was,  that  when  the  king  in 
his  perversity  had  offended  God  and  the  Church,  they  had 
helped  him;  but  that,  when  he  had  turned  again  to  God 
and  satisfied  his  Church,  they  then  attacked  him."  To  per- 
mit this  would  be  an  injury  to  God,  to  the  Roman  Church, 
and  to  the  pope,  as  well  as  to  the  king,  and  would  be  a 
danger  and  a  menace  to  the  kingdom.  "  Wherefore,"  con- 
tinues the  document,  "greatly  desirous  of  procuring,  as 
indeed  we  are  bound  to  do,  the  peace  of  the  kingdom  of 
England,  (we  determine)  to  put  down  these  disturbances 
and  to  protect  the  said  king,  who  is  our  vassal,  from  in- 
justice and  injury;  particularly  as,  by  reason  of  the  cross  he 
has  assumed,  he  is  under  our  special  protection.  We  there- 
fore strictly  enjoin  upon  the  aforesaid  archbishop  and  his 
suffragans,  in  virtue  of  their  obedience,  that  they  proceed 
to  the  excommunication  of  the  said  barons,  if  after  eight 


ENGLAND  A  FIEF  OF  THE  HOLY  SEE      15 

days  after  being  warned  "  they  refuse  to  make  their  peace 
with  their  sovereign." 1 

Before  this  letter  could  reach  England,  and,  indeed, 
before  it  was  penned,  it  had  been  stipulated  by  the  barons 
at  Runnymede  that  all  foreign  mercenaries  were  to  be 
disbanded  and  forthwith  sent  out  of  the  country,  and 
that,  for  two  months  before  the  provision  of  the  Charter 
became  effective,  London  should  remain  in  the  keeping 
of  the  barons,  Cardinal  Langton  holding  the  Tower.  Fur- 
ther, that  twenty-four  of  their  number  should  be  constituted 
guardians  of  the  liberties  of  their  country,  with  power, 
should  there  be  any  attempt  to  ignore  the  provisions  of 
the  Charter,  to  declare  war  against  the  king. 

John  did  not  rest  calmly  under  these  repressive  measures. 
The  sequel  shows  that  he  had  never  meant  to  keep  faith 
with  the  barons.  He  had  only  sworn  to  the  provisions  of 
Magna  Charta  because  he  could  not  help  himself,  and  to 
gain  the  time  necessary  for  once  more  invoking  papal  as- 
sistance. By  27th  June,  and  before  the  reply  of  the  pope 
to  his  former  letter  could  have  reached  England,  his  mes- 
sengers, including  Pandulph,  then  bishop-elect  of  Norwich, 
and  the  agent  for  the  Curia  in  England,  were  on  their  way 
to  Rome  with  a  fresh  appeal  for  help.  "  We  humble  our- 
selves," the  king  writes,  "  in  the  sight  of  your  Paternity. 
As  far  as  we  know  how  and  are  able,  we  thank  you  deeply 
for  the  care  and  solicitude  which  your  paternal  loving 
kindness  has  unceasingly  devoted  to  our  defence  and  that 
of  our  kingdom  of  England.  But  the  hard-heartedness 
of  the  English  prelates  and  their  malicious  disobedience 
prevents  your  loving  designs  from  having  effect. 

"  We,  however,  eagerly  turn  once  more  to  your  clemency, 
knowing  the  true  affection  you  have  for  us.  Although  for 
1  P.R.O.  Papal  Bulls,  Box  Hi.  No.  2. 


16     HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

the  moment  you  are  looked  upon  by  the  proud  and  evil- 
minded,  in  their  folly,  as  powerless,  by  God's  help  you  will 
protect  us  and  secure  us  peace,  and  bring  terror  and  con- 
fusion upon  our  enemies.  Though  indeed  Pandulph,  your 
trusty  subdeacon  and  the  elect  of  Norwich,  is  most 
necessary  here  in  England,  faithfully  and  devotedly  to 
further  the  interests  and  honour  of  the  Roman  Church  and 
yours,  as  well  as  that  of  our  whole  kingdom,  still  because 
in  no  better  way  could  your  Paternity  be  made  acquainted 
with  our  state  and  that  of  our  realm  than  through  him,  we 
have  unwillingly  dispatched  him  to  your  feet.  We  earnestly 
beg  that  when,  through  him  and  our  other  trusted  mes- 
sengers, you  shall  have  understood  the  injury  offered  to 
you  in  our  person,  you  will  stretch  forth  the  hand  of  your 
paternal  care  to  secure  the  right  order  of  our  kingdom  and 
our  dignity,  in  whatsoever  way  your  discretion  shall  think 
best,  as  through  God's  grace  you  ever  laudably  do  and 
have  done. 

"  Know  for  certain,  that,  after  God,  we  have  in  you  and 
in  the  authority  of  the  Apostolic  See  our  one  and  only 
protection  and  we  live  trusting  to  your  patronage." 1 

Pandulph  and  the  king's  envoys  related  in  detail  to 
Innocent  III  the  discussions  which  had  taken  place  between 
the  king  and  his  barons.  They  told  him  that  King  John 
"  had  publicly  protested  that  England  in  a  special  manner 
belonged  to  the  Roman  Church  as  to  an  overlord,"  a  and 
that  for  this  reason  he — John — neither  could  nor  ought  to 
pass  any  new  law,  or  change  anything  in  the  kingdom  to 
the  prejudice  of  the  Lord  Pope,  without  his  knowledge. 
For  this  reason,  "  when  having  made  his  appeal,  he  had  put 
hjmself  and  the  rights  of  his  kingdom  under  the  pope's 
protection,"  the  barons  at  once  seized  London,  the  capital 

1  Rymer,  i.  135.  2  Rations  dominii. 


ENGLAND  A  FIEF  OF  THE  HOLY  SEE      17 

of  the  kingdom,  and  forcibly  "  demanded  from  the  king 
confirmation  of  the  privileges  they  claimed.  And  he,  fearing 
their  violence,  did  not  dare  to  refuse  what  they  demanded."  1 

John's  messengers  then  pointed  out  to  the  pope  certain 
articles  in  the  Great  Charter  which  they  suggested  were 
plainly  subversive  of  all  royal  authority.  After  Innocent  III 
had  carefully  examined  these  he  exclaimed  with  energy: 
"  Do  these  English  barons  want  to  drive  from  his  kingdom 
one  who  has  taken  the  cross  and  thus  placed  himself  under 
the  protection  of  the  Holy  See  ?  Do  they  desire  to  trans- 
fer to  someone  else  the  dominion  of  the  Roman  Church  ? 
By  St.  Peter,  we  cannot  allow  this  injury  to  pass  unpun- 
ished." Then  "  after  deliberating  with  the  cardinals,  by  a 
definitive  sentence  he  condemned  and  annulled  the  afore- 
said Charter  which  granted  certain  liberties  in  the  kingdom 
of  England,  and  as  evidence  of  this  judgement "  he  issued 
a  bull  on  the  subject  addressed  to  the  whole  world.2 

In  this  document,  dated  24th  August  of  this  year,  1215, 
Innocent  III  recorded  the  humiliation  and  penitence  of 
John  for  his  former  misdeeds;  his  free  gift  of  the  king- 
doms of  England  and  Ireland  to  St.  Peter  and  the  Roman 
Church ;  his  public  profession  of  fealty  and  his  promise 
of  annual  tribute.  More  than  this:  the  king  had  taken  the 
cross  and  had  really  intended  to  go  to  the  war  in  the  Holy 
Land,  if  the  devil  had  not  stirred  up  these  dissensions  in 
his  kingdom,  by  which  he  was  prevented  from  carrying  out 
his  design.  When  made  acquainted  with  these  troubles  he, 
the  pope,  wrote  to  Cardinal  Langton  and  the  other  Eng- 
lish bishops  to  put  a  stop  to  the  disorder,  even  if  they  had 
to  have  recourse  to  the  spiritual  sword.  And  at  the  same 
time  he  had  warned  the  king  to  treat  his  subjects  well  and 
redress  any  substantial  grievance,  in  accordance  with  the 

1  Roger  de  Wendover,  Chronica,  ii.  138.  2  Ibid.  139. 

C 


i8     HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

laws  and  customs  of  the  realm.  "  But,"  he  continues,  "  be- 
fore the  messengers  with  this  just  and  prudent  order  could 
return  to  King  John,  the  nobles  rejected  their  oaths  of  al- 
legiance. Even  had  the  king  oppressed  them  unjustly,  they 
ought  not  to  have  acted  against  him  as  they  had  done,  pre- 
suming to  band  themselves  in  arms  with  his  known  enemies, 
occupying  and  despoiling  his  lands,  and  even  seizing  the 
city  of  London,  the  capital  of  the  kingdom,  which  was 
traitorously  betrayed  into  their  hands." 

Furthermore:  when  on  the  return  of  our  messengers  the 
king  offered  them  full  justice,  in  accordance  with  the  tenure 
of  our  commands,  they  rejected  these  overtures  for  peace, 
with  others  of  a  similar  nature.    Finally,  seeing  that  the 
dominion  over  the  kingdom  belongs  to  the  Roman  Church, 
and  that  consequently  he  neither  could  nor  ought  to  act  in 
prejudice  to  our  rights,  the  king  proposed  that  they  should 
appeal  to  us.    When  this,  too,  was  of  no  avail,  he  "  asked 
the  archbishop  and  bishops  to  obey  our  order  to  defend 
the  rights  of  the  Roman  Church  and  to  protect  him,  ac- 
cording to  the  privileges  of  all  who  had  taken  the  cross." 
At  length,  when  they  had  refused  to  do  this,  he,  finding 
himself  left  without  help,  no  longer  dared  to  refuse  what 
was  demanded  of  him.    In  this  way  "  he  was  compelled  by 
force,  and  by  that  fear  which  may  seize  upon  even  the 
boldest  of  men,  to  enter  into  a  treaty  with  them.    This 
treaty  is  not  only  vile  and  disgraceful,  but  unlawful  and 
wicked,  and  calculated  to  greatly  diminish,  and  gravely  to 
derogate  from  his  royal  rights  and  honour."   Wherefore, 
"because  to  us  has  been  said  by  the  Lord  that  of  the 
prophet:  I  have  set  you  over  peoples  and  kingdoms,  that  you 
may  raise  up  and  destroy,  may  build  up  and  plant  >  as  also 
those  words  of  another  prophet:  Loose  the  bands  of  wicked- 

1  Jerem.  i.  10. 


ENGLAND  A  FIEF  OF  THE  HOLY  SEE      19 

ness,  undo  the  bundles  that  oppress  "  *  (we  are  forced  to  take 
action).  "We  are  unwilling  to  pass  over  such  brazen  wicked- 
ness perpetrated  in  contempt  of  the  Apostolic  See,  to  the 
destruction  of  all  royal  prerogatives,  to  the  scandal  of  the 
English  nation,  and  to  the  grave  danger  of  all  Christian 
people,  unless  everything  is  revoked  by  our  authority.  We 
consequently  condemn  and  utterly  reject  this  composi- 
tion, forbidding  the  king  under  an  anathema  to  observe  it, 
or  the  barons  and  their  accomplices  to  require  its  observ- 
ance. We  annul  and  declare  void  not  only  the  Charter 
itself,  but  the  obligations  and  pledges  given  by  the  king 
for  its  performance." a 

On  the  same  day  the  pope  addressed  a  brief,  couched  in 
almost  identical  terms,  to  the  English  barons.  At  the  close 
of  this  letter  he  suggested  that,  when  the  archbishop  and 
bishops  were  present  at  the  General  Council  which  was 
shortly  to  be  held,  the  barons  might  send  proctors  to  repre- 
sent their  grievances  to  him,  and  he  pledged  himself  to 
examine  into  them  and  to  redress  them.3  "  But,"  writes  the 
chronicler,  "when  through  the  king's  instrumentality  the 
nobles  of  England  received  these  condemnatory  and  threat- 
ening letters,  they  were  unwilling  to  surrender  what  they 
had  gained,  but  began  the  more  strenuously  to  band  them- 
selves together  against "  the  king.4 

So  far  as  the  influence  of  Cardinal  Langton  was  con- 
cerned, matters  were  not  improved  at  the  Roman  Curia  by 
the  sympathy  shown  in  the  North  for  the  archbishop's 
attitude.  The  see  of  York  was  vacant ;  and  the  canons, 
having  obtained  the  royal  licence  to  elect,  set  aside  the 
candidate  suggested  to  them  by  the  king,  and  made 
choice,  of  Simon  Langton,  the  cardinal's  brother,  as  their 

1  Is.  Iviii.  6.  a  Roger  de  Wendover,  ii.  139-143;  cf.  Rymer,  i.  135. 

3  Rymer,  i.  136.     4  Roger  de  Wendover,  ii.  145. 


20     HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

archbishop.  John  forthwith  dispatched  messengers  to  Rome 
to  prevent  the  pope's  confirmation  of  this  election.  These 
envoys  did  not  hesitate  to  declare  that  "  the  archbishop  of 
Canterbury  was  a  public  enemy  of  the  king  of  England; 
that  he  had  given  his  help  and  counsel  to  the  barons  against 
his  sovereign,  and  that  if  Simon  Langton,  his  brother,  were 
now  promoted  to  the  archiepiscopal  see  of  York,  there 
would  be  no  peace  for  the  king  and  kingdom."  The  pope 
listened  to  their  objections,  quashed  the  election  l  and  for- 
bade Simon  Langton  ever  to  return  to  England. 

Meantime,  before,  or  almost  before,  Pope  Innocent's  con- 
demnation of  Magna  Charta  could  have  reached  England, 
King  John  was  again  complaining  of  his  irreconcilable 
barons.  On  I3th  September  he  wrote  to  the  pope  and, 
after  expressing  his  "  reverence  due  to  such  a  Father  and 
Lord,"  he  tried  to  make  out  that  the  hostility  of  his  subjects 
to  him  was  due  to  his  surrender  of  his  kingdom  to  the 
Roman  Church.  "  The  earls  and  barons,"  he  writes,  were 
devoted  to  us  before  we  submitted  ourselves  and  our  country 
to  your  dominion.  From  that  time,  and  specially  on  that 
account,  as  they  publicly  state,  they  are  violently  opposed  to 
us.  "We  however,"  he  continues,  "believe  that,  after  God, 
we  have  in  you  a  special  Lord  and  patron,  and  that  our 
protection  and  that  of  the  whole  kingdom,  which  is  yours, 
is  committed  (by  Him)  to  your  Paternity."  Consequently 
our  business  is  indeed  yours;  we  hand  over  all  our  au- 
thority to  your  Holiness  and  will  approve  whatever,  upon 
the  information  of  our  messengers,  you  may  think  well 
to  ordain.2 

No  direct  reply  to  this  communication  is,  apparently, 
extant.  Innocent  I II, however,  immediately  sent  a  letter  to 
the  bishop  of  Winchester,  Pandulph  and  others,  excom- 

1  Roger  de  Wendover,  ii.  153.  2  Rymer,  i.  138. 


ENGLAND  A  FIEF  OF  THE  HOLY  SEE      21 

municating  the  barons  generally.  "  We  are  greatly  aston- 
ished and  moved,"  he  writes,  "to  understand  that,  when 
our  beloved  son  in  Christ,  John  the  illustrious  king  of 
England,  had,  beyond  all  expectation  made  satisfaction  to 
the  Lord  and  His  Church,  and  in  particular  to  our  brother 
Stephen,  the  archbishop  of  Canterbury,  and  the  bishops, 
they  failed  to  protect  and  help  him  during  the  disturbances 
in  the  kingdom,  which  is  known  to  all  to  belong  to  the 
Roman  Church,  by  right  of  lordship.  In  this  they  made 
themselves  abettors  (conscit)  not  to  say  associates,  in  that 
wicked  conspiracy,  since  he  who  fails  to  oppose  a  manifest 
crime  cannot  free  himself  from  the  taint  of  his  evil 
company." 

"  See  how  these  bishops  defend  the  patrimony  of  the 
Roman  Church !  See  how  they  protect  those  signed  with 
the  cross !  Aye,  see  how  they  oppose  those  who  strive  to 
destroy  the  work  of  the  Crucified  One  !  Of  a  truth  they  are 
worse  than  the  very  Saracens  themselves,  since  they  desire 
to  drive  from  his  kingdom  one  from  whom  it  was  hoped 
help  would  be  given  to  the  Holy  Land."  The  pope  then 
goes  on  to  excommunicate  all  disturbers  of  the  peace  of  the 
king  and  kingdom,  and  to  place  their  lands  and  possessions 
under  an  interdict.  He  charges  the  archbishop  and  bishops 
in  virtue  of  obedience  to  publish  this  general  sentence,  on 
all  Sundays  and  Feast  days,  until  all  shall  have  made  their 
peace  and  returned  to  their  obedience.  And,  continues  the 
document,  "  if  any  of  the  bishops  neglect  to  fulfil  this  our 
precept,  let  them  know  that  he  is  suspended  from  the 
episcopal  office,  and  his  subjects  released  from  their  obedi- 
ence to  him,  since  it  is  but  just  that  he  who  refuses  to  obey 
his  superior  shall  not  be  obeyed  by  his  inferiors." 1 

On  receiving  this  letter,  the  bishop  of  Winchester  and 

1  Rymer,  i.  138. 


22     HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

Pandulph  went  to  the  archbishop  and  required  him  in  the 
pope's  name  to  order  his  suffragans  to  publish  it,  and  to  do 
so  himself  in  the  diocese  of  Canterbury.  They  reached  him 
only  as  he  was  actually  on  shipboard,  waiting  to  cross  over 
the  Channel  on  his  way  to  the  General  Council,  and  he 
asked  them  to  leave  the  matter  until  such  time  as  he  could 
himself  speak  with  the  pope.    He  refused  to  publish  the 
document  until  he  had  been  able  to  explain  to  Innocent  III 
the  real  state  of  the  case.    Pandulph  and  his  fellow  envoy, 
however,  construing  Langton's  attitude  into  absolute  dis- 
obedience to  the  authority  of  the  Holy  See,  at  once  declared 
the   cardinal   suspended   and  forbade   him  to   enter  any 
church  or  to  say  mass  till  the  suspension  had  been  removed 
by  proper  authority.   And,  writes  the  chronicler,  "  humbly 
observing  this  suspension,  the  archbishop  set  out  for  the 
Apostolic  See."    Immediately  upon  his  departure  from  the 
country,  the  bishop  of  Winchester  and  Pandulph,  as  they 
were  directed,  themselves  published  the  excommunication. 
The  barons,  however,  on  the  plea  that  no  one  was  specifically 
mentioned  by  name  in  the  sentence,  wholly  disregarded  it.1 
The  Fourth  Council  of  Lateran  met  in  Rome  in  Nov- 
ember,  1215.    During  the  sessions  of  this  assembly,  the 
proctors  of  the  English  king  charged  Archbishop  Langton 
with  aiding  and  abetting  the  barons  in  their  opposition  to 
their  sovereign,  with  refusing  or  neglecting  to  declare  the 
papal  condemnation  of  the  barons'  action,  and  finally,  with 
declining  to  give  any  undertaking  that  he  would  publish  the 
recent  excommunication,  for  which  he  had  been  suspended 
by  the  bishop  of  Winchester,  and  had  come  on  to  Rome. 
Langton  refused  to  reply  or  plead,  and  only  requested  to 
be  absolved  from  the  sentence  passed  on  him  in  England. 
The  pope  would  not  consider  his  petition,  and  having  taken 
1  Roger  de  Wendover,  ii.  155. 


ENGLAND  A  FIEF  OF  THE  HOLY  SEE     23 

counsel  with  the  other  cardinals,  confirmed  the  sentence  of 
excommunication.  Moreover,  by  a  letter  addressed  to  the 
bishops  of  the  Canterbury  province,  and  another  directed 
to  the  laity  and  clergy,  he  charged  them  not  to  obey  their 
archbishop  "  until  such  time  as  by  his  conduct  he  should 
merit  absolution." 1 

The  king  was  elated  at  the  success  of  his  diplomacy  in 
Rome.  He  went  in  person  to  St.  Alban's  with  the  letters 
of  suspension,  and  ordered  them  to  be  read  in  his  presence 
to  the  monks  assembled  in  chapter.  He  afterwards  sat  in 
the  cloister  for  a  long  time,  talking  over  the  measures  he 
was  now  going  to  take  against  any  others  who  were  opposed 
to  him.2  It  may  here  be  noted  that  in  the  following  year 
Cardinal  Langton  was  absolved  from  the  suspension  under 
which  he  lay,  upon  giving  his  personal  pledge  not  to  return 
to  England  until  the  disturbances  were  entirely  over. 

King  John  soon  made  known  throughout  the  country 
the  pope's  determination  to  put  down  all  opposition  to  him- 
In  December,  1215,  further  letters  were  procured  from  Rome 
excommunicating  the  leaders  among  the  barons,  personally 
and  by  name.3  John's  mercenaries,  whom  he  was  pledged 
to  disband  and  send  out  of  England,  were  now  turned  loose 
on  the  estates  and  possessions  of  the  barons.  They  were 
encouraged  to  rob  and  butcher  without  mercy.  Outrages 
were  committed  by  one  army  of  these  foreigners  in  the 
north  of  England  and  in  the  fen  country,  whilst  a  second 
was  engaged  in  a  similar  work  of  destruction  and  rapine  in 
the  south.  This  state  of  things  lasted  for  three  months,  and 
everywhere  the  barons  lost  ground  and  suffered  great  losses. 
But,  writes  a  contemporary,  "  they  received  the  news  of 
their  misfortunes  with  Christian  fortitude,  saying,  'The 

1  Roger  de  Wendover,  ii.  160;  cf.  Rymer,  i.  139. 

2  Matth.  Paris,  Chron.  Afaj.t  ii.  635.  3  Rymer,  i.  139. 


24     HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

Lord  gave,  and  the  Lord  hath  taken  away.'  These  things 
must  be  borne  with  a  brave  heart."  But  when  other  name- 
less horrors,  which  had  been  committed  by  the  king's  orders, 
were  told  them,  they  exclaimed:  "This  is  the  beloved  son 
in  Christ  of  the  pope,  who  protects  his  vassal  by  trying  to 
subjugate  this  free  and  noble  country  in  this  unheard  of 
manner !  Alas !  that  he,  who  should  heal  the  ills  of  the 
world,  should  be  found  openly  to  destroy  the  bodies  of  the 
poor,  whom  we  are  taught  to  call  the  Church." l 

Driven  to  despair,  the  barons  took  a  desperate  step. 
Not  seeing  any  other  hope,  they  determined  to  invite  Louis, 
the  son  of  Philip  of  France,  to  come  to  their  help,  offering 
to  make  him  king  of  England.  After  some  brief  negocia- 
tions,  Louis  agreed  to  their  proposals,  and  some  of  his 
French  nobles  reached  London  towards  the  end  of  Febru- 
ary, 1216,  bringing  letters  from  Louis,  who  promised  to  be 
in  England  about  Easter.2 

Before  this  time,  however,  the  pope,  informed  of  the  in- 
tention of  the  barons,  had  dispatched  his  legate,  Gualo,  into 
France  to  prohibit  the  expedition.  Gualo  was  instructed  to 
say  that  "  the  king  of  England  was  the  vassal  of  the  Roman 
Church,  and  that  the  pope  would  protect  him,  whose  king- 
dom belonged  to  the  Roman  Church  by  the  title  of  Lord- 
ship." On  hearing  this  statement,  the  French  king  protested : 
"  The  kingdom  of  England,"  he  said,  "  had  never  been  part 
of  the  patrimony  of  St.  Peter,  nor  is  it  now,  nor  ever  shall 
be."  Philip  added  that,  in  his  opinion,  John  was  not  king 
of  England  at  all,  since  he  had  been  convicted  of  treason 
against  his  brother,  King  Richard,  and  consequently,  "  as 
he  was  not  king,  he  could  not  give  away  a  kingdom  "  that 
was  not  his  to  give.  Besides  this,  he  argued,  even  if  he  had 
ever  been  the  rightful  sovereign,  "he  had  afterwards  forfeited 

1  Matth.  Paris,  Chron.  Maj.y  ii.  637.         2  Roger  de  Wendover,  ii.  174. 


ENGLAND  A  FIEF  OF  THE  HOLY  SEE      25 

the  kingdom  by  the  murder  of  Arthur,  of  which  he  had  been 
convicted  "  in  the  French  royal  tribunal.  He  then  went  on 
to  point  out  to  Gualo  that  no  king  had  any  right  to  give 
away  his  kingdom  without  the  assent  of  his  barons,  who 
had  taken  their  oaths  to  him,  and  "  should  the  pope  deter- 
mine to  maintain  this  erroneous  view,  it  would  afford  a  very 
pernicious  precedent  to  other  countries."  Upon  this  de- 
claration of  the  French  king,  his  nobles  affirmed  that 
they  were  ready  to  maintain  to  the  death  that  no  king  or 
prince  could  surrender  his  kingdom  to  another,  or  make  it 
tributary. 

The  following  day,  the  papal  legate  made  another  at- 
tempt. He  appealed  directly  to  Louis  not  to  go  to  England 
and  thus  "  invade  the  patrimony  of  the  Roman  Church." 
King  Philip  replied  for  his  son,  saying :  "  I  have  ever  been 
a  faithful  and  devoted  son  of  the  Lord  Pope  and  of  the 
Roman  Church.  Hitherto  I  have  always,  and  in  all  matters, 
promoted  its  interests,  and  I  would  not  now  counsel  my  son, 
Louis,  to  do  anything  against  the  Church.  And  now  let 
us  hear  what  he  has  to  say  for  himself."  Thereupon  the 
French  prince  declared  that  in  his  opinion,  also,  John  had 
ceased  to  be  the  rightful  king,  not  merely  because  of  the 
murder  of  Arthur,  but  also  because,  without  the  assent  of 
his  barons,  he  had  given  up  his  kingdom  to  the  Holy  See, 
and  had  promised  to  pay  a  yearly  tribute  in  recognition  of 
Roman  rights  over  the  country.  His  resignation  of  the 
crown,  he  argued,  gave  John  no  claim  to  take  it  again  at 
the  hands  of  the  pope.  The  barons  had  a  perfect  right,  on 
his  resignation,  to  make  what  choice  they  liked;  and  they 
had,  in  the  exercise  of  this,  elected  him,  in  right  of  his  wife, 
whose  mother  was  the  sole  survivor  of  King  John's  bro- 
thers and  sisters.  This  right,  thus  conferred  upon  him,  he 
meant  to  maintain  in  spite  of  everything,  even  of  the  ex- 


26      HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

communication,  which  he  understood  the  legate  was  pre- 
pared to  pronounce  upon  him.1 

This  action  of  the  legate  somewhat  delayed  the  journey 
of  the  French  prince  to  England.  Finally,  however,  he 
landed  in  this  country  on  ipth  May,  1216,  and  was  followed 
almost  immediately  by  the  legate  Gualo,  who  was  sent  over 
by  the  pope  to  protect,  as  far  as  possible,  the  interests  of 
King  John. 

The  subsequent  successes  and  failures  of  either  party 
are  not  of  present  interest.  Meantime,  however,  it  may  be 
noted  that  the  envoys  of  Prince  Louis  were  busy  in  Rome 
trying  to  convince  Pope  Innocent  III  that  he  had  been 
hitherto  supporting  a  man  wholly  unworthy  of  his  con- 
fidence. If  we  are  to  believe  our  chroniclers,  they  had 
already  made  some  progress  in  their  diplomacy,  and  the 
pope  had  already  got  so  far  as  to  say  that  he  would  wait 
till  he  had  heard  what  his  legate,  Gualo,  had  to  say  on  this 
subject,  when,  on  i6th  July,  the  great  pontiff  died,  leaving 
the  settlement  of  the  difficulties  in  England  as  a  legacy  to 
his  successor,  Honorius  III. 

1  Roger  de  Wendover,  ii.  177. 


CHAPTER  II 

THE  WORK  OF  GUALO  THE  LEGATE 

THE  death  of  King  John  himself  on  i6th  October,  1216, 
three  months  after  Pope  Innocent  III,  was  a  most  fortunate 
event  for  the  country.  Had  he  lived  longer  and  had  the 
barons,  with  the  help  of  the  French,  succeeded  in  their  de- 
sign of  deposing  him,  as  it  is  more  than  likely  they  would, 
England  might  have  become,  with  Louis  upon  the  throne,  a 
dependency  of  the  French  kingdom.  This  catastrophe,  as 
well  as  the  scourge  of  a  long-continued  civil  war,  was 
averted  by  the  sudden  illness  and  death  of  the  king,  and 
by  the  energy  and  determination  of  the  pope's  legate, 
Gualo. 

The  tender  age  of  John's  son,  Henry,  at  the  time  of  his 
father's  death,  was  a  factor  greatly  in  his  favour,  and  helped 
him  to  win  back  many  of  the  barons  who  had  renounced 
their  allegiance  to  his  father.  Their  main  reason  for  desiring 
to  get  rid  of  the  rule  of  the  faithless  John  ceased  with  his 
death.  Prince  Henry,  a  lad  only  ten  years  old,  had  not  com- 
mitted those  crimes  by  reason  of  which,  at  least  in  the 
opinion  of  most  Englishmen  of  the  day,  his  father  had  been 
thought  to  have  forfeited  his  right  to  rule.  Neither  had  the 
lad,  of  course,  been  a  party  to  the  surrender  of  his  king- 
dom to  the  pope,  by  which  move  John  had  cunningly  con- 
trived to  preserve  his  crown  at  a  critical  moment ;  for,  how- 
ever much  the  nation  had  tacitly  connived  at  the  act,  at 
heart  it  undoubtedly  disliked  it.  Moreover  the  new  king 

27 


28     HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

had  no  personal  injuries  to  avenge  on  those  who  had  raised 
the  standard  of  revolt  against  his  father's  rule. 

All  these,  and  other  like  considerations,  tended  to  make 
the  work  of  final  pacification  less  difficult  now  that  John 
had  been  laid  to  rest  in  his  tomb  at  Worcester.  But  un- 
doubtedly the  mind  that  watched  over  and  fostered  the 
work  was  that  of  the  recently  chosen  pope,  Honorius  III, 
and  the  agent  that  carried  out  his  instructions  in  England 
was  Gualo,  the  Cardinal  legate. 

On  October  I2th,  1216,  just  four  days  before  he  was 
called  to  his  long  account,  John  had  written  to  the  pope  in 
view  of  his  approaching  end.  He  is  suffering,  he  says,  from 
a  serious  and  indeed  incurable  malady,  and  feels  that  he  is 
not  long  for  this  life.  He  is  tortured  with  anxiety  how  best 
to  provide  for  the  future  of  his  kingdom  that  it  might  prove 
to  be  "  to  the  honour  of  God  and  of  the  Holy  Roman 
Church."  Whilst  seeking  for  some  way  to  untie  the  knot 
of  difficulties  which  seemed  to  threaten  the  inheritance  and 
succession  of  his  heir, "  by  an  inspiration  of  God  who  never 
deserts  those  who  rely  on  Him,"  he  says, "  I  recalled  the  fact 
that  as  our  kingdom  was  now  the  patrimony  of  Saint  Peter 
and  the  Holy  Roman  Church,  it  was  securely  defended  by 
a  divine  and  apostolic  protection.  Whereupon,  calling  the 
nobles  faithful  to  us,  we  determined  to  commend  our  king- 
dom, which  is  really  your  kingdom,  and  our  heir  to  your 
protection  and  that  of  the  Holy  Roman  Church."  He  writes 
these  letters,  therefore,  to  crave  "  humbly  and  as  it  were  on 
bended  knees  "  the  pope's  fatherly  protection  for  the  king- 
dom and  his  son  against  the  "  enemies  of  the  Holy  Roman 
Church."1 

Almost  before  this  petition  could  have  left  the  country 
the  king  was  dead.  After  the  obsequies  had  been  celebrated 

1  Brit.  Mus.  Add.  MS.,  15,351,  f.  28;  cf.  Raynaldus,  Ep.  141. 


THE  WORK  OF  GUALO  THE  LEGATE   29 

at  Worcester,  the  youthful  Henry  and  his  supporters  among 
the  barons,  with  the  bishops  and  abbots  who  had  attended 
the  funeral,  passed  on  to  Gloucester.  Here  the  new  king  was 
anointed  and  crowned  king  of  England  on  28th  October, 
1216,  by  the  Cardinal  legate  Gualo.1  Jocelin,  bishop  of 
Bath,  administered  an  oath  to  him  "  that  he  would  strive 
for  the  honour,  peace,  and  reverence  of  God,  of  Holy 
Church  and  its  commandments  all  the  days  of  his  life:  that 
he  would  rule  according  to  justice,  and  if  there  were  any 
bad  laws  or  abuses  that  he  would  cause  them  to  be  abro- 
gated."2 After  this  "he  did  homage  to  the  Holy  Roman 
Church  and  the  pope  "  in  the  person  of  the  legate,  for  the 
kingdoms  of  England  and  Ireland ;  and  swore  to  pay  the 
thousand  marks  yearly,  which  his  father  had  undertaken 
to  give,  as  long  as  he  held  the  kingdoms." 3 

On  the  news  of  the  king's  accession  reaching  him, 
Honorius  wrote  a  letter  of  fatherly  exhortation  "as* to  a 
special  son  of  the  Roman  Church."  Since  "  the  fear  of  God 
is  the  fount  of  life."  he  says,  "  so  I  pray  and  earnestly 
exhort  your  Majesty  to  accustom  yourself  from  your  youth 
to  that  fear  of  the  Lord.  May  you  ever  govern  yourself  by 
means  of  that  thought  and  restrain  yourself  from  vice.  May 
your  study  always  be  how  to  imbue  yourself  with  every 
virtue.  May  you  reverence  Christ's  Spouse,  the  Church, 
and  its  ministers,  in  whom,  as  the  same  Lord  has  declared, 
He  Himself  is  honoured  or  despised.  In  this  way,  growing 
from  grace  to  grace  and  from  virtue  to  virtue,  may  you 
govern  a  people  subject  to  you  in  the  beauty  of  peace  and 
the  riches  of  contentment.  And  may  the  Lord  add  day 

1  Rymer,  i.  145.    Matth.  Paris  says  he  was  crowned  by  the  bishops  of  Win- 
chester and  Bath ;  the  king  himself,  that  it  was  Gualo  who  did  so.    Cardinal 
Langton,  the  archbishop  of  Canterbury,  was  still  in  Rome. 

2  Matth.  Paris,  iii.  I. 

3  Ibid.,  iii.  2. 


30      HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

unto  day  and  multiply  the  years  of  your  life  until  from  this 
earthly  and  transitory  rule  He  shall  translate  you  into  the 
everlasting  kingdom  of  Heaven.  And  since  manners  are 
formed  by  associates,  strive  to  have  for  your  firmest  friends 
upright  and  honest  men  who,  sincerely  desiring  your  safety 
and  honour,  may  be  ever  ready  to  suggest  to  you  how  you 
should  please  God  and  men."  1 

Gualo,  the  legate,  did  not  allow  time  to  pass  inactively. 
From  the  first  he  took  the  initiative.  On  St.  Martin's  day, 
November  nth,  he  presided  over  a  council  at  Bristol  in 
which  he  compelled  the  eleven  bishops  who  were  present, 
and  many  other  inferior  prelates,  besides  the  earls,  barons 
and  knights  who  had  come  at  his  summons,  to  swear  fealty 
to  the  new  king.  He  placed  Wales  under  an  interdict  be- 
cause it  favoured  the  barons  against  Henry,  and  he  form- 
ally excommunicated  all  the  nobles  who  sided  with  Louis 
of  France,  as  also  their  aiders  and  abettors.2 

Meantime,  if  the  legate  was  full  of  activity,  the  party  of 
the  recalcitrant  barons  was  not  less  so.  For  the  last  six 
months  of  the  year  1216  fortune  seemed  to  favour  the 
advocates  of  the  French  succession.  On  ist  December, 
Pope  Honorius  made  an  appeal  to  those  "  who  had  not  as 
yet  obeyed  the  order  of  the  Apostolic  See,"  to  return  to 
their  natural  obedience  to  their  sovereign.  Up  to  this 
time,  he  said,  you  have  declared  that  you  were  fighting 
King  John,  your  legitimate  lord,  because  he  put "  an  intoler- 
able yoke  of  slavery  "  upon  you.  But  now  that  he  is  dead, 
if  you  do  not  return  to  your  obedience,  you  cannot  excuse 
yourselves  "  from  the  sin  and  guilt  of  traitors."  You  are  now 

1  Matth.  Paris,  iii.  p.  34.  This  letter  is  inserted  in  the  Chronica  Majora 
among  the  events  of  1218.  It  is  only  known  through  Matthew  Paris,  as  so 
many  other  documents  of  this  period.  Potthast  (Regest.  Pontif,,  476)  places 
it  between  August  and  December,  1216. 

3  Wilkins,  Concilia,  i.  546. 


THE  WORK  OF  GUALO  THE  LEGATE   31 

opposed  to  his  son,  "  who  is  entirely  innocent "  of  all  you 
charge  against  the  father.  He  then  urges  them  to  return 
to  their  duty,  for  it  is  his  special  business  to  "  watch  over 
the  orphan,"  "  since  the  late  king  left  in  our  hands  and  to 
our  guardianship  his  orphaned  children  and  his  kingdom  in 
the  secure  trust  that  we  would  provide  for  them."  "  More- 
over," he  continues,  "  because  we  would  not  conceal  any 
motives  from  you,  besides  the  above  reason,  we  are  bound 
to  protect  the  rights  of  the  people  and  to  see  that  justice 
and  judgement  is  done  to  them,  since  the  kingdom  belongs 
to  the  Apostolic  See.  We  will,  as  far  as  God  gives  us  the 
power,  raise  our  hands  in  their  defence  and  in  that  of  the 
kingdom.  We  will  invoke  heaven  and  earth  against  your 
pestilent  wickedness."  l 

This  letter  was  followed  on  3rd  December,  two  days 
later,  by  one  to  the  legate,  Gualo,  encouraging  him  to  work 
strenuously  in  the  interests  of  the  young  king.  The  pope 
begins  by  expressing  his  sorrow  at  hearing  of  the  death  of 
.the  late  king.  He  had  loved  him,  he  writes,  "with  sincere 
love  in  God,  as  a  vassal  of  the  Roman  Church  and  as  a 
special  son."  He  goes  on  to  express  his  fears  that  Gualo's 
cares  and  labours  will  be  greatly  increased  by  new  anxieties 
to  guard  the  interests  of  the  young  king,  to  whom  the  pope 
is  bound  to  afford  every  protection  and  assistance.  He  is 
not  without  hopes,  however,  that  God  may  turn  the  death 
of  the  father  to  the  advantage  of  the  son,  and  that  those 
who  had  rebelled  against  John  might  now  return  to  their 
allegiance  to  Henry.  He  charges  the  legate,  as  a  sacred 
duty,  to  watch  over  the  youth  of  the  king  and  over  the  king- 
dom, and  for  that  purpose  Honorius  gives  him  ample  power 
to  act  in  his  name.  In  particular,  he  is  at  once  to  condemn 
as  unlawful  the  oath  taken  by  the  barons  to  Louis.2  On 
1  Brit.  Mus.  Add,  MS.,  15,351,  f.  33.  "  Ibid.,  f.  35. 


32     HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

the  same  date,  and  in  much  the  same  terms,  the  pope 
writes  to  the  bishop  of  Winchester  and  other  bishops  and 
barons,  referring  them  to  Gualo,  to  whom  he  had  given 
special  powers. 

The  young  king  spent  Christmas  at  Bristol  with  the 
legate  and  William  Marshall,  the  earl  of  Pembroke,  who 
was  governor  of  the  kingdom.1  Many  of  the  English  nobles 
were  much  disturbed  as  to  their  position.  They  had  begun 
to  fear  that  the  French  promises  could  not  be  relied  upon, 
but  hesitated  to  take  the  steps  necessary  for  making  peace 
with  their  sovereign.  Meanwhile,  wherever  the  royal  cause 
could  hope  to  secure  protection  from  the  church  authority, 
by  order  of  Gualo  the  solemn  sentence  of  excommunica- 
tion was,  Sunday  by  Sunday,  pronounced  against  all  who 
continued  to  support  Louis. 

On  i pth  January,  1217,  Pope  Honorius  wrote  to  the 
earl  of  Pembroke  as  the  king's  guardian  and  regent  of  the 
kingdom.  After  expressing  his  sorrow  at  the  death  of  the 
late  king,  and  his  joy  at  learning  King  Henry  had  been 
happily  crowned  by  the  papal  legate,  he  directs  him  to 
make  proper  provision  for  the  defence  of  the  kingdom 
against  the  rebel  barons  and  their  French  allies.  He  is  to 
concert  measures  for  the  government  of  the  country  with 
the  cardinal  legate,  to  whom  he  has  given  ample  powers  to 
act  in  his  place  (vice  nostra).  At  the  same  time  Honorius 
III  writes  in  a  similar  strain  to  the  wardens  of  the  Cinque 
Ports,  to  the  archbishop  of  York,  the  Chancellor  and  others.8 

1  Roger  de  Wendover,  ii.  p.  204.  The  Council  conferred  on  William 
Marshall  the  office,  then  specially  created,  of  governor  of  the  king  and  his  realm. 
Bishop  Stubbs  was  of  the  opinion  that  William  Marshall  was  never  "justiciar" 
or  "  Justice  of  England"  ;  but  he  is  so  named  at  least  four  times  in  the  records. 
(Cf.  G.  J.  Turner,  The  Minority  of  Henry  III  in  Transactions  of  the  Royal 
Hist.  Soc.,  xviii.  246. 

3  Brit.  Mus.  Add.  MS.,  15,351,  f.  77. 


THE  WORK  OF  GUALO  THE  LEGATE      33 

To  the  legate  he  had  written  two  days  previously  more 
fully.  He  sent  this  letter  back  by  the  messengers  who  had 
brought  Gualo's  communication  from  England,  asking  the 
pope's  direction  on  certain  urgent  matters.  He  bids  him 
act  as  one  possessing  full  legatine  powers.  To  further  the 
interests  of  king  or  kingdom,  he  need  not  hesitate  to  place 
districts  and  churches  under  an  interdict,  to  excommunicate 
people,  and  even  to  dispossess  and  degrade  prelates  and 
others  who  remain  in  disobedience  and  rebellion.  He  may 
fill  up  vacant  sees  and  abbacies  in  England,  Scotland,  and 
Wales  with  persons  who  are  known  to  be  faithful  to  the 
king  and  devoted  to  the  Roman  Church.  As  for  the  eccle- 
siastics who,  in  spite  of  the  excommunication  passed  on 
Louis,  still  aid  and  support  him,  as  he — the  pope — does 
not  himself  know  their  names,  he  gives  Gualo  full  authority 
to  declare  them  deprived  of  their  benefices,  if  after  thirty 
days'  warning  they  still  continue  to  celebrate  Mass,  etc., 
whilst  remaining  wholly  disobedient.  In  such  cases  the 
legate  may  appoint  to  the  cures  vacant  by  depriva- 
tion.1 

Then,  after  allowing  his  representative  in  England  to 
suspend  the  operation  of  the  crusading  vows  in  the  case  of 
those  who  can  and  will  help  the  king  of  England,  and 
bidding  him  declare  null  and  void  all  oaths  and  promises 
taken  to  Louis,  the  pope  concludes  as  follows:  "It  was 
suggested  to  us  in  your  behalf,  that  as  King  John,  when 
dying,  committed  the  country,  his  children,  and  all  his 
affairs  to  us  and  the  Roman  Church,  it  might  be  well,  if  we 
were  pleased  carefully  to  consider  the  question  of  a  marriage 
between  our  beloved  son  in  Christ,  Henry,  the  late  king's 
heir,  and  some  person  who  might  be  useful  to  him  and  his 
kingdom."  But  as  you  and  those  who  are  faithful  to  him 

1  Brit.  Mus.  Add.  MS.,  15,351,  f.  73. 
D 


34      HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

have  better  means  of  knowing  what  is  best  in  this  matter, 
we  leave  it  "  to  your  watchful  care." l 

Early  in  the  same  year,  1217,  Gualo  and  the  earl 
marshal  announced  the  coronation  to  the  Justice  of  Ire- 
land.2 From  internal  evidence,  the  document  appears  to 
have  been  the  work  of  Gualo,3  who  threw  himself  most 
vigorously  into  the  government  of  the  kingdom.  Walter  de 
Coventry,  speaking  of  his  activity,  says :  "  He  supported 
the  king's  party  with  all  his  might ;  commanding,  warning, 
beseeching,  urging,  arguing,  chiding,  and  drawing  the  sword 
of  Peter  against  those  who  gainsaid  his  orders  or  disobeyed 
them;  for  such  were  his  instructions."4 

About  the  same  time  Pope  Honorius  writes  a  second 
letter  to  the  boy-king.  He  tells  him  that  he  is  watching 
over  all  his  interests,  as  "the  English  king  is  specially 
subject  to  the  Holy  See."  He  is  glad  to  hear  that  he 
has  been  crowned,  and  that  he  has  succeeded  his  father 
"  in  devotion  to  the  Apostolic  See."  "  I  have,"  he  says, 
"great  confidence  in  this,  since  you  have  dedicated 
the  firstfruits  of  your  life  to  the  Lord  your  God,  in  de- 
termining to  carry  out  your  father's  vow  of  helping  the 
Holy  Land,  by  yourself  taking  the  cross  and  binding 
yourself  with  the  consequent  obligations.  This  we  have 
heard  with  pleasure."  I  hope,  he  concludes,  that  God 
will  ever  guide  you  to  prove  yourself  "faithful  to  the 
Roman  Church,  your  mother,"  humbly  following  the  advice 
of  "  our  beloved  son  Gualo,  our  legate."  For  "  whatever 
the  said  legate  may  have  done  concerning  your  person, 
and  whatever  in  the  future  he  may  do,  we  ratify  and  ap- 
prove it."  6 

1  Royal  Letters  of  Henry  ///(Rolls  ed.),  i.  527. 

2  Rymer,  T.,  145.  3  G.  J.  Turner,  tU  sup.t  255. 

4  Walter  de  Coventria,  Me»torialet  ii.  233. 

5  Brit.  Mus.  Add.  MS.,  15,351  fol.  81. 


THE  WORK  OF  GUALO  THE  LEGATE   35 

The  position  taken  up  by  the  pope  and  his  legate  in 
regard  to  England  does  not  admit  of  question.  The  king- 
dom "  is  known  to  belong  specially  to  the  Roman  Church," 
it  forms  part  of  "  the  patrimony  of  St.  Peter."  These  are 
fair  samples  of  statements  to  be  found  in  the  papal  letters 
of  this  period ;  and  this  position,  moreover,  appears  to  have 
been  unquestioned  by  those  who  might  be  expected  to 
raise  objections.  The  protests  of  Philip  of  France  and  of 
his  son  Louis  against  the  right  of  King  John  to  create  the 
extraordinary  situation  already  referred  to,  stand  alone  or 
almost  alone.  So  far  as  the  English  state  papers  of  the 
period  afford  any  evidence,  the  claims  of  the  papacy  were 
admitted  to  their  fullest  extent.  It  was  the  pope's  right 
and  duty,  either  directly  or  through  his  legate,  to  arrange 
even  for  the  government  of  the  State,  and  to  take  what- 
ever measures  might  seem  expedient  to  secure  the  peace  of 
the  country. 

Cardinal  Gualo  fully  acted  up  to  the  part  assigned  to 
him  by  Pope  Honorius.  In  a  letter  to  Philip  of  France  the 
pope  deplores  the  fact  that  his  son,  in  still  opposing  Henry 
in  arms,  is  fighting  "  against  the  Roman  Church,  the  mother 
of  all  the  faithful."1  And  in  truth  Honorius  and  Gualo  are 
the  real  sources  of  government  at  this  period  in  England. 
In  July,  1217,  for  example,  Gualo  is  directed  "to  appoint 
guardians  and  instructors  for  the  king."2  He  is,  indeed,  to 
obtain  the  advice  of  the  faithful  nobles  before  making  the 
appointment,  but  he  it  is  that  is  to  appoint.  He  is  to  cause 
the  young  king  to  make  a  progress  through  the  country, 
"  like  a  king,"  to  excite  the  loyalty  of  the  people ;  and  he 
is  directed  to  take  every  precaution  for  the  safe  custody  of 
the  royal  seal.  The  assertion  of  Roger  de  Wendover,3  that 

1  Royal  Letters,  etc.,  i.  529.          2  Brit.  Mus.  Add.  MS.,  15,351,  f.  116. 
3  Roger  de  Wendover,  ii.  211. 


36     HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

the  king  was  at  this  time  governed  by  the  earl  of  Pem- 
broke, but  under  the  advice  of  the  legate  and  the  bishop 
of  Winchester,  is  only  less  than  the  actual  truth.  It  is 
Gualo  who  always  appears  in  the  forefront  during  the 
early  years  of  Henry. 

A  few  examples,  beyond  what  have  already  been  given, 
will  make  this  position  clear.  Before  the  battle  known  as 
the  Fair  of  Lincoln,  fought  in  the  week  of  Pentecost,  1217, 
the  legate  spoke  to  the  royal  soldiers  as  a  man  possessing 
authority.  After  having  celebrated  Mass  in  the  presence  of 
the  entire  army,  he  exhorted  them  in  vigorous  language  to 
manifest  courage  and  a  determination  to  gain  the  victory. 
He  then  publicly  excommunicated  Prince  Louis  and  all 
his  followers,  and  in  the  name  of  the  pope  gave  a  Plenary 
Indulgence  to  all  Henry's  soldiers  who  had  made  con- 
fession of  their  sins.1  On  8th  July,  1217,  the  pope  wrote  to 
his  representative  in  England  that  he  quite  agreed  with  his 
suggestion  that  the  prelates  should  give  an  aid  of  money 
to  the  king.  He  ordered  this  to  be  done,  and  directed  that 
the  tax  should  be  paid  to  Gualo:  "  that  it  may  be  spent  by 
you  on  the  needs  of  the  king  and  kingdom,"  by  the  advice 
of  the  faithful  barons.  "  But  in  this,"  he  added, "  you  are  to 
do  as  you  think  proper."2 

The  remainder  of  the  letter  is  even  more  important,  as 
enabling  us  to  form  a  correct  judgement  on  the  political 
position  of  the  pope  in  England  at  this  time.  Honorius  III 
had  been  urged,  he  says  in  this  letter,  to  appoint  a  coadjutor 
to  the  earl  of  Pembroke  as  regent,  on  account  of  his  age, 
and  because  he  was  apparently  considered  somewhat  di- 
latory. The  name  of  the  earl  of  Chester  had  been  submitted 
to  the  pope  as  a  proper  man  to  share  the  regency,  but  the 
pontiff  was  not  sure  about  the  expediency  of  this.  Most 

1  Roger  de  Wendover,  ii.  213.  *  Royal  Letters,  etc.,  i.  532. 


THE  WORK  OF  GUALO  THE  LEGATE   37 

people  in  power,  he  thought,  did  not  like  coadjutors,  and 
such  an  appointment  might  lead  to  friction  and  do  more 
harm  than  good.  He  concluded,  therefore,  to  leave  the 
settlement  of  this  delicate  point  to  Gualo,  who  knew  the 
condition  of  affairs  in  England  and  could  make  the  ap- 
pointment if  he  considered  well.  Still,  if  he  did  think 
proper  to  create  a  co-ordinate  authority  with  the  earl,  the 
pope  would  be  well  pleased  to  see  Richard  Marsh,  the 
chancellor,  elected  to  that  position. 

On  nth  September,  1217,  eleven  months  after  John's 
death,  peace  was  concluded  between  the  king  and  Louis 
of  France,  the  terms  being  signed  at  Lambeth.  We  are  not 
concerned  here  with  these  arrangements,  beyond  noting  the 
fact  that  Gualo,  the  legate,  as  representing  the  pope,  signed 
the  document  before  the  pope's  vassal,  King  Henry.1  Sub- 
sequently, too,  Louis  of  France  thought  it  right  to  seek 
for  and  obtain  papal  confirmation  for  the  terms  of  peace 
arranged  by  the  legate.2  When  the  peace  was  concluded, 
Gualo's  most  pressing  work  was  to  see  to  the  immediate 
pacification  of  the  country,  and  he  set  about  it  at  once.  He 
formally  absolved  Louis  and  all  who  sided  with  him;3  but 
from  the  benefit  of  this  act  of  grace  those  bishops,  abbots, 
and  other  beneficed  clergy  were  excluded,  who  had  taken 
part  with  or  given  help  and  encouragement  to  Louis. 
Simon  Langton,  the  archbishop's  brother,  was  specially 
singled  out  on  account  of  his  friendly  attitude  to  the  French ; 
and,  says  Wendover,  "  many  despoiled  of  their  benefices 
were  compelled  to  go  to  Rome  by  the  legate.  For,  after 
the  departure  of  Louis,  Gualo  sent  officials  throughout 
England,  and  if  any  ecclesiastics  were  found  to  have  given 
the  least  encouragement  or  countenance  to  the  French,  no 

1  Rymer,  i.  148.  2  Brit.  Mus.  Add.  MS.,  15,351,  f.  155. 

3  Roger  de  Wendover,  ii.  225. 


38     HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

matter  to  what  order  they  belonged  or  what  dignity  they 
possessed,  they  were  immediately  suspended  and  deprived 
of  their  benefices.  The  legate  lavishly  distributed  their 
livings  among  his  own  clerks,  and  by  means  of  these  con- 
demnations all  his  own  followers  were  enriched.  Hugh,  the 
bishop  of  Lincoln,  when  his  See  was  restored  to  him,  had 
to  pay  a  thousand  marks  to  the  pope  and  a  hundred  to  the 
legate.  With  this  example  before  them  many  bishops  and 
religious  reconciled  themselves  to  the  legate  by  heavy 
and  disastrous  payments."1  According  to  Matthew  Paris, 
Gualo  gathered  in  12,000  marks,2  and  Walter  de  Coventry, 
the  Barnwell  annalist,  adds  that  when  summoned  back  to 
the  pope,  he  took  with  him  an  immense  sum  of  money, 
got  together  in  some  way  or  other.3 

This  done  Gualo  returned  to  Rome.  After  his  departure, 
the  king,  or  more  probably  the  earl  of  Pembroke  in  his 
name,  wrote  to  the  pope  expressing  his  thanks  for  all  that 
the  kingdom  owed  to  him  and  to  his  legate;  he  would 
never  cease  to  remember  it,  he  says.  It  is  the  pope  who  has 
brought  light  out  of  darkness,  and  who  has  established  him 
upon  the  throne  of  his  father.  He  will  most  gladly  pay  the 
tribute  to  the  Holy  See,  which  indeed  he  is  of  course  bound 
to  do,  "  as  to  a  most  dear  overlord,"  and  he  is  greatly 
grieved  that  at  the  moment  it  is  impossible,  as  he  has 
charged  the  English  envoys  to  explain.  He  is  all  the  more 
sorry  for  the  delay  because  "our  beloved  and  venerated 
Lord  Gualo,  cardinal-priest  and  legate  of  the  Holy  See," 
has  so  often  impressed  on  him  the  need  of  paying  promptly. 
Gualo's  "watchful  prudence"  has  been  most  necessary 
in  the  times  now  past,  and  Henry  renders  Honorius  his 
grateful  thanks  for  sending,  or  rather  for  allowing,  "so 

1  Roger  de  Wendover,  ii.  240.  z  Chron.  Mag.,  iii.  32. 

*  Walter  de  Coventria,  Memoriale,  ii.  217. 


THE  WORK  OF  GUALO  THE  LEGATE   39 

fitting  and  excellent  a  guardian"  to  remain  and  to  help 
him  in  the  government  of  the  kingdom.  He  trusts  the 
pope  will  not  misunderstand  the  meaning  of  the  delay  in 
making  the  due  payment  of  the  tribute,  for  he  protests  that 
he  regards  the  pope  "  as  being  under  heaven  his  supreme 
protector."  He  is  sure  that  the  pope  will  rejoice  to  hear 
that  the  country  generally  is  returning  to  its  allegiance.1 

It  will  be  noticed  that  in  this  document  the  pope's 
position  is  more  than  freely  acknowledged,  and  that  there 
appears  no  indication  of  any  disposition  to  repudiate  the 
annual  tribute  in  acknowledgement  of  his  suzerainty;  on 
the  contrary,  it  is  declared  to  be  a  debt  that  must  be  paid 
as  soon  as  it  should  be  possible  to  do  so. 

1  Royal  Letters,  etc.,  i.  p.  6. 


CHAPTER  III 

PANDULPH  REPLACES  GUALO  AS  LEGATE 

GUALO  left  England  about  the  middle  of  November,  I2I8.1 
His  last  act  before  quitting  the  country  was  to  interpose  his 
authority  on  behalf  of  the  barons  of  the  Cinque  Ports  who, 
against  the  terms  of  the  peace  settlement,  were  still  kept  in 
prison  by  Louis.  They  had  appealed  to  him  as  papal  legate, 
pointing  out  their  miserable  condition  and  begging  him  to 
use  his  power  in  their  behalf.  Although  by  this  time  Gualo's 
special  faculties  had  been  withdrawn,  apparently  he  did  not 
hesitate  to  write  at  once  to  the  earl  of  Pembroke  "  ordering 
him  and  warning  him  "  to  see  to  this  matter,  "  as  touching 
the  honour  of  the  king  and  kingdom." 

Even  before  the  late  legate  had  left  the  country,  Pope 
Honorius  had  appointed  a  successor.  His  choice  fell  upon 
Pandulph,  already  well  known  in  England  and  well  ac- 
quainted with  the  condition  of  things  in  the  country.  By 
birth  the  new  legate  was  a  Roman,  and  had  been  a  clerk  of 
the  papal  court  under  Innocent  III.  In  the  fifth  year  of  the 
struggle  between  King  John  and  that  pope,  on  account  of 
the  appointment  of  Cardinal  Langton  to  the  See  of  Canter- 
bury, Pandulph,  who  is  described  as  a  sub-deacon  attached 
to  the  papal  household,  was  sent  into  England  to  endeavour 
to  put  an  end  to  the  deadlock  which  had  existed  for  so  long 
a  time.  He  and  the  companions  of  his  expedition  were 

1  Chron.  de  Waverleia  (Ann.  Mon.,  ii.),  291. 
40 


PANDULPH  REPLACES  GUALO  AS  LEGATE  41 

received  with  every  mark  of  popular  pleasure  and  reverence.1 
They  met  the  king  at  Northampton  in  August,  on  his  return 
from  Wales,  and,  if  we  are  to  credit  the  annalist  of  Burton,2 
the  papal  envoys  had  a  long  conference  with  John  in  the 
presence  of  his  barons.  According  to  this  account  the  king 
had  asked  the  pope  to  send  some  one  to  England  to  discuss 
with  him  the  possibility  of  coming  to  terms  and  obtaining 
relief  from  the  interdict,  which  pressed  heavily  upon  all 
classes  in  the  kingdom.  At  the  outset  of  the  interview, 
however,  he  declared  that  he  would  never  consent  to  Lang- 
ton's  appointment,  and  that  if  the  archbishop  came  into 
the  country  he  would  have  him  hanged.  It  was  in  vain  that 
Pandulph  reminded  him  that  it  was  at  his  royal  request  the 
pope  had  sent  his  representatives,  and  that  in  asking  for 
such  a  mission,  John  had  sworn  to  make  full  satisfaction  to 
the  Church,  if  it  could  be  shown  that  he  had  acted  in  any 
way  against  its  rights  and  privileges.  Under  the  circum- 
stances of  the  king's  continued  hostility  to  the  archbishop 
appointed  by  Innocent,  it  was  obviously  impossible  for  him 
to  remove  the  ecclesiastical  interdict  from  the  land.  To  all 
this  the  king  replied ;  "  I  fully  confess  that  the  pope  is  my 
spiritual  father;  that  he  holds  the  place  of  St.  Peter,  and 
that  in  spiritual  matters  I  am  bound  to  obey  him ;  but  I  am 
not  bound  to  do  so  in  temporal  things,  which  are  the  pre- 
rogatives of  my  crown."  Amongst  these  latter  is  the  be- 
stowal of  archbishoprics,  bishoprics,  and  abbacies,  which 
former  kings  of  England  have  always  claimed  to  be  able 
to  do. 

Pandulph  would  not  allow  that  the  obedience  due  from 
a  Christian  sovereign  to  the  pope  was  confined  to  spiritual 
matters.  "  I  say,"  he  replied,  "  that  you  should  obey  the 

1  Chron.  Thomae  Wykes  (Ann.  Mon.,  iv.),  56. 
*  Ann.  Mon.,  i.  207-217. 


42     HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

lord  pope  in  temporals  as  well  as  in  spirituals.  When  you 
took  the  government  of  the  kingdom,  did  you  not  swear 
before  God  to  be  obedient  to  him  and  to  rule  according  to 
the  laws  of  the  Church?  "  But  the  king  still  maintaining 
his  attitude  of  hostility  to  Cardinal  Langton,  and  refusing 
to  accept  him  as  archbishop,  Pandulph  declared  him  ex- 
communicate and  ordered  the  sentence  to  be  published 
everywhere.  He  declared  him  to  be  deposed,and  he  absolved 
the  people  from  their  allegiance  to  him. 

In  spite  of  threats,  John  did  not  dare  to  lay  hands  on 
the  papal  envoys,  and  they  were  allowed  to  return  to  Rome. 
In  a  short  time,  however,  a  fresh  crisis  in  the  king's  affairs 
made  him  apply  once  more  to  the  pope ;  and  on  2/th  Feb- 
ruary, 1213,  Innocent  III  announced  the  appointment  of 
the  same  nuncio,  Pandulph,  to  confer  with  the  king.  He 
brought  with  him  the  conditions  of  reconciliation  drawn 
up  in  conjunction  with  the  royal  messengers  at  Rome.  On 
1 3th  May,  Pandulph  met  John  at  Dover  and  threatened 
him  with  the  immediate  invasion  of  the  kingdom  by  the 
French,  should  the  conditions  not  be  accepted.  Two  days 
later  John  had  made  his  humble  submission,  and  England 
became,  as  has  been  related,  a  fief  of  the  Holy  See.  Al- 
though Pandulph,  after  a  brief  visit  to  France  to  bring  back 
Langton  and  the  exiled  bishops,  returned  to  this  country, 
Innocent  III  appointed  Nicholas,  cardinal-bishop  of  Tus- 
culum,  to  conclude  the  business  of  reconciliation,  and  Pan- 
dulph was  relegated  to  a  secondary  position,  chiefly  con- 
nected with  the  gathering  of  ecclesiastical  dues  and  fees 
into  the  papal  exchequer. 

In  1214  the  mission  of  Cardinal  Nicholas  was  brought 
to  an  end.  Langton  had  appealed  to  Rome  against  the  in- 
terference of  the  legate  in  appointments  to  vacant  churches. 
Pandulph  was  dispatched  to  oppose  the  archbishop  in  the 


PANDULPH  REPLACES  GUALO  AS  LEGATE  43 

Curia  where  he  was  then  represented  by  his  brother,  Simon 
Langton.  Although  Pandulph  carried  the  day,  and  gained 
a  diplomatic  victory  for  the  legate  by  preventing  the  arch- 
bishop's case  being  fully  considered,  the  representation 
seems  in  the  end  to  have  led  to  the  legate's  recall  upon  the 
final  reconciliation.  The  departure  of  the  Roman  cardinal, 
however,  made  it  more  imperative  for  Pandulph  to  remain 
in  the  country.  This  he  did  during  the  rest  of  King  John's 
reign,  but  without  the  official  position  of  legate.  His  name 
occurs  in  the  preamble  of  Magna  Charter  as  one  of  the  few 
who  remained  faithful  to  the  king,  and  by  whose  counsel  it 
was  issued,  and  he  is  associated  with  the  archbishops  and 
bishops  as  one  of  the  sureties  for  the  general  pardon  pro- 
mised by  the  king. 

About  this  time,  1215,  Pandulph  was  chosen  to  the 
vacant  see  of  Norwich,  and  upon  John  coming  to  the  de- 
termination to  repudiate  the  provisions  of  the  Great  Charter, 
he  thought  of  sending  Pandulph  to  Rome  to  ask  the  pope 
to  declare  its  provisions  null  and  void.  Before  he  left  Eng- 
land, however,  any  hesitation  Innocent  III  may  have  felt 
on  the  matter  had  been  overcome,  and  the  Bull  quashing 
the  Charter  had  been  issued.  Pandulph  remained  in  Eng- 
land, and  was  associated,  as  has  been  pointed  out,  with  the 
bishop  of  Winchester,  in  excommunicating  those  that  re- 
fused to  be  reconciled  to  the  king.  On  the  arrival  of  Gualo, 
during  the  troubles  of  King  John's  last  days,  Pandulph  re- 
tired once  more  into  the  subordinate  position  he  had  pre- 
viously occupied  under  the  legate  Nicholas,  and  on  the  ac- 
cession of  Henry  III  he  seems  to  have  returned  to  Rome.1 

On  the  recall  of  Gualo,  in  1218,  no  one  was  better  ac- 
quainted with  the  state  of  affairs  in  England,  or  better 
qualified  to  take  up  the  work  left  by  the  legate  than  Pan- 
1  Matthew  Paris,  ii.  171. 


44     HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

dulph.  On  September  I,  1218,  Honorius  III  wrote  to  the 
English  archbishops  and  bishops  announcing  his  appoint- 
ment to  the  position,1  and  he  forthwith  set  out  for  England. 
He  was  at  this  time  still  only  bishop-elect  of  Norwich,  and 
according  to  a  special  provision  of  the  pope,  so  long  as  he 
remained  merely  bishop-elect,  which  indeed  was  to  be  whilst 
he  remained  papal  legate,  he  was  to  be  exempt  from  the 
canonical  oath  of  obedience  to  the  metropolitan  of  Canter- 
bury.2 This  exemption  was  no  doubt  intended  to  give  him 
more  freedom  in  his  high  functions  than  he  would  have  had 
as  a  suffragan  of  Cardinal  Langton. 

Pandulph,  with  full  legislative  powers,  landed  in  Eng- 
land on  3rd  December,  12 18.3  He  found  many  important 
matters  in  Church  and  State  already  awaiting  his  settle- 
ment, and  he  began  his  work  by  an  act  of  grace.  Gualo, 
his  predecessor,  had  deprived  of  their  benefices  a  great 
number  of  ecclesiastics  who  had  sided  with  Louis  in  the 
late  troubles,  and  had  even  imprisoned  many.  Pandulph 
set  all  these  at  liberty,  and  even,  where  he  was  able,  re- 
stored to  them  their  benefices  which  had  been  confiscated.* 
"  The  first  year  of  Pandulph's  legislation,"  writes  Mr.  Shirley, 
"passed  in  almost  unbroken  success."  8  Through  the  media- 
tion of  the  pope,  no  doubt  on  the  initiative  of  the  legate,  the 
truce  between  France  and  England,  which  was  on  the  point 
of  expiring,  was  renewed  for  another  four  years.6  Even 
before  his  arrival  in  England,  Pandulph  was  charged  to  ex- 
amine into  the  relations  of  Scotland  with  this  country,  to  re- 
view the  agreement  already  made,  and  to  confirm  or  annul 
it  as  he  should  think  best.  In  the  event,  a  lasting  alliance 

1  Brit.  Mus.  Add.  MS.,  15,3$ I,  f.  217. 

2  Royal  Letters,  i.  533. 

3  Radulphus  de  Coggeshall  (Chronicon  Anglicanum)  (Rolls  ed.),  263. 

4  Annals  of  Dunstable  (Ann.  Mon.,  iii.),  53. 

6  Royal  Letters,  etc.,  i.,  Preface,  xxii.  6  Ibid.,  16. 


PANDULPH  REPLACES  GUALO  AS  LEGATE  45 

was  secured  between  the  two  countries  by  the  betrothal  of 
Alexander  II  to  the  young  King  Henry's  sister. 

In  May,  1219,  William  Marshall,  earl  of  Pembroke,  the 
king's  regent,  died.1  From  this  time  the  king's  ministers 
governed  in  his  name,  Peter  de  Rupibus,  the  bishop  of  Win- 
chester, acting  as  tutor,  and  Hubert  de  Burgh  as  justiciar. 
The  relations  of  these  chief  officials  to  each  other  gave 
Pandulph,  as  legate,  an  exceptional  position.  Had  they 
been  in  entire  agreement  on  all  matters  of  policy  and  gov- 
ernment, the  authority  of  the  recognised  representative  of 
the  "  overlord  "  of  a  minor  might  not  have  become  so  para- 
mount as  it  did  during  the  next  two  years.  From  the  death 
of  the  earl  of  Pembroke  to  Pandulph's  recall  in  1221,  he 
really  acted,  as  a  modern  writer  has  remarked,  almost  "  as 
king  of  England." 

A  few  instances  will  enable  the  reader  to  judge  what 
the  legate's  position  and  authority  at  this  time  were,  and 

1  In  the  important  poem  DHistoire  de  Guillaume  le  Martchal,  edited  by 
M.  Paul  Mayer  for  the  Societe  de  1'Histoire  de  France,  an  interesting  ac- 
count is  given  of  the  death  of  the  earl  of  which  a  summary  has  been  made  by 
the  editor  (iii.  282  to  286).  When  the  earl  was  ill  at  Caversham  a  council 
was  held  at  Reading  which  the  king,  the  legate,  the  justiciar,  and  many  barons 
attended.  This  must  have  been  about  April  12,  and  at  this  meeting  the  earl 
marshal  informed  the  king  that  it  was  necessary  for  the  barons  to  elect  some- 
one to  protect  him  and  the  kingdom.  Upon  this  Peter  de  Rupibus  declared 
that  though  the  kingdom  had  been  committed  to  the  earl,  the  king  had  been 
committed  to  him.  The  earl  replied  that  it  was  he  who  had  given  the  king 
into  his  charge.  After  consultation  the  dying  earl  marshal  declared  that  he  had 
decided  to  entrust  the  king  to  God  and  the  pope,  and  especially  to  the  legate 
in  their  place.  On  the  arrival  of  the  king  accompanied  by  the  legate  and  some 
other  magnates,  the  earl,  taking  the  king  by  the  hand,  declared  that  he  de- 
livered him,  in  the  presence  of  all  there,  to  God,  the  pope,  and  the  legate 
who  represented  them.  After  this,  by  orders  of  the  earl,  his  son  went  to  pre- 
sent the  king  to  the  legate  in  the  presence  of  the  barons,  which  he  did,  taking 
the  youthful  monarch  by  the  hand,  to  the  great  annoyance  of  the  bishop  of 
Winchester.  "  So,"  says  a  modern  writer,  "  Pandulph  succeeded  the  earl 
marshal  as  regent,  not  by  virtue  of  his  appointment  as  legate,  but  in  pursuance 
of  the  wishes  of  the  earl,  which  the  magnates  of  England  ratified." — (G.  J. 
Turner,  ut  sup.  Trans,  of  Royal  Hist.  Soc.,  xviii.  292-293.) 


46     HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

how  fully  they  were  acknowledged  or  acquiesced  in.  In 
May,  1219,  almost  immediately  after  Pembroke's  death, 
Pandulph  writes  to  the  bishop  of  Winchester  and  de  Burgh 
about  the  collection  of  the  royal  revenue — a  mere  matter 
of  state.  "Being  solicitous,"  he  says,  "about  the  king's 
affairs,  we  direct  that  Walter  Malclerc  be  joined  to  the 
sheriffs  for  the  collections.  On  this  matter  we  strictly  warn 
and  order  that  you  direct  the  royal  letters  to  the  said 
(sheriffs)."  l 

Again  on  4th  July,  in  the  same  year,  Pandulph  wrote  to 
the  same  two  officials  directing,  and  "  strictly  commanding  " 
them,  to  redress  some  injury  to  one  of  his  servants,  so  that 
"  it  may  appear  that  you  desire  to  procure  the  peace  of  the 
king  and  kingdom."  To  this  note  he  adds  :  "We  send 
you  a  copy  of  the  letter  from  the  king  of  Scotland,  which 
we  have  received.  When  you  have  read  it,  write  to  us  your 
opinion  "  upon  the  matter.2  In  the  same  months  the  legate 
writes  to  the  same  on  the  question  of  the  Jews.  "  We  can 
hardly  tolerate  any  longer,"  he  says,  "  the  constant  com- 
plaints of  Christians  as  to  the  usury  practised  by  the  Jews." 
He  hears  from  the  abbot  of  Westminster  that  lately  Isaac, 
the  Jew  of  Norwich,  has  been  demanding  payments  of  the 
Jews  before  the  justices.  Now  "  being  desirous  to  further 
the  king's  honour,  which  is  much  lowered  by  all  this,  as 
well  as  to  help  the  Christians,  we  warmly  ask  and  counsel 
you,"  he  says,  "for  your  own  honour  to  order  the  said 
justices  not  to  judge  the  above  cases  until  we  come  into 
those  parts."  We  will  then  see  what  remedy  can  be  devised. 
At  the  close  of  this  lengthy  epistle,  Pandulph  returns  to 
the  question  of  the  assessments  for  the  royal  dues.  He 
expresses  his  wonder  that  his  previous  direction  has  not 
been  carried  out,  and  he  "  orders "  the  two  nominal 
1  Royal  Letters,  etc.,i.  27.  2  Ibid.,  35. 


PANDULPH  REPLACES  GUALO  AS  LEGATE    47 

heads  of  the  kingdom  to  do  what  had  been  provided  in 
the  matter. 

In  like  manner  the  legate  writes  to  de  Burgh  that  he 
has  postponed  the  day  appointed  for  the  submission  of 
Llewellyn ;  he  advises,  nay  orders,  a  secret  mission  to  France ; 
he  sends  for  the  reception  of  his  temporalities  the  bishop- 
elect  of  Ely,  who  has  been  chosen  by  himself,  to  the  arch- 
bishop and  the  bishop  of  Salisbury,  as  a  commission  ap- 
pointed by  the  pope;  he  orders  de  Burgh  to  be  at  Worcester 
at  a  certain  date,  for  the  meeting  with  Llewellyn,  which  he 
had  previously  postponed;  he  warns  him  to  stand  firm 
against  a  threatened  agitation  of  Londoners,  and  in  a 
second  letter  on  the  same  subject,  he  tells  him  that  he  is 
himself  coming  to  London  "  to  deal  with  urgent  business 
of  the  king  and  kingdom."  1  In  another  letter,  dated  3rd 
April,  1220,  he  announces  his  intention  of  being  at  Windsor 
at  Easter  time,  and  requests  de  Burgh  to  be  there  to  meet 
him  and  discuss  affairs  of  State.  To  this  communication 
he  adds:  "In  regard  to  what  you  have  told  us,  namely, 
that  the  castle  of  Marlborough  is  being  fortified,  we  order 
you,  without  loss  of  time,  to  send  royal  letters  to  the 
marshal,  couched  in  the  most  stringent  terms  you  can 
devise,  expressly  prohibiting  these  fortifications."  z  In  the 
same  month  he  forbids  Ralph  Nevile,  the  vice-chancellor, 
to  leave  the  Exchequer  on  any  pretence,  and  charges  him 
to  deposit  the  money  he  has  in  the  Temple,  and  not  to 
disburse  any  "  without  our  order  and  special  licence."3  In 
the  following  month,  he  asks  for  a  form  for  granting  the 
custody  of  royal  castles,  which  had  been  drawn  up  by  the 
legate  Gualo,  and  reminds  Nevile  of  his  injunction  in 
regard  to  the  royal  Exchequer,  bidding  him,  should  he 
leave  London,  to  deposit  the  Great  Seal  in  the  Temple  for 

1  Royal  Letters,  etc.,  74-75,  I (X).  *   Ibid.,  101.  3  Ibid.,  112. 


48     HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

safe  custody.1  Finally,  to  take  one  more  example  of  Pan- 
dulph's  action  in  state  matters  at  this  time ;  in  this  same 
year,  1220,  he  directs  Hubert  de  Burgh  to  release  the  sheriff 
of  York  from  custody.  What  has  been  done  to  him  in  this 
matter,  he  adds,  is  a  practical  contempt  of  "  the  king's 
authority  and  ours." 2 

If  Pandulph  never  hesitated  in  his  claim  to  be  the  chief 
arbiter  of  the  destinies  of  England  during  the  period  in 
which  he  acted  as  legate  to  Honorius  III,  it  must  be  con- 
fessed that  this  position  was  conceded  to  him  by  the 
English  nation,  apparently  without  question.  The  many 
letters  which  still  exist  prove  this  beyond  the  possibility 
of  doubt.  The  pope,  too,  writes  to  him  on  all  manner  of 
subjects,  lay  as  well  as  ecclesiastical,  which  concern  the 
country.  The  question  of  holding  and  fortifying  English 
castles  may  be  taken  as  illustrating  this  point.  On  i4thMay, 
1 220,  the  pope  wrote  to  the  English  barons  directing  them 
to  restore  all  the  royal  castles  to  the  king's  keeping,  and 
urging  them  to  render  every  assistance  to  Pandulph  in  his 
work  of  trying  to  safeguard  the  interests  of  the  country  at 
large.3  A  few  days  before  this  the  pope  had  given  his 
legate  careful  instructions  as  to  the  selection  of  tutors  for 
the  young  king.  "  We  are  wishful,"  he  writes,  "  that  our 
beloved  son  in  Christ,  the  illustrious  king  of  the  English, 
should  be  prosperous  through  every  temporal  assistance, 
and  ever  grounded  in  virtue  before  God.  We  hope  that  this 
will  be  the  case  if  he  has  for  instructors  men  who  are  pru- 
dent, upright,  and  observers  of  God's  law.  By  the  au- 
thority of  these  letters,  then,  we  commit  to  your  discretion 
the  charge  diligently  to  cause  the  said  king  to  be  under 
the  guardianship  of  prudent  and  honest  men,  who  are  with- 

1  Royal  Letters,  etc.,  117.  *  Ibid.,  130. 

3  P.  R.  O.  Papal  Bulls,  Bundle  L,  No.  3. 


PANDULPH  REPLACES  GUALO  AS  LEGATE    49 

out  suspicion  in  their  country,  who  may  instruct  him  in 
good  morals,  and  teach  him  to  fear  God  and  love  his  sub- 
jects. In  this  way,  through  your  care  and  their  teaching, 
he  may  visibly  grow  up  moral  and  virtuous."  * 

Not  long  after,  on  26th  May,  1220,  this  Pope  Honorius 
again  wrote  to  Pandulph  on  the  state  of  the  country.  "  Of 
old,"  he  says,  "  the  English  kings  were  wont  to  be  rich,  not 
only  in  comparison  with  other  kings  of  the  earth,  but  be- 
yond them  all.  This  was  greatly  to  their  glory  and  honour, 
and  that  of  their  faithful  subjects.  It  is  not,  therefore,  with- 
out cause  that  we  wonder  how  it  is  that  our  well-beloved 
son  in  Christ,  Henry,  the  illustrious  king  of  England,  even 
though  as  a  minor  he  spends  less  than  his  predecessors,  is 
said  to  be  in  such  want  that  he  hardly  ever,  if  ever,  has 
sufficient  to  provide  adequately  for  his  royal  dignity;  a 
state  of  affairs  which  is  a  reproach  to  his  people  and  to 
such  a  kingdom.  This  condition  of  things,  to  speak  plainly, 
is  imputed  chiefly  to  the  archbishop,  bishops,  and  prelates 
of  England."  According  to  his  information,  as  the  pope 
then  goes  on  to  explain,  these  ecclesiastics,  taking  advant- 
age of  the  king's  youth  have  possessed  themselves,  on  all 
manner  of  pretexts,  of  the  royal  castles,  manors,  etc.,  till 
the  king  is  positively  poor.  He,  Honorius,  as  pope,  cannot 
allow  this,  and  consequently  orders  that  these  royal  posses- 
sions be  at  once  restored,  together  with  all  revenues  and 
rents  received  from  them  since  the  war.  "For,"  he  continues, 
"  we  cannot  permit  the  king  to  be  injured.  We  look  on 
his  cause  as  our  own,  for  he  is  a  cruce  signatus,  an  orphan, 
and  a  ward  under  the  special  protection  of  the  Apostolic 
See."  Pandulph  is  consequently  to  compel  all  to  immediate 
restitution.2 

In  much  the  same  way,  and  with  the  same  intention 
1  Brit.  Mus.  Add.  MS.,  15,352,  f.  74.          *  Royal  Letters,  etc.,  i.  535. 

E 


SO     HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

of  protecting  Henry,  Honorius  III  wrote  to  two  Poitevin 
bishops,  ordering  them  to  inquire  whether  the  rumour,  that 
certain  nobles  were  disturbing  Poitou  at  the  time,  was  true. 
If  they  found  that  it  was  the  case,  they  were  charged  to  ex- 
communicate them  at  once.  "  For  since  our  beloved  son  in 
Christ,  Henry,  the  illustrious  king  of  England,  is  a  cruce 
signatus,  a  ward  and  an  orphan,  specially  left  to  the  guar- 
dianship of  the  Holy  See,  we,  not  without  reason,  look 
upon  injuries  and  annoyances  to  him  as  done  to  ourselves. 
We  consequently  desire  to  act  vigorously  against  such  dis- 
turbers '  of  the  peace,'  as  indeed  we  are  bound  to  do." l 

Almost  simultaneously  with  his  letter  of  26th  May  to 
the  legate  about  the  royal  castles,  Honorius  III  sent  other 
documents  to  him,  bidding  him  not  to  allow  anyone  to 
hold  more  than  two  castles  at  the  same  time,  even  as 
guardians  for  the  king.  "  We  order  you,"  he  says,  "  by  the 
authority  of  these  present  letters,  not  to  allow  anyone  in 
England,  no  matter  how  true  and  near  to  the  king  he  may 
be,  to  hold  more  than  two  of  the  royal  castles,  because 
we  do  not  think  that  it  is  a  good  thing  for  the  king's 
interests."  * 

It  is  unnecessary  to  multiply  instances  of  the  extra- 
ordinary position  occupied  by  the  papal  legate  at  this  time 
in  the  State,  as  well  as  in  the  Church  in  England.  Almost 
every  public  document  of  the  period  is  evidence  of  the  fact, 
and,  in  addition  to  what  has  already  be  stated,  one  or  two 
instances  out  of  the  many  that  could  be  adduced,  may  here 
be  given.  In  1220,  Pandulph  forbids  the  holding  of  tourna- 
ments. He  warns  de  Burgh  that  having  done  so,  and 
having  moreover  excommunicated  all  who,  in  spite  of  the 
prohibition,  took  part  in  them,  he  expects  to  be  obeyed, 

1  Brit.  Mus.  Add.  MS.,  15,352,  f.  32. 
1  Rymer,  i.  160. 


PANDULPH  REPLACES  GUALO  AS  LEGATE    51 

and  instructs  him  to  confiscate  the  lands  of  such  as  persist 
in  ignoring  his  commands.1 

Perhaps  one  of  the  most  curious  examples  of  the  general 
acquiescence  in  the  paramount  authority  of  the  legate  in 
the  government  of  the  country,  is  to  be  found  in  the  letter 
of  the  mayor  and  commune  of  Bordeaux,  written  about 
June  1 220.  It  is  addressed  in  the  first  place  to  Pandulph, 
and  then  only  to  the  king  and  his  council.  Mr.  Shirley, 
after  a  study  of  the  letters  and  documents  of  this  time,  thus 
states  the  part  played  by  Pandulph:  "  It  was  understood, 
or  discovered,  that  the  disruption  of  the  regency  had  left 
the  first  place  in  the  State  open  to  Pandulph.  In  the  name 
of  his  master,  suzerain  and  guardian  of  the  realm,  we  find 
him  writing  to  the  justiciar  and  to  des  Roches,  as  the 
haughtiest  of  the  Plantagenets  might  have  written  to  his 
humblest  minister."  * 

"  In  some  respects  the  encroachment  thus  accomplished 
upon  the  civil  power  may  be  accounted  among  the  boldest 
ever  attempted  by  the  successors  of  Hildebrand.  The  de- 
position of  a  monarch,  however  striking  to  the  imagination 
and  however  grave  in  its  consequences  to  society,  was  an 
exercise  only  of  judicial  power,  limited  by  its  very  nature 
to  the  most  exceptional  cases.  But  the  authority  assumed 
by  Pandulph  was  that  not  of  a  judge,  but  of  an  executive 
magistrate ;  it  dealt  not  with  a  single  question,  but  with  the 
continuous  government  of  the  country,  and  threatened  the 
establishment  of  a  despotic  rule,  wielded  by  a  foreign  priest, 
directed  by  a  foreign  policy,  and  enforced  by  the  censures 
of  the  Church."3 

Such  an  abnormal  state  of  affairs  could  not  last  long. 
It  was  impossible  that  any  foreigner,  however  tactful  and 
resourceful,  could  long  continue  to  exercise  such  paramount 

1  Rymer,  i.  162.         *  Royal  Letters,  etc.,  i.  Introd.,  20.          3  Ibid. 


52     HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

influence,  more  especially  when  the  position  was  evidently 
as  distasteful  to  the  clergy  as  it  was  to  the  laity.  The  ques- 
tion of  the  appointment  of  a  successor  to  Geoffrey  Nevile, 
the  seneschal  of  Poitou,  who  resigned  his  office  in  November 
122 1,  brought  about  a  serious  difference  of  opinion  between 
de  Burgh  and  Pandulph.  The  latter  and  des  Roches,  or  de 
Rupibus,  the  bishop  of  Winchester,  desired  to  secure  the 
post  for  a  Poitevin ;  but  the  people  of  the  country,  who  were 
most  nearly  concerned,  petitioned  for  an  Englishman,  and 
in  this  they  were  strongly  supported  by  the  justiciar.  For 
the  first  time  Pandulph  appears  to  have  hesitated  to  take 
the  full  position  of  a  dictator,  and  he  threw  upon  de  Burgh 
the  responsibility  of  making  the  choice. 

Meantime  Cardinal  Langton  had  long  been  dissatisfied 
with  the  great  influence  and  authority  of  the  legate.  As 
bishop  of  Norwich,  Pandulph  should  have  occupied  a  sub- 
ordinate position,  from  which,  however,  he  was  exempted 
by  the  decision  of  the  pope  that  he  need  not  be  consecrated 
whilst  he  continued  as  legate,  and  that,  as  long  as  he  was 
merely  elect,  he  need  not  take  the  usual  oath  of  canonical 
obedience  to  the  metropolitan.  At  the  same  time,  however, 
in  all  but  name  he  was  the  actual  bishop  of  the  See.  He 
had  been  allowed  by  the  pope,  moreover,  to  administer  his 
diocese  without  the  canonical  checks  imposed  upon  other 
bishops,1  which  could  hardly  fail  to  give  dissatisfaction  to 
many  besides  the  archbishop.  Pandulph  had  complained 
of  the  debts  of  the  See,  which  had  been  partly  caused  by 
the  expenses  of  his  position  as  legate,  and  had  not  been 
wholly  covered  by  the  procurations  he  had  exacted. 
Honorius  III  consequently  authorised  him  to  take  all  the 
revenues  of  churches  in  his  gift  as  bishop,  for  two  years, 
where  this  could  be  done  without  scandal.  The  following 

1  Brit.  Mus.  Add.  MS.,  15,352,  f.  Si. 


PANDULPH  REPLACES  GUALO  AS  LEGATE    53 

year,  1220,  this  permission  was  extended  to  all  benefices 
in  his  diocese  which  were  not  impropriated  to  some  con- 
ventual establishment1  And,  by  a  second  letter,  two  days 
later,  he  was  permitted  to  reward  his  servants  with  English 
benefices  in  any  diocese,  since  in  his  own  there  were  few  to 
be  had  and  those  of  little  value.2 

On  I /th  May,  1220,  Henry  III  was  solemnly  crowned  at 
Westminster  in  the  presence  of  Pandulph.  Langton  sang 
the  Mass  and  preached  to  the  people.  Most  of  the  bishops 
and  prelates  of  England  assisted  at  the  function,  with  the 
exception  of  the  archbishop  of  York,  who,  it  is  suggested, 
did  not  come  because  of  the  difficulties  raised  by  the  arch- 
bishop of  Canterbury  against  his  carrying  the  archiepiscopal 
cross  in  the  southern  province.  In  accordance  with  the  ex- 
press direction  of  the  pope,  the  barons  who  were  present 
took  oaths  to  restore  the  royal  castles  to  the  king,  and  to 
render  him  an  account  of  the  revenues  received  since  they 
had  been  in  their  keeping.3 

The  legate  does  not  appear  to  have  been  present  at 
Canterbury,  when  on  7th  July,  the  body  of  St.  Thomas 
was  translated  with  great  ceremony.  Extensive  prepara- 
tions had  been  made  for  this  event,  which,  as  it  took  place 
in  the  fiftieth  year  after  the  death  of  the  martyr,  was 
made  a  universal  jubilee  for  the  whole  of  England.  The 
king  attended  the  ceremony  of  transferring  the  body  to  the 
new  shrine  "  made  by  the  wonderful  artist,Walter  the  sacrist 
of  St.  Alban's,"  and  the  festival  was  conducted  by  William 
de  Joinville,  archbishop  of  Rheims,  in  the  presence  of 
Langton  and  a  great  number  of  bishops.  The  cardinal 
entertained  the  company  after  the  function  in  the  new 
palace  he  had  built,  which  to  the  eyes  of  contemporary 

1   Brit.  Mus.  Add.  MS.,  15,352,  f.  81.  2  Ibid.,  f.  84. 

3  Ann.  Monastics,  iii.  57. 


54     HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

chroniclers  could  hardly  have  been  surpassed  by  the  glories 
of  King  Solomon's  buildings,  and  the  banquet  was  such  as 
recalled  the  feastings  of  King  Assuerus.1 

When  these  festivities  were  over,  Archbishop  Langton 
set  out  for  Rome  in  the  autumn  of  1220.  He  was  away 
until  the  August  of  the  following  year,  when  he  returned, 
writes  the  chronicler,  "  with  glory  and  honour."  How  he 
managed  to  persuade  the  pope  to  grant  him  the  important 
privileges  with  which  he  returned  to  this  country,  does  not 
appear;  but  the  result  was  a  complete  victory  for  his  policy 
as  regards  the  administration  of  the  English  Church.  The 
three  points  named  by  the  chroniclers  as  having  been 
granted  to  him  by  Honorius  III  were  the  following:  that 
the  archbishop  of  York  should  carry  his  cross  only  in  his 
own  province ;  that  the  pope  should  not  give  away  any 
English  benefice  to  a  foreigner  in  succession  to  a  foreigner ; 
and  that  no  legate  should  ever  again  be  sent  into  England 
during  Langton's  lifetime.  The  date  of  one  of  these  privi- 
leges, 24th  February,  1221,  shows  that  the  archbishop  soon 
obtained  from  the  pope  what  he  went  for  to  Rome.  Al- 
though nothing  is  said  about  Pandulph,  the  triumph  of 
Langton's  diplomacy  effectually  put  an  end  to  his  influence. 
The  confirmation  of  Eustace  of  Falkenburg  to  the  See  of 
London  on  25th  February,  I22I,2  appears  to  have  been  the 
last  act  of  the  legate  in  England.  The  pope  must  have 
written  to  him  to  resign  his  office;  and  on  iQth  July,  1221, 
before  Langton  had  returned  to  England  "  by  order  of  the 
pope,"  in  the  presence  of  the  bishops  of  Salisbury,  Win- 
chester and  London,  he  declared  his  resignation3  of  his 
legateship  and  left  England  at  the  following  Michaelmas. 

1  Matthew  Paris,  Hi.  59  ;  cf.  also  Ann.  Mon.,'ii.  293  :  Ann.  Man.,  iii.  58  ; 
Chron.  de  Melsa,  i.  406  ;  Wilkins,  i.  572. 

2  Radulphus  de  Coggeshall,  189.  3  Flares  Historiarum,  ii.  172-173. 


PANDULPH  REPLACES  GUALO  AS  LEGATE     55 

His  departure  was  rendered  somewhat  less  unpleasant  by 
his  being  sent  to  Poitou  on  a  mission,  and  from  thence  he 
went  on  to  Rome.  As  there  was  now  no  longer  any  reason 
why  he  should  delay  his  consecration  to  the  See  of  Norwich, 
he  was  made  bishop  by  Honorius  III  on  29th  May,  1222. 
He  remained  attached  to  the  interests  of  England,  and 
especially  to  those  of  the  king,  till  his  death  in  1226,  when 
his  body  was  brought  from  Rome  to  England  and  buried  in 
the  cathedral  at  Norwich. 


CHAPTER  IV 
ECCLESIASTICAL  REORGANISATION 

THE  promise  of  Pope  Honorius  on  the  departure  of  Pan- 
dulph,  that  during  Langton's  lifetime  no  further  legate 
should  be  sent  into  England,  was  kept.  The  absence  of 
any  papal  representative  with  unlimited  legatine  powers 
did  not,  however,  in  the  least  imply  that  the  pope's  power 
in  England  was  in  any  way  diminished,  or  that  his  personal 
interest  in  the  country  had  at  all  slackened.  Honorius  III. 
during  this  period,  merely  acted  directly  through  the  arch- 
bishop of  Canterbury  and  the  English  bishops,  and  the 
numerous  letters  written  by  him  during  the  three  years 
which  followed  the  departure  of  Pandulph  in  1222,  in  which 
he  dealt  with  all  manner  of  subjects,  prove  his  continued 
hold  over  the  English  Church,  and,  as  far  as  there  was  need 
or  occasion,  his  watchful  care,  as  supreme  lord,  also  over  the 
affairs  of  State. 

In  the  early  part  of  this  period,  the  authorities  of  the 
English  Church  devoted  much  attention  to  ecclesiastical 
discipline.  The  pope,  in  several  letters  addressed  to  the 
bishops,  urged  them  to  put  down  abuses  which  had  sprung 
up,  or  become  more  firmly  established,  during  the  long 
period  of  national  disturbance.  Amongst  these,  two  in 
particular  required  immediate  attention:  the  position  of 
married  clerics,  and  the  practice,  which  had  crept  in,  of  the 
sons  of  clerics  being  allowed  to  succeed  to  benefices  pre- 
56 


ECCLESIASTICAL  REORGANISATION       57 

viously  held  by  their  fathers.1  At  this  time,  several  of  the 
English  bishops  issued  diocesan  constitutions  which  mani- 
fest their  strong  desire  for  better  discipline ;  and  these 
regulations,  which  are  still  extant,  enable  us  to  form  a  fair 
notion  of  clerical  life  and  practice.  To  take  an  example: 
the  Synodical  decrees  of  the  diocese  of  Durham,  issued  by 
Bishop  Richard  Marsh,  are  embodied  in  a  document  of  ex- 
ceptional interest.  The  general  tenor  of  this  constitution, 
and  in  many  parts  its  verbal  expression,  is  copied  by  the 
bishop  of  Salisbury,  Richard  Poore,  who  was  the  friend, 
and  afterwards  the  successor,  of  Bishop  Marsh  at  Durham. 
The  whole  of  this  legislation,  however,  is,  not  improbably, 
attributed  to  Archbishop  Langton.2 

Some  few  of  the  provisions  of  this  constitution  may  be 
here  noticed  as  of  exceptional  interest.  The  duty  of  priests, 
for  example,  to  instruct  the  people  in  their  religion,  is  in- 
sisted upon.  Every  parish  priest  is  reminded  that  by  virtue 
of  his  office,  he  is  bound  "  often  to  teach  "  the  flock  com- 
mitted to  him,  the  articles  of  the  creed  and  the  Christian 
practices  "  without  which  faith  is  dead."  In  order  to  secure 
that  this  duty  be  faithfully  and  truly  observed,  the  arch- 
deacons are  enjoined  to  see  that  the  clergy  of  their  various 
districts  know,  and,  if  necessary,  rehearse  before  them,  the 
exposition  of  Catholic  faith  enjoined  by  the  late  Council  of 
the  Lateran  in  1215.  They  are  further  to  warn  them  to 
explain  the  various  points  of  the  faith  frequently  to  their 
people  in  the  vulgar  tongue  (domestico  idiomate).  Besides 
this,  they  are  to  exhort  the  faithful  to  recite  the  Creed,  the 
Lord's  Prayer,  and  the  Hail  Mary,  and  they  are  constantly 
to  collect  the  children  of  their  parish  together  for  instruc- 
tion, and  to  see  that  there  are  one  or  two  of  the  more  ad- 
vanced capable  of  teaching  their  companions  these  prayers. 

1  Brit.  Mus.  Add.  MS.,  15,352,  ff.  132,  136.  "  Wilkins,  i.  572. 


58     HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

They  are  also  to  warn  all  parents  and  heads  of  families, 
whom  they  fear  to  be  negligent  in  these  matters,  of  their 
obligation  to  instruct  their  children  and  servants  in  their 
religion,  or  at  least  to  see  that  they  are  so  instructed  by 
others.1 

After  affirming  the  strict  obligation  of  the  existing  laws 
as  to  clerical  celibacy,  and  pointing  out  that,  by  the  legisla- 
tion of  the  late  general  council,  persistence  in  offences 
against  continence  would  entail  suspension  and  deprivation, 
the  constitution  passes  on  to  treat  of  the  duty  of  charity, 
imposed  upon  the  clergy  by  their  high  calling.  All  priests 
and  beneficed  ecclesiastics  are  "bound,  according  to  the 
measure  of  their  revenues  and  resources,  to  dispense  charity 
and  not  to  manifest  avarice  where  the  poor  are  concerned." 
This  law,  Bishop  Marsh  reminds  his  clergy,  is  the  more 
binding  on  monks  and  religious  generally,  in  as  much  as  by 
their  profession  they  are  bound  to  a  stricter  form  of  life, 
and  this  clause  in  the  constitution  concludes  with  a  solemn 
warning  about  this  duty.  "  Those  who  abuse  the  patrimony 
of  the  Crucified,  either  by  living  a  life  of  luxury,  or  by  not 
practising  the  virtue  of  charity,"  it  says,  "  shall  be  punished 
according  to  the  canons,  when  we  shall  have  information  of 
such  people." 

Then  follow  some  minute  instructions  as  to  the  sacra- 
ments; their  number,  meaning,  effects  and  due  administra- 
tion, are  treated  of  systematically.  In  regard  to  baptism, 
for  instance,  after  a  careful  explanation  of  the  effects  and 
intention  of  the  sacrament,  etc.,  the  clergy  are  prohibited 
from  exacting  or  taking  any  fees  for  its  administration. 
Out  of  reverence,  too,  the  font  is  to  be  kept  locked,  and  the 
holy  oils,  necessary  for  the  due  performance  of  the  rites, 
are  to  be  preserved  in  a  safe  place  in  a  proper  baptistery, 
1  Wilkins,  i.  573. 


ECCLESIASTICAL  REORGANISATION       59 

which  is  never  to  be  used  for  any  other  purpose.  When,  in 
case  of  need,  baptism  has  to  be  administered  in  a  private 
house,  the  vessel  made  use  of  for  the  purpose  is  not  again 
to  serve  for  any  profane  purpose,  but  is  either  to  be  destroyed 
or  given  to  the  Church.  The  priest  is  charged  to  ask  lay 
people  constantly  whether  they  are  acquainted  with  the 
form  of  the  Sacrament,  in  either  Latin,  French,  or  English, 
which  they  may  have  to  use  in  case  of  need. 

After  baptism,  children  should  be  confirmed  by  the 
bishop,  and  if  through  the  negligence  of  their  parents  they 
have  not  received  that  sacrament  before  the  age  of  seven 
years,  the  father  and  mother  are  to  be  prohibited  from 
coming  into  their  parish  church  until  the  child  has  been 
taken  to  the  bishop.1 

If  priests  are  negligent  in  this  matter,  they  are  to  be 
punished  with  like  severity,  and  if,  when  any  adult  comes 
in  Lent  to  confession  he  is  found  to  be  unconfirmed — and 
upon  this  point  the  priest  is  warned  to  inquire — he  is  to  be 
sent  at  once  to  the  bishop  to  receive  this  sacrament  at  his 
hands.  In  the  same  thorough  and  careful  way  these  Durham 
constitutions  of  1222  treat  of  the  other  sacraments,  and 
they  together  form  a  complete  manual  of  teaching  on  the 
theology  of  the  Church's  sacramental  system,  and  on  the 
practical  administration  of  the  sacred  rites. 

At  Easter,  in  the  year  1222,  which  fell  upon  April  3rd, 
a  few  months  after  his  return  from  Rome,  Archbishop 
Langton  held  a  provincial  synod  at  Oxford.  In  this  as- 
sembly the  bishops  published  a  joint  constitution  in  fifty 
chapters  or  sections.  As  a  preamble  to  this  they  pro- 
claimed an  excommunication  against  several  classes  of 
disturbers  of  the  rights  of  the  Church  and  of  the  king. 
Amongst  these  were  included  those,  for  example,  who  in- 

1  Wilkins,  i.  576. 


60     HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

fringe  upon  the  liberties  of  the  Church,  or  seek  to  deprive 
it  of  its  privileges;  those  who  disturb  the  peace  of  the  king 
or  endeavour  to  detain  property  that  of  right  is  his ;  those 
who  give  false  witness,  or  cause  it  to  be  given ;  those  who 
make  false  charges,  or  seek  to  deprive  patrons  of  their 
right  of  presentation  to  benefices,  etc. 

The  body  of  the  constitution  deals  with  the  life  and 
duties  of  all  classes  of  society.  Bishops,  for  example,  are 
warned  to  be  charitable  to  all  in  need ;  to  be  ever  ready  to 
hear  and  decide  causes  submitted  to  them ;  to  hear  confes- 
sions personally  at  times;  to  reside  at  their  cathedral 
churches  and  to  be  present  at  the  public  services  during 
Lent  and  sometimes  on  Saints'  days.  Twice  a  year  they 
are  to  read,  or  have  read  to  them,  the  promises  made  by 
them  at  the  time  of  their  consecration  to  the  episcopal 
office,  and  to  consider  with  themselves  whether  they  have 
acted  in  accordance  with  their  solemn  vows.  The  clergy 
generally  are  strictly  enjoined  in  accordance  with  the  com- 
mands of  the  General  Council  to  feed  the  flock  committed 
to  them  "  with  the  food  of  God's  word  lest  they  should  de- 
servedly be  adjudged  to  be  dumb  dogs,"  and  they  are  bidden 
to  remember  the  Scripture  promise  that  in  the  last  judge- 
ment day  "  those  who  have  visited  the  sick  will  be  rewarded 
in  the  eternal  kingdom,"  and  for  this,  if  for  no  other  reason, 
they  ought  to  "hasten  with  joy  to  the  sick  whensoever 
they  are  called." l 

In  this  code  of  ecclesiastical  laws  minute  regulations  are 
also  made  about  the  care  of  the  churches  with  their  orna- 
ments and  books,  all  of  which  have  to  be  examined  period- 
ically by  the  archdeacons.  Vicars  are  not  to  be  appointed 
or  approved,  unless  they  promise  to  reside  in  the  cures 
committed  to  them ;  and  the  bishop  is  charged  to  see  that 
1  Wilkins,  i.  586. 


ECCLESIASTICAL  REORGANISATION       61 

a  proper  provision  is  always  made  for  their  support,  that 
they  may  not  be  tempted  to  beg,  or  look  to  obtaining  any- 
thing for  their  spiritual  ministrations.  In  their  dress  the 
clergy  are  to  show  themselves  to  be  ecclesiastics,  avoiding 
display  and  worldly  pomp,  and  in  their  lives  they  are  to  be 
free  from  every  stain  of  incontinence. 

Besides  these  general  directions  for  the  good  ordering 
of  English  clerical  life,  special  statutes  are  incorporated  into 
these  constitutions  dealing  with  religious  and  monastic 
observance.  The  sacraments  are  also  treated  of  with  minute 
care,  and  great  stress  laid  upon  the  importance  of  confirma- 
tion and  the  necessity  of  not  delaying  its  reception.  Adults, 
who  have  not  been  confirmed,  are  to  be  urged  not  to  wait 
till  the  bishop  might  come  to  the  place  where  they  reside; 
but  after  having  made  their  confessions  they  were  urged 
to  go  to  any  church  where  the  sacrament  was  to  be  ad- 
ministered. 

To  the  foregoing  provisions  of  the  Oxford  synod,  by 
which  Archbishop  Langton  and  his  suffragans  hoped  to 
secure  adequate  religious  teaching  and  uniformity  of  clerical 
life,  the  diocesan  decrees  attributed  to  Bishop  Poore,  of 
Salisbury,  do  not  add  very  much.  Several  points,  however, 
are  emphasised,  and  one  or  two  of  the  provisions  made 
somewhat  more  stringent.  In  regard  to  preaching,  the 
Sarum  constitutions  refer  to  the  order  of  the  Lateran 
Council,  which  commands  all  bishops  who  were  them- 
selves unable  to  preach  in  their  dioceses,  to  provide  fitting 
substitutes,  so  that  this  plain  duty  be  not  in  any  way  neg- 
lected. The  clergy  of  the  diocese  are  charged  to  allow 
these  substitutes  to  preach  freely  to  the  people  and  to  give 
them  every  help,  temporal  and  spiritual,  in  this  work.  In 
regard  to  teaching  generally,  Bishop  Poore's  statutes  direct 
that  "a  proper  support  be  found  for  the  master  who  in- 


62     HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

structs  poor  scholars  gratuitously  in  grammar,  that  by  such 
means  the  necessities  of  the  teacher  be  relieved  and  the 
path  of  the  learner  be  made  easy  for  him." l 

About  this  time  the  presence  in  England  of  a  number 
of  papal  officials,  collectors  and  beneficed  clerks,  led  to  the 
abuse  of  papal  letters,  and  to  the  circulation  of  forged  briefs 
of  protection  and  privilege.  The  genuine  documents  were 
numerous  enough,  and  it  would  seem  to  be  not  improbable 
that,  in  some  instances  at  least,  the  holders  of  the  false 
Roman  letters  were  not  aware  that  they  were  forgeries,  and 
produced  them  in  all  innocence.  Two  cases  at  this  period 
in  the  diocese  of  Worcester  will  serve  to  illustrate  this 
matter.  The  first  had  to  do  with  the  cathedral  monastery 
itself,  and  is  related  in  the  annals  of  that  house.8  It  is  well 
to  note  that,  although  the  writer  of  the  Worcester  story 
would  no  doubt  put  the  best  side  forward,  the  main  lines 
of  his  account  are  confirmed  by  other  documents.  In  1221 
the  convent  received  a  letter  of  privilege  from  the  pope,  or 
rather  a  document  that  purported  to  have  emanated  from 
the  Curia,  and  which,  so  far  as  any  evidence  goes,  the 
monks  believed  to  be  genuine,  and  with  reason,  as  it  was 
obtained  through  a  papal  cursor.  By  this  document  it  was 
declared  that  neither  the  prior  of  Worcester  nor  his  suc- 
cessors were  to  be  removable  by  the  bishop  at  will,  and 
that  they  could  only  be  deposed  from  their  office  after  a 
trial  presided  over  by  judges  appointed  by  the  pope.  The 
bishop  refused  to  recognise  these  letters  and,  declaring 
them  to  be  spurious,  appealed  to  the  Holy  See.  The  prior 
set  out  for  Rome  on  2$rd  November,  1221,  to  plead  his 
cause  in  person,  taking  with  him  from  the  convent  letters 
of  credit  for  four  hundred  marks,  over  and  above  the  forty 
marks  he  had  in  his  purse  for  current  expenses.  Whilst  he 

1  Wilkins,  i.  600.  a  Annales  Man.,  iv.  414^. 


ECCLESIASTICAL  REORGANISATION       63 

was  away,  according  to  the  Worcester  annals,  the  bishop 
continued  to  harass  the  monks  in  many  ways;  and  his 
agents  in  Rome  succeeded  in  establishing  their  objections 
against  the  genuineness  of  the  letters.  On  26th  March,  1222, 
Pope  Honorius  directed  the  bishop  to  proceed  against  the 
prior  and  convent  for  pleading  these  forged  documents,1 
and  two  days  later  gave  him  power  to  appoint  the  prior  of 
his  cathedral  monastery  "  according  to  custom." 2 

The  acting  prior  was  suspended  by  the  pope,  and  at  his 
order  was  promptly  deposed  by  the  bishop,  who  also  ap- 
pointed William  the  Norman  in  his  place.  The  majority  of 
the  community  then  appealed  to  the  archbishop;  upon 
which  the  bishop  retaliated  by  distributing  suspensions, 
excommunications,  and  other  ecclesiastical  pains  and  pen- 
alties, until  Cardinal  Langton  interposed  his  authority  and 
sequestered  the  priory.  At  this  point,  apparently,  the  de- 
posed prior,  Simon,  arrived  back  from  Rome,  absolved  from 
his  suspension.  On  3rd  June,  1222,  Pope  Honorius  had 
written  to  bid  the  bishop  deal  favourably  with  him,  in  con- 
sideration of  his  former  services  to  the  house.3  And  upon 
the  ex-prior  finding  that  he  had  been  deposed  in  his  ab- 
sence, he  again  appealed  to  the  Holy  See.  On  this,  the 
bishop  promptly  excommunicated  him,  and  again  the  ex- 
prior  Simon  went  to  Rome  to  plead  his  cause  personally  at 
the  Curia.  The  case  dragged  on  into  the  next  year,  and 
even  the  death  of  the  prior  abroad  did  not  terminate  the 
proceedings,  as  the  monks  pressed  for  a  decision  of  the  case 
on  its  merits.  On  23rd  July,  1223,  consequently,  Pope 
Honorius  addressed  his  letters  to  the  abbot  of  Reading  and 
others  to  inquire  into  the  whole  matter.4  Finally,  however, 
through  the  good  offices  of  Archbishop  Langton  and  others, 

1  Brit.  Mus.  Add.  MS.,  15,352,  f.  138.  *  Ibid.,  f.  141. 

8  Ibid.,  f.  145.  *  Ibid.,  f.  196. 


64     HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

to  whom  the  affair  had  been  committed  by  the  Holy  See, 
this  long  and  disedifying  quarrel  was  made  up  by  the  re- 
tirement of  the  episcopal  nominee  and  the  appointment  of 
an  outsider — a  monk  of  Tynemouth — to  the  office. 

About  the  same  time  a  somewhat  similar  case  arose  in 
regard  to  Tewkesbury  Abbey.  On  ist  July,  1222,  the  pope 
directed  the  bishop  of  Ely  and  others  to  inquire  into  the 
genuineness  of  privileges  produced  by  the  abbot,  which 
were  supposed  to  be  spurious.  They  were  to  examine  the 
abbot  personally,  and  were  to  see  and  consider  what  evi- 
dence he  could  produce  in  favour  of  the  alleged  privileges. 
Apparently  their  preliminary  inquiry  was  satisfactory,  for, 
although  their  reply  is  not  known,  there  were  at  the  time, 
so  far  as  appears,  no  further  proceedings  in  the  matter. 
Later  on,  however,  other  complaints  were  formulated  against 
the  abbot  by  two  of  the  monks,  who  wrote  to  inform  the 
pope  that  their  superior  was  making  use  of  pontificalia, 
mitre,  gloves  and  ring,  and  that  they  did  not  believe  that 
the  letters  upon  which  he  claimed  the  privilege1  were 
genuine.  Pope  Honorius  thereupon  appointed  another  com- 
mission, but  to  judge  from  a  letter  written  by  the  pope  on 
9th  June,  1226,  the  abbot  appears  to  have  been  able  to 
give,  if  not  a  satisfactory,  at  least  a  sufficient  explanation. 

During  this  period  of  ecclesiastical  reorganisation,  diffi- 
culties arose  between  religious  houses  and  bishops,  mainly 
on  the  question  of  jurisdiction.  These  cases  were  few  in 
number  and  were  mainly  confined  to  those  places  where 
the  monks  formed  the  cathedral  chapter  of  the  diocese. 
As  a  whole,  the  system  of  monastic  canons  existing  in  so 
many  dioceses  of  England,  contrary  to  what  might  have 
been  supposed,  worked  without  much  friction;  but  here 
and  there  differences  and  quarrels  became  accentuated  and 
'  Brit.  Mus.  Add.  MS.,  15,352,  ff.  220,  223. 


ECCLESIASTICAL  REORGANISATION      65 

led  to  appeals  and  counter  appeals.  In  1221,  for  example, 
a  serious  disagreement  broke  out  between  the  monks  of 
Durham  and  their  bishop,  Richard  Marsh,  which  lasted  for 
many  years  and  involved  the  convent  and  the  bishop  in 
heavy  expenses.  The  story  is  told  by  Roger  de  Wendover 
at  considerable  length,  and  although,  of  course,  the  facts  are 
regarded  from  a  monk's  point  of  view,  so  far  as  we  have 
other  means  of  judging,  they  seem  to  be  put  honestly  and 
correctly.  The  differences  first  grew  out  of  a  desire  on  the 
part  of  the  bishop  to  change  or  abrogate  some  of  what,  from 
long  usage,  the  monks  had  come  to  regard  as  customs  and 
liberties,  over  which  he  had  no  jurisdiction.  The  bishop 
demanded  inspection  of  documents,  which  the  prior  refused ; 
whereupon — that  is  if  the  chronicles  are  to  be  believed — his 
lordship  told  them  that  they  would  live  to  regret  their  refusal, 
and  that  he  would  never  leave  them  in  peace  as  long  as  he 
lived.  One  thing  led  to  another,  till  at  length  the  religious 
appealed  to  the  pope  for  protection,  and  formulated  a  series 
of  accusations  against  the  bishop.  Honorius  III  wisely  deter- 
mined to  appoint  a  commission  in  the  country  to  inquire 
into  the  whole  matter.  The  bishops  of  Salisbury  and  Ely 
were  delegated  for  the  purpose,  and  ordered  the  monks  to 
furnish  them  with  a  statement  of  their  grievances.  The 
agents  of  the  Durham  community  had  set  forth  a  list  of  ac- 
cusations against  Bishop  Marsh,  which  were  serious  enough, 
if  true,  but  which  now  impress  the  reader  with  a  sense  of 
exaggeration.  This  is  perhaps  hardly  to  be  wondered  at, 
for  by  this  time  the  northern  blood  of  both  parties  was  up, 
and  either  side  was  ready  to  believe  the  worst  about  the 
other.  The  pope  consequently,  declaring  that  he  could  no 
longer  shut  his  ears  to  reports  and  accusations,  ordered  the 
above-named  bishops  to  inquire  into  the  facts,  and  report. 
On  receipt  of  the  papal  commands,  the  commissioners 

F 


66     HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

summoned  witnesses  to  Durham,  commanding  all  abbots, 
priors,  archdeacons,  and  others,  lay  as  well  as  ecclesiastics, 
who  might  have  evidence  to  give,  to  come  thither.  The 
bishop  was  far  from  satisfied:  when  the  pope's  letter  had 
been  read,  his  proctors  raised  many  difficulties,  and  in 
his  name  appealed  directly  to  the  Holy  See,  refusing  to 
leave  the  issue  to  any  commission.  Without  delay,  Bishop 
Marsh,  sending  his  agents  before  him,  set  out  for  Rome, 
personally  to  plead  his  case.1  He  was  followed  at  once  by 
the  monks.  Neither  side  gained  by  the  bishop's  move,  for 
after  "  many  arguments  before  the  pope  and  a  great  expendi- 
ture of  money  both  on  the  part  of  the  bishop  and  of  the 
monks,"  Honorius  sent  the  case  back  for  the  facts  to  be 
determined  by  the  commission  he  had  previously  ap- 
pointed. Without  any  apparent  reason,  to  judge  from  the 
letters  which  occur  in  the  papal  registers,  the  dispute  was 
prolonged  for  two  or  three  years.  In  1225  the  pope,  after 
complaining  of  the  obstacles  which  had  constantly  been 
placed  in  the  way  of  a  settlement,  directs  that  a  final  decision 
be  given.  But,  writes  the  chronicler, "  once  begun,  the  strife 
lasted,  as  the  bishop  had  foretold,  until  his  death  put  an 
end  to  it."  * 

One  other  appeal  made  to  Rome  at  this  period  to  settle 
a  question  of  jurisdiction  may  be  here  recorded.  In  1221, 
Eustace,  the  newly  consecrated  bishop  of  London,  claimed 
complete  jurisdiction  over  the  Abbey  of  Westminster.  The 
monks  appealed  to  Rome,  and  Pope  Honorius  appointed 
Cardinal  Langton  and  others  to  inquire  into  the  merits  of 
the  case  and  to  decide  it  once  for  all.  This  they  did  the 
following  year,  declaring  that  the  Abbey  was  altogether 

1  It  would  seem  from  "Papal  Registers"  (ed.  Bliss),  i.  f.  78,  somewhat 
doubtful  whether  Bishop  Marsh  really  went  to  Rome.  R.  de  Wendover  (ii.  259) 
says,  ' '  Romanam  adivit  curiam. " 

a  Roger  de  Wendovei,  ii.  257-259. 


ECCLESIASTICAL  REORGANISATION      67 

independent  of  the  See  of  London  and  was  consequently 
not  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  bishop.  The  abbot,  more- 
over, they  declared,  possessed  the  right  of  asking  any  bishop 
to  bless  him,  to  ordain  his  subjects,  or  to  confirm  within  the 
limits  of  his  jurisdiction.  He  might  also  obtain  the  holy 
oils  from  any  bishop  or  place  he  pleased.1  At  the  same 
time,  however,  to  take  a  third  example  where  the  decision 
was  given  on  other  lines,  the  abbot  and  monks  of  St.  Mary's, 
York,  refused  to  acknowledge  the  right  of  the  archbishop 
to  make  a  canonical  visitation  of  their  house.  In  this  case, 
also,  upon  appeal  being  made  to  the  judgement  of  the  Holy 
See,  the  archbishop  had  stated  his  conviction  that  the 
papal  letters,  upon  the  strength  of  which  exemption  was 
claimed,  were  not  genuine.2  Pope  Honorius  consequently 
ordered  an  examination  to  be  made  of  the  incriminated 
documents,  and,  upon  their  being  declared  spurious  and 
void  in  law,  the  archbishop  was  given  the  full  right  of 
visitation  "  even  if  the  privilege  of  exemption  had  existed." 3 
At  the  same  time,  it  is  clear  that  in  this  case  the  pope  did 
not  throw  the  blame  upon  the  abbot  of  knowingly  using 
forged  documents  to  support  his  claims  against  the  arch- 
bishop, for  almost  at  the  same  date  as  the  decision  against 
the  validity  of  the  charters  was  given,  Honorius  issued  a  bull 
to  the  abbot  and  convent  of  St.  Mary's,  forbidding  any  arch- 
bishop or  bishop  to  exact  any  fees  for  blessing  the  abbot. 

The  real  history  of  these  forgeries  of  papal  documents 
seems  obvious.  The  enormous  amount  of  business  of  all 
kinds,  which  during  this  reign  was  transacted  with  the 
Curia,  created  not  only  a  large  body  of  agents  always 
ready  to  transact  affairs  at  Curia,  and  always  expecting  to 
be  well  paid  for  their  work,  but  also  a  number  of  unscrupu- 

1  Matthew  Paris,  iii.  71-75.         *  Brit.  Mus.  Add.  MS.,  15,352,  f.  277. 
3  Ibid.,  ff.  308,  310;  cf.  Wilkins,  i.  598. 


68     HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

lous  adventurers,  who  were  ready  to  forge  papal  documents 
when  they  were  unable  to  carry  out  the  business  committed 
to  them  as  they  desired,  or  as  the  easiest  and  most  certain 
way  of  satisfying  their  clients  and  obtaining  their  reward. 
This  manufacture  of  spurious  documents  was  rendered  all 
the  more  easy  by  the  distance  which  separated  England 
from  Rome ;  the  fact  that  such  privileges  would  seldom  be 
questioned,  and  from  the  absence  of  any  systematic  regis- 
tration in  the  Roman  Curia.  The  mass  of  business  trans- 
acted by  the  papal  chancery  at  this  time  is  so  enormous, 
even  as  regards  England  alone,  that  it  is  not  really  very 
surprising  to  find  that  a  large  proportion  of  the  Roman 
letters,  bulls,  and  briefs,  etc.,  were  never  entered  in  the  papal 
Regesta.  It  is  obvious  that  this  fact  would  facilitate  the 
work  of  the  would-be  forger,  and  there  can  be  no  reasonable 
doubt  that  many  spurious  documents  were  accepted,  and 
the  bearers  paid  for  their  trouble  in  procuring  them,  in  all 
good  faith.  On  9th  May,  1225,  Pope  Honorius  III  directed 
the  attention  of  the  English  bishops  to  the  serious  evil 
being  wrought  by  means  of  these  falsarii — these  manu- 
facturers of  false  documents — and  subsequently,  by  the 
command  of  the  nuncio  Otho,  the  bishops  ordered  all  who 
claimed  to  possess  any  papal  dispensation,  whether  of  non- 
residence  in  their  cures  or  for  plurality  of  benefices,  etc.,  to 
present  their  letters  for  inspection  and  verification.  On 
many  of  the  original  papal  letters  of  this  period  may  still  be 
seen  the  certificate  of  their  having  passed  this  examination. 
During  these  years  of  reorganisation,  which  the  English 
ecclesiastics  undertook  at  the  first  peaceful  moment  that 
had  been  known,  whether  in  Church  or  State,  since  the 
troubled  days  of  King  John,  the  pope's  direct  and  directing 
action  is  everywhere  manifest.  Nothing  was  apparently 
too  small  to  escape  his  attention,  nothing  too  trivial  not  to 


ECCLESIASTICAL  REORGANISATION      69 

have  a  claim  on  his  fatherly  consideration.  The  number 
and  variety  of  subjects,  upon  which  his  personal  judgement 
was  sought  and  his  authority  invoked,  cannot  but  amaze 
anyone  who  will  take  the  trouble  to  consult  the  pages  of 
his  Registers  and  the  English  records  of  the  period.  Thus, 
within  the  limits  of  the  brief  period  of  the  three  years,  be- 
tween the  departure  of  Pandulph  and  the  coming  of  Otho, 
when  Langton  was  acknowledged  almost  for  the  first  time 
in  his  archiepiscopate,  as  the  ecclesiastical  chief  of  the 
Church  of  England,  there  is  ample  evidence  of  the  pope's 
direct  action  in  guiding  the  policy  and  framing  the  legis- 
lation of  the  reviving  ecclesiastical  life. 

From  the  very  nature  of  the  case  and  the  multiplicity 
of  subjects  treated  of  in  the  papal  letters,  it  is  almost  im- 
possible to  give  the  reader  any  idea  of  the  matters  sub- 
mitted at  this  time  to  the  Curia,  or  the  vast  interests  dealt 
with  by  the  pope.  For  the  benefit  of  those  who  cannot 
examine  the  collections  of  documents  for  themselves,  al- 
most at  haphazard  the  following  may  be  noted  as  samples 
of  the  ordinary  business  of  the  Roman  courts  during  this 
period.  First,  marriage  cases,  entailing  complicated  ques- 
tions of  law  and  fact,  as  well  as  the  application  of  principles 
of  justice,  are  offered  for  decision.  To  take  one  such.  The 
all-powerful  de  Burgh,  the  justiciar,  is  in  a  difficulty  for 
which  he  prays  the  pope's  consideration.  He  states  that 
he  had  been  forced  by  the  legate  Pandulph  to  marry  the 
king's  sister.  The  marriage  was  not  by  his  free  act,  what 
is  he  to  do  ?  What  may  he  do  in  the  matter?  Then  all  the 
questions  about  impropriations  of  livings  to  religious  houses, 
and  they  were  numerous  enough  in  those  days,  came  up 
for  the  consideration  of  the  supreme  authority.  Generally 
they  were  not  settled  so  readily  as  we  might  suppose,  and 
frequently  commissions  had  to  be  appointed  to  get  at  the 


70     HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

facts,  or  finally  determine  the  grant.  Some  special  religious 
houses  at  this  period  seem  to  have  claimed  a  great  deal 
of  attention.  Thus  Sempringham  and  the  Gilbertines  ap- 
pear as  the  frequent  recipients  of  papal  documents.  Then 
all  the  many  questions,  which  arose  out  of  the  settlement 
of  property  on  religious  houses,  were  referred  to  the  Curia 
for  approval ;  and  some  monasteries  were  for  ever  asking 
for  new  privileges,  or  seeking  confirmation  of  old  ones. 
Questions  about  elections,  and  the  confirmation  of  those 
elected  or  promoted,  are  constantly  arising ;  provisions 
have  to  be  made  to  benefices,  and  dispensations  of  all  sorts 
have  to  be  granted.  Amongst  the  special  matters  dealt  with 
at  this  time,  may  be  named  the  English  Augustinian  Order 
in  general,  and  their  general  chapters  in  particular;  the 
affairs  of  the  English  Templars,  about  which  there  are 
many  documents  in  the  Registers ;  the  question  of  the  pro- 
priety of  translating  the  relics  of  St.  Birinus  at  Dorchester, 
which  was  relegated  to  Archbishop  Langton.  In  one  year 
the  Abbey  of  Abingdon  has  four  documents  in  regard  to 
privileges ;  whilst  many  letters  and  bulls  deal  with  in- 
quiries into  the  sanctity  of  Saint  William  of  York,  and  that 
of  Saint  Hugh  of  Lincoln,  and  with  the  process  of  their 
canonisation. 

Besides  these  and  such  like,  which  must  be  taken  as 
mere  samples  of  the  great  business  of  the  Curia,  there  are, 
of  course,  many  documents  of  more  general  and  national 
importance.  Thus  the  attitude  of  Llewellyn  of  Wales  is 
dealt  with  in  many  papal  documents,  and  the  English 
bishops  are  directed  to  excommunicate  him  and  place  his 
possessions  under  an  interdict.  Again:  by  means  of  the 
influence  of  the  legate  Pandulph,  Reginald,  king  of  the 
Isle  of  Man,  had  surrendered  his  kingdom  to  the  pope,  and, 
like  King  John,  had  acknowledged  Honorius  as  his  suzerain. 


ECCLESIASTICAL  REORGANISATION       71 

The  bishop  of  the  islands  had  died  and,  in  accordance  with 
immemorial  custom,  the  abbot  and  monks  of  Furness  had 
elected  a  successor  and  had  sent  him  to  the  archbishop  of 
Dublin  for  his  confirmation  and  consecration.1  These  were 
received,  but  Reginald  refused  to  allow  him  to  set  foot  in 
his  diocese,  and  it  was  only  after  long  negociations  and  the 
writing  of  many  letters  that  the  matter  was  arranged  by 
the  submission  of  Reginald.  Pope  Honorius  III  reminds 
him  in  1223  that  Divine  Providence  had  made  him  king 
that  he  might  watch  over  the  interests  of  the  Church  as  his 
first  care,  and  urges  him  to  make  an  adequate  provision 
for  the  support  of  the  clergy. 

The  pope,  during  this  period,  also  continued  to  keep  his 
hand  upon  the  helm  of  the  ship  of  State,  of  which  he  was 
the  unquestioned  suzerain.  To  take  some  examples :  on  26th 
May,  1222,  Honorius  wrote  to  the  king's  council  on  what 
he  regarded  as  certainly  an  infringement  of  ecclesiastical 
liberties.  He  understood,  he  says,  that  the  archbishop  of 
York  was  being  sued  in  a  secular  court,  in  regard  to  the 
presentation  to  a  benefice  by  one  Richard  de  Percy.  The 
late  legate  Gualo,  on  the  previous  vacancy  of  the  living, 
had  specially  declared  that  the  claimant  had  no  title  what- 
ever. But  whether  he  had  or  not,  the  king's  justices  must 
at  once  be  prohibited  from  dealing  with  the  case,  since  to 
do  so  "would  be  to  interfere  with  the  liberties  of  the 
Church."  And,  continues  the  Pope,  "  it  is  not  proper  that 
we  should  tolerate  this  quietly."  He,  therefore,  warns  the 
Council  to  stop  the  proceedings  without  delay,  "  so  that  we 
may  not  be  compelled  to  proceed  further."  The  letter  is 
indorsed :  "  a  letter  is  to  be  written  that  in  the  matter  of 
the  prebend  there  is  no  plea  of  laymen  in  a  civil  court." a 

1  Brit.  Mus.  Add.  MS.,  15,352,  f.  25. 
a  P.  R.  O.  Papal  Bulls,  Bundle  L,  No.  5. 


72     HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

Six  months  after  the  departure  of  Pandulph,  the  legate, 
from  England,  the  pope  was  called  upon  to  interfere  in  the 
case  of  the  earl  of  March.  The  earl  had  promised  Pan- 
dulph to  make  peace  with  the  English  king,  and  to  settle 
the  points  of  difference  between  them  by  the  restoration  of 
the  royal  castles  and  other  property.  The  dean  of  Bor- 
deaux was  ordered  to  see  that  these  promises  were  carried 
into  effect  within  a  reasonable  time,  and  if  not,  to  excom- 
municate the  earl  with  his  aiders  and  abettors,  and  to  place 
his  lands  under  an  interdict.  In  June,  1222,  nothing  had 
been  done,  and  Pope  Honorious  writes:  "  We  neither  ought 
nor  will  allow  our  commands  to  be  eluded  by  any  man's 
cunning,  or  set  at  nought  by  delays,  and  as  you  should  not 
abuse  our  kindness  in  granting  respites,"  we  direct  that  the 
sentence  of  excommunication  be  promulgated,  if  the  mat- 
ter is  not  finished  by  St.  Andrew's  day.1 

A  week  later  a  similar  letter  was  written  by  the  pope, 
at  the  English  king's  request,  to  the  archbishop  of  Poitou, 
in  which  he  blames  him  for  not  showing  himself  faithful  to 
Henry,  as  Honorius,  auctoritate  nostra,  had  ordered  him  to 
do,  and  as  he  had  promised  the  legate  Pandulph  to  do 
when  released  from  the  sentence  of  excommunication 
under  which  he  lay  for  siding  with  the  king's  enemies. 
He  was  again  to  be  suspended,  unless  he,  too,  by  St. 
Andrew's  day,  had  satisfied  the  English  king  as  to  his 
loyalty.  After  that,  both  he  and  the  prelates  who  sided 
with  him  would  be  compelled  to  come  to  the  Curia  to  be 
absolved  from  their  suspension.2 

On  Qth   November   of  the   same  year,   1222,  Henry, 

through  de  Burgh,  wrote  to  the  dean  of  Bordeaux  and 

others,  reminding  them  that  "  according  to  the  jurisdiction 

committed  to  you  by  the  Lord  Pope,  still  in  force,"  you  are 

1  Rymer,  i.  169.    The  document  is  wrongly  entered  under  1223.       a  Ibid. 


ECCLESIASTICAL  REORGANISATION       73 

bound  "  to  proceed  to  the  sentence  of  excommunication 
against  the  earl  of  March  and  others,  according  to  the 
Apostolic  commands,"  if  by  the  feast  of  St.  Andrew  their 
peace  had  not  been  made  with  the  king. 

In  the  same  way,  and  almost  at  the  same  time,  King 
Henry  had  invoked  the  pope's  assistance  in  dealing  with 
Llewellyn  of  Wales.  The  English  king  complained  that 
although  Llewellyn  was  his  liege,  that  prince  had  been 
in  constant  rebellion  against  him  ever  since  his  accession 
to  the  throne. 

For  a  time,  indeed,  through  the  influence  and  authority 
of  the  legate  Gualo,  he  had  been  brought  to  obedience,  and 
during  that  period,  trusting  to  his  fidelity,  certain  castles 
had  been  committed  to  his  charge.  Constant  difficulties 
had,  however,  occurred,  till  once  more,  and  "  for  the  fifth 
time,"  the  prince  was  brought  to  reason  by  the  legate  Pan- 
dulph,  acting  on  behalf  of  the  pope.  On  that  occasion,  in 
the  legate's  presence,  and  in  that  of  nearly  all  the  nobles 
and  prelates,  Llewellyn  had  sworn  obedience,  the  pope  be- 
ing asked  to  confirm  the  terms  of  the  agreement.  Matters, 
however,  were  not  really  greatly  improved ;  and  in  October, 
1223,  in  spite  of  the  admonition  of  Archbishop  Langton, 
Wales  was  once  again  in  a  state  of  rebellion.  For  this 
reason,  writes  Pope  Honorius  in  his  letter,  "the  king  has 
himself  humbly  requested  us  that  we  would  deign  to  put 
an  end  to  such  insolence  against  him  and  his  kingdom,  and 
according  to  the  •  tenor  of  the  petition  shown  to  us  in  his 
behalf,  deal  with  one  who,  in  accordance  with  our  orders 
to  the  archbishop  and  bishops  of  England  to  prevent  by 
every  means,  spiritual  and  temporal,  any  disturbances  of 
king  and  kingdom,  had  been  excommunicated  by  them, 
and  had  had  his  lands  placed  under  an  interdict.  Unwill- 
ing, therefore,  to  allow  his  supreme  authority  to  be  set  at 


74     HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

defiance  any  longer,  the  pope,  on  5th  October,  directed  the 
archbishop  of  York  to  have  the  sentence  of  excommunica- 
tion published  in  all  churches,  and  to  see  that  every  eccle- 
siastical function  was  prohibited  throughout  the  principality. 
By  the  same  document,  all  prelates  or  clerics  who  had  aided 
him,  or  who  continued  to  do  so,  were  declared  suspended, 
and  would  have  to  apply  personally  to  Rome  for  their 
absolution.  After  the  lapse  of  six  months,  if  Llewellyn  did 
not  come  to  reason  and  make  satisfaction,  he  was  to  be 
warned  that  he  could  only  obtain  release  from  his  ex- 
communication by  presenting  himself  personally  to  the 
pope.1 

In  the  course  of  the  year  1223,  fresh  difficulties  arose 
as  to  the  holding  of  royal  castles  against  the  king's  wish. 
Henry  had  applied  to  the  pope  to  compel  all  who  held 
them  to  surrender  their  charges  into  his  hands.  Honorius 
had  complied  with  this  request,  and  a  curious  point  was 
now  proposed  for  the  papal  decision.  Could  even  the  king, 
after  the  pope's  order  as  to  the  surrender  of  the  castles, 
permit  some  of  them  to  be  held  by  his  former  guardians  ? 
Honorius  was  approached  to  obtain  a  solution  of  this 
doubt,  and  on  2oth  November,  1223,  replied:  "We  have 
been  humbly  asked  on  your  behalf  (the  following  difficulty): 
Certain  letters  have  been  received  from  us,  by  which  we 
ordered  our  venerable  brother,  the  bishop  of  Winchester, 
and  our  beloved  sons,  Ralph,  earl  of  Chester,  Hubert  de 
Burgh,  justiciar,  and  Falkes  de  Breaute,  to  surrender  their 
charges  and  their  care  of  the  royal  castles  into  your  hands ; 
but  because  occasion  of  discord  may  arise  from  this  com- 
mand, since,  like  faithful  subjects,  they  are  ready,  on  a 
proper  occasion,  to  give  an  account  of  their  stewardship, 
and  since  there  are  no  hands  to  which  these  charges  may 

1  Rymer,  i.  180. 


ECCLESIASTICAL  REORGANISATION      75 

be  more  safely  committed,  will  we  allow  this  order  in  their 
regard  to  remain  void?  Now,  seeing  that  the  said  letters 
were  issued  for  your  benefit,  and  asked  for  and  granted  for 
that  end,  you  should  not  be  compelled  to  act  upon  them. 
But,  lest  it  should  seem  that  they  were  issued  without  con- 
sideration, we  conclude  not  to  withdraw  them  further  than 
to  declare  that  they  need  riot  be  acted  upon  against  your 
will."1 

The  same  messengers,  who  returned  with  the  above 
reply  to  the  king's  question,  brought  letters  from  the  pope 
to  the  archbishops  and  bishops.  These,  according  to  the 
chroniclers,  contained  the  declaration  of  Honorius,  that 
King  Henry  "  must  now  be  accounted  of  full  age,  and  be 
looked  on  henceforth  as  the  chief  ruler  of  his  kingdom, 
which  he  would  govern  with  the  advice  of  his  subjects." 
By  these  same  letters  the  pope  bade  the  bishops  convey  to 
the  barons  his  "  Apostolic  orders  "  about  the  surrender  of 
the  royal  castles  already  referred  to.  Those  that  refused  to 
comply  with  this  command  on  receipt  of  the  royal  letters 
were  to  be  compelled  to  obedience  by  means  of  the  spiritual 
sword.2 

The  pope's  orders  were  received  by  many  of  the  nobles 
with  open  expressions  of  disapprobation.  Some  met  toge- 
ther secretly  and  determined  to  disobey  the  command  and 
take  the  consequences.  The  rumour  of  resistance,  and  es- 
pecially the  mention  of  the  word  "  schism,"  which  had  been 
whispered  at  the  meeting,  alarmed  the  bishops,  and  strength- 
ened them  in  their  resolution  to  support  the  king  and  obey 
the  pope  to  the  letter.  The  barons  persevered  in  their  in- 
tention. Their  discontent  showed  itself  first  against  the 
justiciar  de  Burgh,  whom  they  regarded  as  chiefly  re- 

1  Royal  Letters,  i.  539. 
a  Matthew  Paris,  iii.  79. 


76     HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

sponsible  for  procuring  from  Rome  the  orders  of  which 
they  disapproved.1 

On  1 8th  December,  1223,  King  Henry  wrote  to  the  pope 
on  the  situation.  "  By  means  of  the  many  benefits  conferred 
by  your  great  affection,"  he  writes,  "  we  have  come  out  of 
the  cloud  into  the  sunshine,  and  by  your  help  have  been 
established  in  the  rule  of  our  kingdom.  This  we  rightly 
regard  as  your  work."  But,  over  and  above  other  benefits  we 
have  received  from  you,  we  account  this  the  greatest,  that 
by  your  Apostolic  letters  your  Holiness  has  declared  your 
wish  that  we  should  have  the  free  administration  of  our 
castles  and  of  our  other  affairs.  For  this  we  render  you  our 
best  thanks,  and  believe  that,  with  the  cordial  help  of  the 
archbishop  of  Canterbury,  the  bishop  of  Winchester,  and 
the  other  English  bishops,  and  by  the  powerful  assistance 
of  Hubert  de  Burgh,  and  other  faithful  nobles,  the  country 
will  experience  peace  and  prosperity.  Henry  then  goes  on 
to  say  that  some  of  the  barons  are  endeavouring  to  stir  up 
dissensions,  and  that  he  fears  they  may  have  already  written 
to  him.  For  this  reason  he  sends  his  envoys,  and  hopes 
Honorius  will  listen  to  their  account  of  the  real  state  of 
parties  in  the  country.  They  will  also  tell  him  of  the  dili- 
gent care  with  which  the  archbishop  of  Canterbury  is 
carrying  out  the  pope's  orders,  and  finally  the  king  begs 
that  the  pope  will  write  at  once  to  the  nobles  who  are 
faithful  to  him,  to  encourage  them.  At  the  same  time 
Henry  wrote  to  Gualo,  the  former  legate,  asking  his  help 
for  his  messengers  to  obtain  speech  with  the  pope,  in  order 
that  the  true  situation  in  England  might  be  understood.2 

The  royal  agents  also  carried  with  them  to  Rome  letters 
from  Hubert  de  Burgh  and  other  nobles  on  the  king's 
side  addressed  to  Pope  Honorius.  They  first  thank  him 

1  Roger  de  Wendover,  ii.  273.  s  Rymer,  i.  171. 


ECCLESIASTICAL  REORGANISATION         77 

for  his  watchful  care  and  defence,  and  for  that  of  his  legate 
Pandulph,  over  "your  most  devoted  son  and  our  lord, 
Henry  the  illustrious  king  of  England."  "  For  indeed," 
they  write,  "your  Holiness  has  been  pleased  to  exercise 
your  authority  in  promoting  his  every  good,  and  in  further- 
ing his  every  interest  in  a  way  beyond  all  praise.  But  seeing 
that  you  have  never  refused  nor  feared  to  undertake  the 
greatest  burdens  and  labours,  and  have  never  spared  your- 
self to  make  sure  his  rule  over  us,  we  do  not  hesitate  to  beg 
your  Holiness,  with  loving  insistence,  to  continue  your 
efforts,  and  to  prevent  what  has  been  brought  thus  far 
safely,  from  being  trodden  under  foot  by  the  enemy  of  man- 
kind." They  then  go  on  to  inform  the  pope  that  they  un- 
derstand that  many  who  are  against  both  himself  and  their 
king  are  endeavouring  to  get  the  weight  of  his  supreme  au- 
thority on  their  side.  They  consequently  desire  to  warn 
him,  and  they  not  only  hope  that  he  will  refuse  to  counten- 
ance their  opponents,  but  also  prevent  the  return  of  such 
disturbers  of  the  public  peace  to  England.  "  In  order  that 
our  meaning  on  this  matter  be  fully  made  known  to  your 
Holiness,"  they  say  in  conclusion,  "we  would  have  your 
Holiness  to  know  for  certain  that  under  no  stress  of  necessity 
will  we  draw  back  ever  so  little  from  our  devotion  to  the 
Apostolic  See  and  our  fidelity  to  the  king."  1 

The  Christmas  of  1223  was  spent  by  the  king  at  North- 
ampton with  Langton  and  the  other  English  bishops.  Here, 
after  celebrating  the  Mass  of  St.  Stephen,  the  archbishop 
and  his  suffragans,  vested  in  albs  and  carrying  lighted  can- 
dles, solemnly  published  the  papal  excommunication  against 
all  disturbers  of  the  peace  of  the  kingdom,  and  against  all 
who  attacked  the  rights  of  the  Church.  The  earl  of  Chester 
and  his  followers,  who  headed  the  revolt  against  the  papal 

1  Rymer,  i.  171. 


78     HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

decision  as  to  the  restitution  of  the  royal  castles,  were  then 
at  Chester,  and  thither  the  archbishop  sent  messengers  to 
tell  all  whom  it  might  concern,  that  if  by  the  following  day 
the  royal  possessions  were  not  delivered  up,  he  would  pro- 
nounce them  excommunicate  by  name,  according  to  the 
orders  received  from  the  pope.  The  barons  at  Leicester,  fear- 
ing that  they  were  not  strong  enough  to  resist,  and  dreading 
that  Langton  would  proceed  to  extremities  as  he  had  threat- 
ened, came  into  Northampton  and  surrendered  the  royal 
possessions  as  they  had  been  ordered  to  do  by  the  pope.1 

It  seems  probable  that  the  real  instigator  of  the  rebellion 
against  the  king  was  the  bishop  of  Winchester,  Peter  de 
Rupibus ;  and  the  cause  may  be  sought  in  his  hostility  to 
the  still  all-powerful  justiciar,  de  Burgh.  In  the  early  Jan- 
uary of  1224,  the  bishop  secured  by  his  influence  and  repre- 
sentations in  Rome,  the  dispatch  of  a  letter  of  remonstrance 
from  the  pope  to  Henry.  In  this  document  Honorius  re- 
minded the  English  king  of  what  both  his  father  and  he 
himself  owed  to  the  bishop  "  at  a  time  of  great  need ;  "  and 
he  declares  that  he  "  has  heard,  and  since  hearing  has  not 
ceased  to  wonder,"  how  Henry  had  apparently  forgotten 
these  benefits  and  interfered  with  the  undoubted  rights  of 
the  bishop's  See.  He  warns  him  not  to  act  in  such  a  way  as 
to  offend  him  and  the  Apostolic  See,  which  has  the  Church 
of  Winchester  under  its  special  protection.  The  pope  goes 
on  to  explain  what  it  was  that  the  bishop  complained  of  spe- 
cially. De  Rupibus  had  intended  to  pay  a  visit  to  Rome 
on  his  way  to  the  Holy  Land  to  consult  the  Holy  Father 
about  the  fulfilment  of  his  vow  and  "  other  business  of  his 
See."  No  doubt  it  was  not  considered  desirable  that,  whilst 
the  difficulties  between  the  barons  and  the  king  were  pend- 
ing, one  who  was  in  sympathy  with  the  recalcitrant  nobles, 

1  Roger  de  Wendover,  ii.  276. 


ECCLESIASTICAL  REORGANISATION       79 

or  at  any  rate  hostile  to  the  justiciar,  should  be  permitted 
to  throw  in  with  the  opposition  the  weight  of  his  influence 
at  the  Curia.  Still,  Honorius  resented  the  prohibition,  and 
declares  that  he  cannot  comprehend  how  any  bishop  can 
be  prohibited  from  "  coming  to  us  and  to  the  Roman  Church 
his  mother,  for  this  is  really  no  more  an  injury  to  him  than 
it  is  to  us  and  the  Apostolic  See."  The  pope  hoped,  there- 
fore, that  the  rumour  might  prove  to  be  false,  and  that 
Henry  has  not  been  so  far  "  forgetful  of  the  reverence  due 
to  the  Apostolic  See  and  to  the  true  fidelity  of  the  said 
bishop,"  neither  of  which  ought  he  at  any  time  to  forget.1 

We  do  not  possess  the  reply  made  on  the  king's  behalf 
to  the  pope's  letter ;  but  there  is  evidence  that  the  royal 
agents  did  not  get  the  ear  of  the  pontiff  so  completely  as 
they  expected.  An  event,  in  the  summer  of  the  year  1224, 
shows  that  some  powerful  influence  was  at  work  in  Rome 
adverse  to  Henry's  interests.  Amongst  the  hostile  barons 
was  one  Falkes  de  Breaute,  a  man  of  infamous  character, 
but  one  who  nevertheless  somehow  or  other  succeeded  in 
securing  Honorius's  powerful  protection.  He  had  long  been 
famous,  or  infamous,  in  England  for  his  crimes,  and  for 
setting  all  laws  at  defiance  almost  as  he  pleased.  This  year 
his  evil  courses  reached  a  climax.  He  was  summoned 
before  the  king's  justices  at  Dunstable,  to  answer  to  more 
than  thirty  writs  for  having  robbed  various  people,  and  he 
was  condemned  to  pay  heavy  fines  to  the  king.  De  Breaute, 
upon  hearing  this,  sent  soldiers  from  Bedford  Castle  to 
seize  the  persons  of  the  judges.  Two  of  them  escaped,  but 
one  of  them,  Henry  de  Braibroc,  was  unfortunate  enough 
to  fall  into  the  hands  of  the  baron's  retainers,  and  was 
thrust  into  a  dungeon  at  Bedford.  Braibroc's  wife  appealed 
to  the  king  ;  and  upon  the  refusal  of  Falkes's  party  to  set 

1  Royal  Letter s>  i.  218. 


8o     HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

the  ill-fated  judge  at  liberty,  the  archbishop  and  bishops 
solemnly  excommunicated  Falkes  and  his  retainers,  and 
the  king  laid  siege  to  the  castle.  This  stronghold,  however, 
for  a  long  time  resisted  all  efforts  to  capture  it,  and  before 
it  fell  Falkes  de  Breaute"  had  escaped  into  Wales.  When, 
after  some  weeks,  the  castle  was  taken,  the  king  hanged 
most  of  the  defenders,  amongst  whom  was  William  de 
Breaut6,  Falkes's  brother.  Upon  this,  the  latter  made  his 
submission  and  was  handed  over  to  the  custody  of  the  bishop 
of  London,  until  such  time  as  it  should  be  determined  what 
to  do  with  him,  besides  depriving  him  of  all  his  property.1 

Before  this,  however,  and  whilst  the  siege  of  Bedford 
Castle  was  actually  in  progress,  the  pope  intervened  in  de 
Breaute^s  behalf.  On  i/th  August,  1224,  he  wrote  to  the 
king,  reminding  him  that  he  had  frequently  warned  him  to 
deal  with  his  subjects  in  "  a  spirit  of  mildness,"  and  "  to 
strive  to  keep  peace  and  concord."  In  spite  of  all  these 
admonitions,  he  hears,  he  says,  with  grief  that,  "  despising 
these  warnings,  you  have  rashly  taken  up  arms  against 
that  noble  man,  Falkes  de  Breaut6,  who  in  time  of  need 
has  risked  his  life  and  property  for  your  father  and  for 
yourself."  Those  who  have  counselled  you  in  this  are  as 
unwise  as  they  are  faithless.  It  is  not  the  time  to  turn  your 
arms  against  your  own  subjects.  "  Even  if  they  have  gravely 
injured  you,  at  the  present  moment  you  should  rather  strive 
to  win  them  by  your  royal  favours  to  unite  heartily  in  de- 
fence of  your  kingdom  and  yourself.  .  .  .  We  warn  your 
Highness,  therefore,  and  earnestly  exhort  you,  as  well  as 
strictly  order  you  by  these  Apostolic  letters,  at  once  on 
sight  of  them,  to  desist  from  the  siege  of  de  Breaut6's  castle 
without  delay,  and  not  to  punish  the  foresaid  nobleman,  nor 
allow  him  to  be  punished  in  any  way."  Then  after  saying 

1  Dunstable  Annals  (Ann.  Monastui,  iii.),  5;  cf.  Wendover,  ii.  279. 


ECCLESIASTICAL  REORGANISATION      81 

that  should  the  king  have  anything  against  de  Breaute",  he, 
the  pope,  will  himself  be  surety  for  him,  he  concludes: 
"Prefer  not  any  other  counsels  to  our  salutary  admoni- 
tions and  commands;  but  do  what  we  suggest  and  order 
as  you  trust  to  our  favour  and  help." l 

To  Cardinal  Langton,  Honorius  wrote  on  this  subject 
in  a  manner  even  more  peremptory.  "  We  have  not  yet," 
he  says,  "  been  able  to  force  our  mind  to  credit  what  has 
been  suggested  to  us  about  you  by  many,  though  they  have 
striven  to  enforce  the  truth  of  what  they  say  by  many 
evidences.  We  thought  indeed  of  that  eminent  knowledge 
of  Divine  Scripture  which  you  possess  ;  of  that  upright- 
ness, which  you  should  have  put  on  with  the  bishop's  office 
and  dignity;  and  of  that  abundance  of  love  which  has  been 
shown  to  you  by  the  Apostolic  See  in  so  many  ways  ;  and 
turning  these  things  over  in  our  mind,  we  could  not  bring 
ourselves  to  think  anything  evil  or  unworthy  of  you."  The 
pope  then  goes  on  to  say  that,  whilst  Langton's  agents  were 
representing  that  "  all  things  in  England  were  peaceful  and 
tranquil,  so  as  to  prevent  by  every  means  in  their  power 
the  mission  of  any  legate,"  others  were  "  telling  us  of  dis- 
turbances in  the  kingdom  and  eagerly  beseeching  us  to 
dispatch  a  legate  thither."  Trusting  to  you,  "  though  not 
indeed  without  suspicion  (for  why  do  you  fear  the  eyes  of 
the  Apostolic  See),  we  desisted  from  our  design  to  send 
thither  a  legate,  and  determined  to  send  simple  messengers. 
When  they  were  ready  to  start,  so  that  in  two  days'  time 
they  would  have  left  the  city,  your  letters  arrived  contain- 
ing assurances  that  peace  was  fully  established  in  England." 
Upon  this  the  orders  to  the  nuncio  were  recalled.  Im- 
mediately after,  however,  "  we  were  informed  by  the  other 
side,"  of  the  king's  attack  upon  Falkes  de  Breaut6,  and  of 

1  Royal  Letters,  i.  544. 
G 


82      HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

the  fact  "  that  you  with  other  bishops  had  published  an 
excommunication  against  him  and  his.  What  can  you  say 
to  this?  Will  you  reply,  that  after  your  letters  had  been 
dispatched  to  us  discord  broke  out  against  your  expecta- 
tion? If  so,  why  did  you  not  inform  us  about  it  at  once? 
Perhaps  you  will  say,  that  justice  required  arms  to  be  taken 
up  against  the  foresaid  noble?  But  most  certainly  prudence 
would  have  required  the  contrary,  and  at  the  present  time 
prudence  should  rather  be  considered.  Where  then  is  your 
great  wisdom,  if  it  has  been  done  by  your  advice?  We  con- 
sequently warn  your  Fraternity,  and  strictly  order  you,  by 
our  Apostolic  letters  that  .  .  .  you  cause  the  king  at  once 
to  abandon  the  siege  of  the  said  noble,  and  that  you,  with- 
out delay  or  difficulty,  relax  the  sentence  you  have  laid 
upon  him  and  his  followers."  By  so  doing,  and  "  faithfully 
carrying  out  our  order,  you  may  justify  our  trust  in  you  and 
give  us  greater  hope  of  your  love." J 

Henry  replied  to  the  pope  with  firmness  and  dignity. 
The  case  of  the  bishop  of  Winchester,  as  well  as  that  of 
Falkes  de  Breaute"  had  evidently,  he  says,  been  misrepre- 
sented to  him.  He  had  acted  by  the  advice  of  those  who 
knew  the  circumstances,  and  he  details  some  of  the  doings 
of  de  Breaute,  for  which  it  had  been  considered  necessary 
to  punish  him,  that  the  pope  might  understand  that  the 
very  order  of  the  kingdom  demanded  peremptory  satis- 
faction from  the  man  whom  the  pope  had  gone  out  of  his 
way  to  defend.* 

The  correspondence  was  dropped ;  but  the  pope's  mind 
seems  still  to  have  been  set  on  protecting  de  Breaute,  and 
there  can  be  little  doubt  that  this  was  one  reason  which 
prompted  him  to  take  up  once  more  his  design  of  sending 
a  nuncio,  about  which  he  had  told  Langton. 

1  Royal  Letters,  543.  a  Ibid.,  224. 


CHAPTER  V 

THE  NUNCIO  OTHO 

IN  the  year  1225  the  needs  both  of  the  king  of  England 
and  of  the  pope  became  pressing.  In  some  way  or  other 
money  had  to  be  procured  from  the  English  people  to  carry 
on  the  administration  of  the  kingdom  and  of  the  Church. 
The  situation  both  in  England  and  in  Rome  was  extremely 
critical.  In  England  the  authorities  of  the  Church,  headed 
by  Cardinal  Langton,  were  resolved  to  resist,  as  far  as  they 
lawfully  might,  the  growth  of  exactions  on  the  part  of  the 
Curia,  regarding  them  as  tending  inevitably  to  the  utter 
ruin  of  religion  in  this  country.  In  concert  with  the  nobles, 
too,  they  were  equally  resolved  to  give  no  more  aids  to  the 
king,  unless  he  would  pledge  himself  under  the  most  solemn 
oaths  to  grant  those  measures  of  liberty  which  he  had  long 
promised  them,  but  which  under  one  pretext  or  another  he 
had  hitherto  managed  to  evade.  This  was  the  situation 
when  the  pope  determined  to  send  over  a  nuncio  to  expedite 
the  business  in  which  he  was  chiefly  interested ;  namely, 
the  procuring  of  money  for  the  work  of  the  crusades,  and 
the  securing  of  some  of  the  best  ecclesiastical  benefices  in 
England  with  which  to  reward  those  whose  services  were 
necessary  to  carry  on  the  general  administration  of  the 
Church. 

In  preparation  for  this  mission,  as  early  as  the  beginning 
of  February,  1225,  Pope  Honorius  III  endeavoured  to  gain 
a  favourable  reception  from  the  king  for  his  representative. 


84     HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

He  urged  the  English  bishops  to  help  Henry  liberally  out 
of  their  ecclesiastical  revenues,  and  shortly  after  directed 
his  legate  in  France,  Romanus,  to  induce  Louis  of  France 
to  act,  in  regard  to  matters  in  dispute  between  the  two 
kingdoms,  in  such  a  way  that  the  rights  of  England  might 
be  preserved,  and  Henry  might  realise  that  he  had  found 
in  Honorius  his  natural  protector.1 

The  needs  of  the  sovereign  had  already  been  set  before 
the  parliament,  which  met  at  Westminster  shortly  after  the 
close  of  the  Christmas  festivities,  in  January,  1225.  Hubert 
de  Burgh,  on  behalf  of  Henry,  drew  a  melancholy  picture 
of  the  foreign  troubles  and  misfortunes  of  the  nation,  by 
which  not  only  the  king,  but  many  of  the  nobles  had  suffered 
the  loss  of  their  foreign  estates.  As  much  was  at  stake,  and 
because,  if  the  fortunes  of  the  British  arms  could  not  be  re- 
trieved, the  general  interests  of  the  country  at  large  would 
be  placed  seriously  in  jeopardy,  he  asked  that  the  entire 
nation  should  rally  to  the  king's  assistance  with  a  generous 
gift  of  money.  He  suggested  that  an  aid  of  a  fifteenth  part 
of  all  movables,  ecclesiastical  as  well  as  lay,  would  be  suffi- 
cient to  enable  the  king  to  defend  the  rights  of  the  Crown 
and  to  reclaim  the  national  inheritance  over  the  sea. 

Cardinal  Langton  and  the  other  prelates  discussed  the 
matter  with  the  lay  peers  and  agreed  upon  a  common  reply 
to  the  royal  demands.  They  would  willingly  grant  the  pro- 
posed tax,  they  said,  provided  that  the  king,  upon  his  part, 
would  grant  those  liberties  which  the  nation  had  sought  for 
so  frequently,  but  had  not  been  able  to  obtain.  "  Moved  by 
his  desire  to  obtain  the  money,"  says  Matthew  Paris, 
"  Henry  consented,  and  forthwith  the  royal  Charters  were 
dispatched  under  the  king's  seal  into  every  county,  and 
judges  were  appointed  to  view  the  forests  and  determine 

1  Bouquet,  Recueil  dcs  Historiens  des  Gaules  et  de  la  France,  torn.  xix.  767. 


THE  NUNCIO  OTHO  85 

their  limits.1  Simultaneously  the  royal  agents  were  directed 
to  gather  in  the  aid  of  a  fifteenth,  by  which  these  privileges 
had  been  purchased  for  the  nation.  Even  at  the  time,  how- 
ever, in  the  minds  of  many,  there  were  not  wanting  suspi- 
cions of  the  king's  honesty  of  purpose,  which  subsequent 
events  showed  were  not  unwarranted." 

Rumours  of  the  difficulties  which  existed  between  Henry 
and  his  nobility  seemed  to  have  reached  Rome  early  in  the 
year  1225,  and  Pope  Honorius  addressed  a  letter  of  gentle 
admonition  to  the  English  king.  "  We  rejoice  in  the  Lord," 
he  says,  "  and  render  Him  thanks  because  your  agents  have 
told  us  and  our  brethren  (the  cardinals  in  Curia)  that  in  al1 
things  you  act  in  such  a  praiseworthy  way,  that  the  flowei 
of  your  youth  seems  to  give  certain  promise  of  pleasing  and 
acceptable  fruit.  We  are  the  more  grateful  for  this  since  we 
embrace  you  and  your  subjects  with  the  arms  of  sincere 
affection. 

"  But  the  souls  of  men,  like  their  faces,  are  various  and 
different  according  to  the  saying  of  the  poet : 

'  Mille  nominum  species,  et  rerum  discolor  usus 
Velle  suum  cuique  est,  nee  voto  vivitur  uno.' 2 

"  Remembering  this,  since  you  are  the  common  lord  of  all 
in  your  kingdom,  it  is  well  that  you  should  strive  to  act 
fairly  to  all,  showing  yourself  kind  and  favourable  to  every 
one.  If  differences  arise,  as  among  so  great  a  number  will 
happen,  take  neither  the  one  side  nor  the  other,  but  correct, 
rule  and  govern  all  with  like  affection,  care  and  watchful- 
ness. In  this  way  your  subjects,  seeing  in  you  the  upright- 
ness proper  to  your  royal  dignity,  will  not  hesitate  to  leave 
their  cause  to  your  decision,  and  will  put  their  trust  in  you 
as  every  loyal  vassal  does  in  his  loving  lord,  and  every 
dutiful  son  in  his  affectionate  parent. 

1  Matthew  Paris,  iii.  91.  *  Persius,  Sat.,  v.  52. 


86     HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

"  We  therefore  beg  your  Highness  to  write  these  prin- 
ciples carefully  on  the  tablets  of  your  heart.  Lay  them  up 
in  the  treasure-house  of  your  mind  and  make  use  of  them 
when  need  shall  be.  In  particular,  we  would  counsel  your 
Highness  and  suggest  in  all  good  faith  to  you,  that  at  this 
time  you  should  not  exact  a  full  account  from  your  vassals, 
nor  alienate  them  by  requiring  the  full  payment  of  your 
revenues.  This  settlement  and  other  matters  which  might 
cause  discontent  you  should  prudently  defer  to  an  oppor- 
tune occasion.  We  would  beg  you  to  recognise,  however, 
that  your  agents,  whom  we  send  back  to  you  with  every 
commendation  for  their  fidelity,  have  presented  your  re- 
quests on  these  and  other  matters,  and  have  strenuously 
and  with  insistence  laboured  to  promote  them.  Some  of 
them  we  have  granted ;  others,  by  the  advice  of  our  breth- 
ren, we  have  thought  proper  to  defer  for  a  season.  We 
think  this  is  expedient  at  present ;  but  when  the  time  is 
fitting,  we  will  listen  to  these  requests  and  any  others  you 
may  think  proper  to  urge,  for  we  love  you  with  the  fullest 
affection,  as  the  special  son  of  the  Roman  Church.  We 
have  hitherto  striven  to  secure  your  peace  and  that  of  your 
kingdom  within  and  without,  even  when  we  have  not  been 
asked,  and  by  every  watchful  care;  we  will  continue  to 
guard  this  for  you,  and  to  afford  you  the  favour,  grace, 
counsel  and  help  of  the  Apostolic  See  in  all  things,  when- 
soever it  is  fitting."  l 

Simultaneously  with  this  letter  of  advice  to  the  young 
king,  the  pope  wrote  strongly  to  the  English  bishops  upon 
the  propriety  of  their  granting  a  subsidy  to  meet  the  royal 
needs  and  arranging  for  its  speedy  and  safe  collection. 
"  The  Church,"  he  says, "  is  ever  ready  to  relieve  the  neces- 
sities of  secular  princes,  by  liberally  affording  them  help 

1  Rymer,  i.  177. 


THE  NUNCIO  OTHO  87 

when  it  is  called  for.  This  is  no  prejudice  to  the  liberty  of 
the  Church,  but  must  be  regarded  rather  as  a  work  of 
charity.  And,  since  our  beloved  son  in  Christ,  Henry,  the 
illustrious  king  of  England,  is  said  to  be  greatly  in  want  of 
your  help,  we  earnestly  request  and  exhort  all  of  you,  and 
by  these  Apostolic  letters  command  you  to  give  him  a  con- 
tribution fitting  to  the  condition  of  your  churches."  Then, 
after  suggesting  provisions  for  the  immediate  collection  of 
this  subsidy,  the  pope  prudently  adds :  "  We  are,  however, 
unwilling  that  this  special  favour  of  ours,  and  the  fact  of 
your  charitable  assistance  should  be  hereafter  pleaded  as 
a  precedent,  or  claimed  as  a  right."  l 

Henry  and  his  advisers,  however,  had  deeper  designs 
than  Honorius  had' contemplated.  The  royal  reply  on  this 
matter  misunderstands — probably  not  undesignedly — the 
pope's  plain  directions  as  to  the  subsidy,  or  the  "  fitting 
help,"  which  the  clergy  were  urged  by  the  pontiff  to  give 
to  their  sovereign.  "  Moved,"  the  king  writes  to  the 
Chapter  of  Salisbury,  "  by  the  pope's  exhortations  to 
come  to  our  help,  or  more  truly  to  their  own  help  in  our 
person,  the  prelates  of  our  country  first  agreed  to  grant  a 
fifteenth  of  their  movables.  But,  as  on  your  liberality 
depends  the  completion  of  the  work  upon  which  we  are 
engaged,  we  earnestly  beg  that  in  your  goodness  you 
will  take  pity  upon  our  needs.  This  indeed  we  look  for 
merely  from  your  good  will,  not  from  any  obligation  on 
your  parts.  By  so  acting,  your  desire  should  be,  through 
your  efficacious  assistance,  to  oblige  us  to  render  thanks  to 
the  Roman  Church  for  the  benefit  it  has  conferred  upon  us 
through  you,  and  to  compel  us  to  be  more  ready  to  assist 
each  and  every  one  of  you  in  any  business  you  may  have. 
Your  desire  should  be,  not  only  to  act  yourselves  in  this 

1  Reg.  S.  Osmundi  (Rolls  ed.),  ii.  57. 


88     HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

way,  but  to  set  an  example  to  others,  which  will  indeed  be 
useful  and  honourable  to  the  Universal  Church  and  the 
entire  clergy."  He  then  goes  on  to  say  that,  by  the  advice 
of  the  archbishop  of  Canterbury  and  other  bishops,  he  has 
directed  his  officers  to  require  a  tithe  of  all  hay  and  mill 
produce  on  lands  held  by  ecclesiastics  from  the  Crown,  and 
he  pledges  himself  to  exact  the  same  for  the  future  from 
the  nobles.1 

In  forwarding  these  letters  to  the  bishops  of  his  province, 
Cardinal  Langton  wrote  reminding  them  of  what  had  been 
agreed  upon.  He  begged  them  to  use  their  influence  with 
all  concerned,  that  the  proposed  tax  might  be  paid  cheer- 
fully. "In  these  days,"  he  writes,  "  grave  needs  are  pressing 
heavily  upon  the  king,  and  considering  how  upright  and 
good  he  is,  and  how  upon  his  peace,  the  peace  of  the  Church 
rests,"  we  have  determined  to  come  to  his  aid  with  a  grant 
of  money,  over  and  above  what  is  usually  given.  And,  al- 
though in  their  meeting  the  bishops  had  determined  upon 
a  fifteenth  as  a  maximum  contribution  from  the  clergy, 
Langton  suggests  that  under  the  circumstances,  and  as  the 
pope  had  urged  them  to  afford  their  sovereign  a  competens 
auxilium  proportionate  to  their  means,  they  should  try  and 
induce  the  ecclesiastics  of  their  various  dioceses  to  make 
the  tax  a  twelfth  part,  or  at  any  rate  a  fourteenth  part,  of 
their  incomes.2 

It  may  readily  be  supposed  that  these  demands  caused 
considerable  misgivings  in  the  minds  of  the  clergy  at  large. 
Many  of  the  secular  priests,  says  one  of  the  contemporary 
chroniclers,  refused  to  pay  the  tax  which  the  bishops  had 
sanctioned,  and  the  king  forthwith  applied  to  the  pope  for 
his  letters  to  compel  them  to  pay.3  In  the  case  of  Salisbury 

1  Reg.  S.  Osmundi  (Rolls  ed.),  ii.  56.  a  Ibid.,  58. 

8  Ann.  Monastici,  iii.  93. 


THE  NUNCIO  OTHO  89 

diocese,  there  exists  the  record  of  meetings  held  by  the 
Chapter  to  consider  the  situation.  On  the  one  hand  they 
did  not  wish,  or  did  not  see  their  way,  to  refuse  the  sug- 
gested "  fitting  help "  to  the  king :  but  on  the  other,  they 
wished  to  secure  that  any  grant  they  might  make  would 
not  be  at  any  future  time  strained  into  a  precedent  to  their 
detriment.  They  could  come  to  no  satisfactory  conclusion. 
It  was  a  matter  of  common  interest,  they  said,  which  made 
it  imperatively  necessary  that  all  the  clergy  should  act  to- 
gether. It  would  constitute  a  danger  to  the  best  interests 
of  the  Church  if  some  were  to  order  or  arrange  for  the 
collection  of  the  tax  whilst  others  held  back.  Any  prema- 
ture action  might  prejudice  the  common  interests  of  the 
English  Church.  The  Salisbury  Chapter  therefore  suggested 
that  the  archbishop  of  Canterbury  should  call  together 
delegates  from  the  various  dioceses  of  England,  who  might 
agree  upon  a  common  answer  to  the  pope,  and  at  the  same 
time,  in  concert  with  the  archbishop,  devise  some  effective 
way  of  obtaining  security  from  the  king  that,  should  the 
tax  be  paid,  he  would  not  try  and  convert  their  free  gift 
into  a  precedent  for  future  taxation.1 

Before  this  proposed  assembly  could  meet,  however,  the 
clergy  had  other  matters  to  engage  their  attention.  In  the 
middle  of  the  year  1225,  rumour  in  this  country  spoke  of 
the  appointment  of  a  papal  chaplain,  Otho,  as  nuncio  on  a 
special  mission  to  England.  Considerable  anxiety  seems 
to  have  been  felt  in  the  country  as  to  the  meaning  of  this 
appointment,  and  various  conjectures  were  made  about  it. 
In  reality,  the  main  object  of  the  embassy  was  to  look  after 
the  interests  of  the  pope  and  the  Curia  in  England ;  but  in 
August,  the  king's  agents,  who  interviewed  the  French 
legate  at  St.  Omer's,  wrote  home  to  say  that  they  suspected 

1  Wilkins,  i.  602  seqq. 


po     HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

that  the  nuncio's  real  mission  was  to  intercede  in  behalf 
of  the  pope  for  Falkes  de  Breaute".  The  papal  legate, 
Romanus,  had  told  them  that,  even  with  him,  Otho  had 
maintained  a  discreet  silence  as  to  the  object  of  his  mis- 
sion, and  that,  though  he  had  shown  him  letters  from 
King  Henry  on  the  subject,  and  had  tried  to  persuade  him 
that  it  would  not  be  prudent  or  politic  to  proceed  to  Eng- 
land, the  nuncio  turned  a  deaf  ear  to  these  suggestions, 
and  declared  his  intention  of  carrying  out  the  instructions 
he  had  received. 

The  legate  Romanus  promised  Henry's  agents  to  try 
and  hinder  Otho  on  his  journey,  and  by  his  advice  they 
wrote  to  their  royal  master  to  suggest  that,  should  the 
nuncio  cross  over  into  England,  the  most  politic  way  would 
be  to  receive  him  with  all  honour,  and  then  to  postpone  the 
consideration  of  any  business  until  such  time  as  his  real 
intentions  could  be  discovered,  when  judicious  delays  could 
easily  be  arranged  to  prevent  anything  being  done.  If  this 
plan  should  fail,  they  hinted  that  no  doubt  Otho  could  be 
induced,  precibus  et  pretiis,  to  wait  quietly  until  such  time 
as  the  king  could  himself  ask  for,  and  receive,  papal  ex- 
planations as  to  the  mission.  Meantime,  at  all  costs,  Otho 
should  be  prevented  from  going  about  England,  and  thus 
perhaps  stirring  up  an  agitation  in  favour  of  Henry's 
enemies  in  general,  and  of  de  Breaut6  in  particular.1 

When  this  letter  was  dispatched  by  the  royal  agents  in 
France,  the  whereabouts  of  Otho  was  not  known,  and  all 
that  was  certain  was  that  he  was  already  well  upon  his 
journey  towards  England.  It  was  a  difficult  situation,  for 
in  a  postscript  the  agents  confessed  that  they  were  really 
in  the  dark,  both  as  to  the  object  of  the  new  papal  mission, 
and  as  to  the  extent  of  the  powers  he  possessed.  It  is  not 

1  Royal  Letter s}  etc. ,  i.  264. 


THE  NUNCIO  OTHO  91 

unimportant  to  notice  that  Otho  was  not  appointed  by 
Honorius  as  his  legate,  but  merely  as  a  nuncio.  It  will  be 
remembered  that  Cardinal  Langton  had  received  the  papal 
promise  that  no  further  legate  should  be  sent  into  England 
as  long  as  he  lived,  and  this  pledge  was  still  kept  unbroken 
in  the  appointment  of  a  nuncio.  The  difference  in  the  two 
offices  is  considerable.  The  presence  of  a  legate  a  latere  in 
a  country,  necessarily  superseded  all  the  ordinary  ecclesi- 
astical jurisdiction,  as  if  the  holder  of  the  office  were  the 
pope  himself;  whereas  a  nuncio  was  merely  a  papal  envoy- 
general,  sent  by  the  pope  for  a  specific  object,  and  possess- 
ing no  extraordinary  powers  or  rights  over  the  existing 
ecclesiastical  hierarchy  of  the  country.  It  is  useful  to  bear 
in  mind  this  distinction,  since  it  in  some  way  explains  the 
advice  given  by  the  legate  Romanus  for  the  reception  of 
Otho  in  England,  as  well  as  what  subsequently  happened, 
partly,  no  doubt,  in  consequence  of  this  advice. 

Meantime  the  royal  agents  abroad  dispatched  mes- 
sengers in  various  directions  to  discover  and  intercept  the 
nuncio.  They  found  him  at  last,  and  having  interviewed 
him,  returned  with  a  letter  from  him  to  those  who  had  sent 
them.  After  thanking  them  for  the  honour  they  had  done 
him  in  sending  their  messengers  to  express  their  esteem 
for  his  high  qualities,  he  proceeds :  "  I  am  astonished  and 
not  a  little  dismayed  to  understand  that  the  lord  king  is 
at  all  angry  or  disturbed  at  my  coming  to  him.  It  is  not 
my  intention  to  do  aught,  or  to  engage  in  any  business 
which  might  issue  in  loss  or  injury  to  him,  nor  is  it  the  de- 
sign of  the  Roman  Curia,  that  has  sent  me,  that  I  should 
do  so.  My  mission  is  rather  for  the  advantage  and  honour 
both  of  the  king  and  of  his  kingdom.  I  therefore  hope  that 
when  I  shall  meet  him  and  shall  have  fully  explained  what 
I  have  been  ordered  to  do,  I  shall  not  only  satisfy  him 


92     HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

about  myself,  but  in  regard  to  the  business  I  have  with  him 
and  with  others,  I  shall  earn  his  gratitude." ' 

The  actual  date  of  Otho's  arrival  in  England  is  un- 
certain. Probably  it  was  in  the  late  autumn  of  1225  that 
he  reached  Dover  bringing  with  him  letters  to  Henry  on 
what  Roger  de  Wendover  describes  as  "  important  business 
of  the  Roman  Church."  2  When  these  were  presented  to  the 
king  they  were  found  to  request  from  England,  what  at  the 
same  time  was  being  demanded  from  all  the  other  Christian 
countries,  and  what  our  Chronicles  have  described  as 
exactiones  indebitas.  Henry  without  hesitation  declared 
that  he  neither  could,  nor  indeed  ought  of  himself  to  give 
any  reply  to  the  papal  demands,  since  they  touched  the 
interests  of  both  clergy  and  laity  and  were  thus  the  business 
of  the  whole  country.  By  the  advice  of  Archbishop  Langton, 
he  consequently  summoned  a  meeting  of  ecclesiastics  and 
laymen  at  Westminster  in  the  early  days  of  January,  1226. 

Meantime  the  nuncio  opened  to  the  king  his  plea  on 
behalf  of  Falkes  de  Breaute,  but  to  this  Henry  absolutely 
refused  to  listen,  saying  that  his  case  had  been  considered 
and  settled  by  the  laws  of  the  land,  and  refusing  to  allow 
any  right  of  interference  to  outsiders.  Repulsed  in  this  way, 
Otho  had  no  alternative  but  to  drop  the  subject,  and  whilst 
awaiting  the  meeting  in  January  amused  himself  by  en- 
deavouring to  extract  "  from  all  the  conventual  churches 
in  England  two  marks  of  silver  under  the  head  of  '  pro- 
curation,'" or  fees  claimed  for  the  support  of  papal  officials 
in  England.3  A  copy  of  his  letter  on  this  subject  is  pre- 
served in  the  register  of  Bishop  Poore  of  Salisbury,  in  which 
he  claims  the  sums  usually  paid  to  legates  and  nuncios, 
and  begs  that  they  may  be  collected  and  forwarded  to 

1  Royal  Letters,  etc.,  i.  270.  2  Ibid.,  ii.  289. 

3  Ibid.,  ii.  290;  cf.  Matthew  Paris,  i;i.  97  seqq. 


THE  NUNCIO  OTHO  93 

London  "  as  quickly  as  possible."  He  adds  that  each 
"  procuration  "  need  not  exceed  the  amount  of  two  marks, 
and  he  begs  the  bishop  to  understand  that  he  has  no  wish, 
"  as  God  knoweth,"  to  make  a  purse  for  himself  out  of  these 
fees,  and  that  they  will  be  spent  "  on  necessities  which  can- 
not be  dispensed  with  "  whilst  he  remains  in  London  on 
the  business  of  the  Holy  See.1 

At  the  beginning  of  Advent,  summonses  were  sent  out 
to  the  bishops,  deans,  archdeacons,  abbots,  and  other  pre- 
lates, to  come  and  "  hear  the  commands  of  the  lord  pope  " 
after  Christmas.2  The  assembly  met  at  Westminster, 
1 3th  January,  1226,  and  included  the  chief  representatives 
of  the  laity  as  well  as  ecclesiastics.  The  king,  however, 
could  not  be  present.  After  spending  the  festival  at  Win- 
chester, he  had  gone  to  Marlborough  on  his  way  to  London, 
and  here  he  was  seized  with  an  illness  which  for  some  days 
endangered  his  life.3  At  the  opening  of  the  parliament, 
Archbishop  Langton  received  the  news  of  King  Henry's 
serious  sickness,  and  was  summoned  away  to  attend  upon 
him;  in  his  absence  and  that  of  the  Sovereign,  the  pro- 
ceedings were  opened  by  Otho.  In  the  presence  of  this 
large  body  of  representative  clergy  and  laymen,  the  nuncio 
read  the  papal  letters  he  had  brought  to  England,  which 
announced  in  plain  terms  what  the  pope  asked  of  English 
churchmen,  and  why.  They  were  almost  a  repetition  of  the 
demands  which  had  been  addressed  the  previous  January 
to  the  archbishop  and  bishops  of  the  country,  but  to  which 
apparently  little  attention  had  hitherto  been  paid.  Like  its 
predecessor,  the  document  now  read  by  Otho  in  parliament, 
began  by  a  general  statement  that  the  pope  was  fully  aware 
that  the  old  scandal  and  disgrace  of  the  Roman  Church 

1  Reg.  S.  Osmundi,  i.  372.  2  Ibid.,  369. 

8  Roger  de  Wendover,  ii.  295. 


94     HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

was  the  stigma  of  avarice  which  rested  upon  it.  This  was 
naturally  the  root  of  all  evils,  and  for  the  one  simple  reason 
above  all  others  that,  without  the  expenditure  of  much 
money  and  the  bestowal  of  many  presents,  no  one  could 
expedite  any  business  in  the  Roman  Curia.  "  And,"  con- 
tinues Pope  Honorius,  in  his  frank  exposition  of  the  la- 
mentable condition  in  which  he  found  the  administration 
of  ecclesiastical  business  in  Rome,  "  since  Roman  poverty 
is  the  cause  of  this  scandal  and  infamy,  all  ought  to  unite 
as  natural  children  to  relieve  the  needs  of  their  mother  (the 
Church  of  Rome)  and  of  their  father  (the  pope).  For,  in 
truth,  unless  we  receive  presents  from  you  and  other  good 
and  honest  men,  the  very  necessaries  of  life  would  be 
wanting  to  us,  which  would  be  altogether  unfitting  to  the 
dignity  of  the  Roman  (Church).  In  order,  therefore,  to  re- 
move this  scandal  once  for  all,  by  the  advice  of  our  brethren, 
the  cardinals  of  the  Holy  Roman  Church,  we  have  con- 
ceived a  certain  scheme  by  means  of  which — that  is  to  say, 
if  you  are  willing  to  accept  it — you  may  free  your  mother 
from  the  breath  of  scandal,  and  be  able  to  obtain  justice  in 
the  Roman  Curia,  without  the  need  of  making  presents." l 

The  papal  plan  was  the  following :  in  every  cathedral 
church  two  prebends,  one  in  the  bishop's  presentation,  and 
one  in  that  of  the  Chapter,  should  be  set  aside  for  the  use 
of  the  pope :  and  in  every  monastery,  where  the  revenue 
of  the  abbot  and  monks  was  divided,  the  pope  should  have 
what  would  be  a  monk's  share,  if  all  the  revenue  of  the 
house  was  portioned  out  equally  among  the  community, 
and  a  similar  amount  from  the  abbatial  revenue. 

The  nuncio  having  read  this  communication,  enlarged 
upon  the  advantages  that  would  follow  from  a  loyal  accept- 
ance of  the  papal  proposals.  When  he  had  finished,  the 

1  Matthew  Paris,  iii.  102-103. 


THE  NUNCIO  OTHO  95 

bishops  and  other  prelates  asked  leave  to  retire  apart  to 
consider  and  freely  discuss  the  matter  amongst  themselves. 
After  some  deliberations  they  agreed  upon  a  joint  reply, 
and  appointing  the  archdeacon  of  Bedford  as  their  spokes- 
man, they  returned  into  the  presence  of  Otho  and  gave 
the  following  answer  to  his  request :  "  Sir,  what  you  have 
proposed  to  us  specially  touches  the  prerogative  of  the 
English  king  and  generally  the  interests  and  rights  of  all 
patrons  of  churches  in  this  realm.  It  touches,  too,  the 
archbishops  and  their  suffragans  as  well  as  numberless  other 
English  prelates.  Since  then  the  king  by  reason  of  his  ill- 
ness is  absent,  and  the  archbishop  and  some  of  the  bishops 
and  other  beneficed  clergy  are  not  here,  we  neither  can  nor 
ought  to  give  you  any  answer  in  their  absence.  Did  we 
presume  to  do  so  we  should  be  prejudicing  the  rights  of  all 
the  absent  prelates." 1 

Otho  was  forced  to  be  content  with  this  refusal  to  give 
him  any  immediate  answer  to  his  requests,  more  especially 
as  messengers  arrived  from  the  king  strictly  prohibiting  all 
prelates  who  held  baronies  from  the  Crown,  from  in  any 
way  pledging  their  lay  fees  to  the  Roman  Church  to  the 
detriment  of  their  service  due  to  him.  The  nuncio  attempted 
to  force  the  assembly  to  fix  another  day,  about  the  middle 
of  Lent,  for  a  meeting  at  which  the  king  and  absent  pre- 
lates might  be  present  and  settle  the  business;  but  even 
to  this  the  assembly  would  not  consent  without  Henry's 
direction,  and  it  was  finally  dissolved  without  having  come 
to  any  conclusion.2 

Otho  never  met  the  adjourned  meeting.  At  the  instance 
of  Archbishop  Langton  the  pope  recalled  him  suddenly  to 
Rome.  In  the  Lent  of  this  year,  1226,  the  nuncio  was  on 
his  way  to  the  north,  for  the  purpose  of  gathering  in  the 

1  Matthew  Paris,  iii.  3.  a  Ibid. 


96     HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

fees  he  claimed  as  due  to  him  for  "  procurations,"  when 
messengers  with  important  papal  letters  overtook  him  at 
Northampton.  These  documents  told  him  to  return  forth- 
with to  the  Curia,  and  took  from  him  all  his  special  powers. 
"  Looking  askance  at  them,"  says  the  chronicler,  "  he  threw 
the  documents  into  the  fire,  and  forthwith  changing  all  his 
plans  he  left  England  in  distress,  and  with  empty  saddle 
bags." 1 

On  the  departure  of  the  nuncio,  Archbishop  Langton 
was  directed  by  the  pope  to  call  a  meeting  of  the  king  and 
prelates  and  to  send  to  Rome  some  reply  to  the  proposals 
made  in  his  name  by  Otho.  In  obedience  to  the  pope,  but 
when  the  late  nuncio  was  well  out  of  the  country,  Langton 
sent  out  a  summons  for  a  council  to  meet  at  St.  Paul's,  in 
London,  on  the  second  Sunday  after  Easter,  4th  May,  1226. 
In  this  assembly,  at  which  the  king  and  all  the  prelates  as- 
sisted, the  archbishop  caused  the  papal  letters  of  demand  to 
be  read.2  This,  no  doubt,  included  not  only  the  documents 
published  and  commented  upon  by  Otho,  in  the  January 
meeting,  but  another  letter  directed  about  this  time  to  the 
bishops  and  prelates  of  England,  which  is  found  in  some  of 
the  episcopal  registers.  This  latter  document  is  important. 
After  a  preamble  on  the  necessity  and  duty  of  keeping  his 
high  office  unsullied,  in  name  as  well  as  in  fact,  Honorius 
writes:  "We  have  often  both  known  of  and  heard  many 
people  murmuring  at  the  expenses  they  were  put  to  in 
coming  to  the  Apostolic  See.  We  are,  of  course,  aware  that 
the  presumption  is  that  such  reports  are  calumnies,  because 
deceitful  lips  and  evil-speaking  tongues,  together  with  flat- 
tering words  spoken  in  public,  are  ever  prone  to  cast  secret 
and  dangerous  darts  in  their  attempt  to  injure  the  Roman 

1  Roger  de  Wendover,  ii.  304. 
*  Ibid. 


THE  NUNCIO  OTHO 


97 


Church.  Such  people  are  ready  by  their  injurious  remarks 
to  deprive  that  Church  not  only  of  what  equity,  love,  and 
favour  would  award  as  its  due,  but  of  what  strict  justice 
requires.  .  .  .  We  have  frequently  found  also  that  we  offend 
in  such  matters  those  who  have  been  sent  to  expedite  busi- 
ness; but  who,  spending  on  their  own  pleasures  money 
given  them  for  necessary  expenses,  have  recourse  to  the 
vile  help  of  untruth,  and  cast  upon  others  the  odium  of 
their  own  guilt. 

"  Seeing,  therefore,  that  by  such  detractors  of  the  Apos- 
tolic See  grave  injury  seems  to  be  done  to  Churches,  prelates 
of  Churches,  and  others,  we  have  carefully  considered  with 
our  brethren  (the  cardinals)  by  what  possible  care  and  means 
we  might  before  God  and  man  provide  a  remedy  against 
such  evils.  In  the  end,  by  God's  grace  and  after  long  and 
full  deliberation,  we  determined  to  initiate  something, 
which  after  all  is  neither  new  nor  unthought  of  by  our  pre- 
decessors. Wishing  to  carry  out  what  our  advisers  have 
helpfully  suggested,  we  direct  that  there  be  reserved  to  us 
in  every  cathedral  and  other  prebendal  church  for  our  own 
use,  one  prebend ;  and  that,  until  such  time  as  this  may  be 
arranged,  there  be  assured  to  us  a  proportionate  revenue. 
In  monasteries  also,  and  all  other  religious  establishments, 
in  collegiate  churches,  and  also  out  of  the  episcopal  re- 
venues, in  place  of  the  prebends,  there  shall  henceforth  be 
reserved  to  us  a  fixed  income,  in  proportion  to  the  revenue. 
The  total  receipts  from  these  will  be  applied  to  our  needs, 
to  those  of  our  brethren  (the  cardinals),  and  to  the  pay- 
ment of  the  staff  of  clerks  in  our  chancery,  and  of  the 
other  officials  of  the  Apostolic  See.  By  these  means  pro- 
vision will  be  made  for  our  necessities  of  life,  and  all  the 
business  of  those  who  come  (to  our  Curia),  will  be  trans- 
acted without  payment,  so  that  neither  openly  nor  secretly 

H 


98     HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

will  anything  be  demanded,  nor  indeed  will  presents  even 
be  received  for  anything,  beyond  the  usual  fees  for  the 
issue  of  Bulls. 

"...  Is  it  not  lawful,  is  it  not  proper,  is  it  not  expedient, 
that  in  such  a  way  daughters  should  reach  out  their  hands 
to  help  their  mother,  who  for  their  sakes  is  occupied  in 
many  and  great  undertakings?  Did  not  many  prelates  and 
men  of  great  influence  urge  this  course  at  the  last  General 
Council?  Did  they  not  then  seem  earnestly  to  wish  it?  But 
at  the  time  it  was  the  Holy  See  that  postponed  the  settle- 
ment of  the  affair,  lest  it  might  appear  to  have  called  the 
Council  for  that  reason.  To  carry  into  effect  this  loving  and 
pious  design,  by  which  the  honour  of  God's  Church  may  be 
greatly  increased,  and  many  occasions  of  maligning  it  be 
removed,  we  beg,  ask,  and  exhort  all  of  you  in  the  Lord, 
and  by  these  our  Apostolic  letters  command  you  to  make 
these  provisions  in  your  cathedral  and  other  churches,  in 
the  way  described."  Finally,  in  order  to  remove  a  standing 
grievance,  the  pope  declared  his  intention,  upon  the  com- 
pletion of  the  suggested  arrangements,  to  direct  that  upon 
the  death  of  "  beneficed  Roman  clerics "  in  England,  the 
cures  should  revert  to  their  original  purpose,  "  lest,"  as  he 
says,  "if  they  should  be  given  to  successive  foreigners, 
as  has  sometimes  happened,  they  become  useless  to  the 
parishioners  of  the  church  continually  residing  there." 1 

When  these  papal  letters  had  been  read  and  their  pur- 
port fully  understood,  Cardinal  Langton  explained  to  the 
assembly  that  similar  proposals  had  been  made  in  France 
and  had  been  rejected  by  the  French  bishops.  In  order 
that  they  might  not  take  a  false  step,  before  having  fully 
grasped  the  situation  in  all  its  bearings,  he  laid  before  them 
a  brief  account  of  the  council  of  Bourges,  which  had  been 

1  Reg.  S.  Osmundi,  i.  366  seqq. 


THE  NUNCIO  OTHO  99 

convoked  in  France  by  the  legate  Romanus  for  the  same 
end  for  which  the  English  meeting  had  been  summoned  by 
the  nuncio  Otho.  At  the  French  synod  there  had  been 
present  the  archbishops  of  Lyons,  Sens,  Rheims,  Rouen, 
Tours,  Bourges, etc.,  with  about  a  hundred  suffragan  bishops, 
as  well  as  a  great  number  of  abbots,  prelates  and  proctors 
of  cathedral  churches.  Before  commencing  the  actual  busi- 
ness, the  legate  had  suggested  that  all  but  the  archbishops, 
bishops  and  abbots  might  return  to  their  cures.  The  proc- 
tors representing  the  various  ecclesiastical  corporations, 
however,  having  got  wind  of  the  demands  about  to  be  made 
by  Romanus  on  the  pope's  behalf,  protested  beforehand 
against  any  attempt  to  take  the  revenues  of  the  prebends 
for  the  support  of  the  Roman  Curia.  The  whole  nation> 
they  declared,  was  against  such  a  scandal,  and  that  the 
king — St.  Louis — and  all  the  prelates  and  priests  of  France 
were  ready  to  resist  to  the  last,  "even  unto  deprivation  of 
every  honour."  "  For,"  concludes  this  outspoken  protest, 
"  this  would  mean  the  ruin  of  the  Church  and  kingdom."  l 

On  the  legate  Romanus  endeavouring  to  explain  the 
advantages  which  might  follow  if  what  the  pope  asked  was 
granted,  the  proctor  of  the  archbishop  of  Lyons  replied  at 
length,  emphasising  in  the  strongest  terms  the  fixed  deter- 
mination of  the  clergy  to  resist  the  proposed  exactions. 
"  The  clergy  feared,"  he  said,  "  even  more  than  the  actual 
demands  now  made,  the  appointment  of  papal  questors  to 
collect  the  papal  revenues,  were  these  demands  granted ;  for 
these  collectors,  under  the  name  of  '  procurations,'  would 
certainly  claim  large  additional  fees  for  their  expenses." 

The  appeal  of  the  spokesman  of  the  French  clergy  to 
the  legate  was  concluded  by  what  reads  almost  like  a 
threat.  "Your  zeal,"  he  said,  "for  the  Universal  Church 

1  Reg.  S.  Osmundi,  ii.  51. 


ioo          HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

and  for  the  Holy  Roman  See  should  move  you  ;  for  it  is  to 
be  feared  that  if  all  are  made  to  feel  the  universal  oppres- 
sion, there  will  be  a  universal  defection,  which  God  forbid !  " 
After  such  plain  speaking  there  was  nothing  for  the  legate 
to  do  but  to  draw  back  as  gracefully  as  he  might.  He 
stated  that  this  demand  which  he  had  put  forward  had 
been  decided  upon  after  he  had  left  the  Curia,  and  that 
personally  he  would  not  have  consented  to  it,  and  indeed 
was  very  sorry  that  it  had  ever  been  made.  He  added 
also  that  he  believed  that  it  was  made  on  the  understand- 
ing that  it  should  not  be  enforced  in  France,  unless  other 
Christian  countries,  the  Empire,  England  and  Spain  were 
willing  to  accept  it.  He  finally  pledged  himself  that  no 
further  attempt  should  be  made  in  this  direction  until  the 
prelates  of  other  countries  had  given  their  assent  to  the 
proposed  taxation,  "  which,"  he  added,  "  I  do  not  think  will 
be  the  case." l 

This  exposition  of  what  had  happened  in  France  left  a 
profound  impression  on  the  English  assembly.  This  is 
evidenced  not  only  by  the  record  in  the  English  chronicles 
of  the  period,  but  also  by  the  full  entry  of  Langton's  account 
in  the  episcopal  register  of  Salisbury.  The  result  of  the 
English  meeting,  in  view  of  what  had  happened  in  France, 
was  a  foregone  conclusion.  When  the  archbishop  finally 
proposed  the  question  to  the  assembled  prelates,  as  he  had 
been  instructed  to  do  by  the  pope's  letters,  "  all,"  says  the 
chronicler,  "  burst  out  into  laughter  at  the  covetousness  of 
the  Romans  who  did  not  understand  the  force  of  the  moral : 

*  Quod  virtus  reddit,  non  copia,  sufficientem 
Et  non  paupertas,  sed  mentis  hiatus,  egentem.' 

To  dispose  finally  of  the  matter,  however,   King  Henry 

1  Reg.  S.  Osmundi,  ii.  54. 


THE  NUNCIO  OTHO  101 

called  the  prelates  and  some  of  the  chief  nobles  apart;  and 
having  talked  over  the  whole  business,  they  gave  the  fol- 
lowing reply  to  the  request  Archbishop  Langton  had  made 
in  the  name  of  Pope  Honorius: 

"  What  the  lord  pope  asks  us  to  do  is  a  matter  which 
affects  the  whole  Christian  world.  We  are  placed,  as  it 
were,  on  the  very  confines  of  the  world,  and  consequently 
desire  to  see  how  other  kingdoms  will  act  in  regard  to  these 
proposed  exactions.  When  we  shall  have  the  example  of 
what  others  do  before  our  eyes,  the  lord  pope  will  not  find 
us  more  backward  in  obedience." 

With  this  reply  given  to  the  demands  of  the  Curia  on 
behalf  of  the  king  and  the  prelates,  the  assembly  was  dis- 
missed.1 

1  Matthew  Paris,  iii.  109. 


CHAPTER  VI 

ENGLISH  ECCLESIASTICAL  POLITICS  FROM  THE 
DEPARTURE  OF  THE  NUNCIO  OTHO  TO  THE 
DEATH  OF  ARCHBISHOP  LANGTON 

WHEN  the  papal  proposals  had  been  disposed  of  in  the 
great  meeting  at  St.  Paul's,  in  the  May  of  1226,  the  Church 
in  England  once  more  returned  to  its  normal  state  of 
government.  The  continued  action  of  the  pope  on  both 
ecclesiastical  and  lay  affairs  is  still,  however,  manifested  in 
the  documents  of  the  period.  Thus,  to  take  one  or  two 
examples  of  his  direction  in  matters  of  state  during  the 
year  1226.  Early  in  the  year,  Honorius  III  writes  to  Guy 
of  Lusignan  blaming  him  for  his  opposition  to  Henry.  He 
reminds  him  that  the  oath  of  fidelity,  by  which  he,  as  a 
vassal,  was  bound  to  the  English  king,  was  held  every- 
where as  a  sacred  obligation.  History  will  teach  him  how 
much  men  who  understood  their  duty  in  this  matter  had 
suffered  rather  than  be  false,  whilst,  "  as  we  have  learnt," 
he  says,  "  from  the  complaints  of  our  beloved  son  in  Christ, 
Henry,  the  illustrious  king  of  the  English,"  you  have  not 
hesitated  without  cause  to  break  your  fealty  to  him.  He 
warns  him  of  his  sin  in  thus  going  back  upon  his  solemn 
word,  and  declares  that  he  is  bound  to  warn  him  to  return 
to  his  duty  to  his  king,  and  being  reconciled  to  his  earthly 
lord,  he  may  know  that  he  has  made  his  peace  with  his 
heavenly  king.  If,  within  a  month,  Guy  de  Lusignan  has 

102 


ENGLISH  ECCLESIASTICAL  POLITICS     103 

not  done  what  the  pope  commands  in  this  matter,  he  is  to 
be  formally  excommunicated.1 

In  the  same  way,  at  this  time,  Pope  Honorius  interested 
himself  in  obtaining  the  pecuniary  assistance,  of  which,  as 
had  been  represented  to  him,  the  English  king  stood  so 
much  in  need.  Thus  he  writes  to  the  archbishops  and 
other  prelates  in  Ireland,  asking  them  to  contribute  liberally 
to  their  sovereign,  out  of  their  ecclesiastical  revenues.  "  The 
liberties  of  the  Church,"  he  says,  "are  not  injured  but  rather 
strengthened,  if,  according  as  times  and  circumstances  de- 
mand, their  defender  is  helped  liberally."  Now  the  English 
sovereign  stands  in  great  need  of  money,  and  "  as  we  have 
ordered  an  aid  to  be  given  to  him  by  the  clergy  of  England, 
we  have  determined  to  exhort,  ask,  and  by  our  Apostolic 
letters  order  all  of  you  "  to  do  the  same,  "  since  the  kingdom 
of  Ireland  is  recognised  as  belonging  to  him."2 

The  pope's  fatherly  care  of  the  young  king  was  mani- 
fested in  many  other  ways.  His  legate  in  France,  Romanus, 
was  directed  to  induce  Louis,  whilst  attacking  the  Albi- 
genses,  to  abstain  from  interfering  in  any  way  with  the 
dominions  of  King  Henry  in  France.3  At  the  same  time 
Honorius  writes  to  the  English  king  warning  him  not  to 
help  Raymund  of  Toulouse  against  Louis.  The  latter,  at  the 
request  of  the  pope,  had  undertaken  to  repress  the  heresy 
that  was  rife  in  the  dominions  of  the  former.  In  making 
this  demand  on  the  French  king  for  this  service  to  the 
Church,  the  pope  had  acted  upon  the  order  of  the  General 
Council,  that  where  any  temporal  ruler  either  could  not  or 
would  not  extirpate  heretical  opinions  in  his  territory,  it 
was  the  duty  of  the  pope  to  invite  someone  else  to  under- 
take the  work.  This  being  so,  Honorius  warns  Henry, 
whom  he  "  loves  with  greater  affection  than  other  princes," 

1  Rymer,  i.  181.  2  Ibid.  3  Bouquet,  xix.  771. 


104  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

not  to  assist  Count  Raymund  in  any  way,  "  for  since  he  is 
excommunicate,  with  all  his  abettors,"  he  says,  "besides 
the  stain  it  will  be  upon  the  purity  of  your  faith  (if  you 
do  so),  it  will  involve  you  in  the  same  sentence  of  excom- 
munication." 1 

On  the  other  hand,  the  pope  exerted  himself,  by  all 
means  in  his  power,  to  preserve  the  peace,  which  was  at 
best  of  a  very  precarious  nature,  between  this  country  and 
France.  His  legate  in  the  latter  country  was  constantly 
warned  to  do  all  in  his  power  to  avert  the  outbreak  of  active 
hostilities  between  the  two  countries,  and  to  secure  a  safe 
conduct  and  a  proper  treatment  for  Henry's  messengers  to 
the  Curia,  whenever  they  were  passing  through  the  French 
king's  dominions.2  Henry  on  his  part,  who  was  on  the  point 
of  invading  France  when  he  received  the  pope's  prohibi- 
tion, read  the  letter  to  his  counsellors,  asked  their  advice, 
and,  in  accordance  with  it,  put  off  his  proposed  expedition.3 
The  king's  brother,  Richard  of  Cornwall,  was  also  forbidden 
by  Honorius  to  take  any  part  against  Louis  during  his 
crusade  against  the  Albigenses  of  Toulouse. 

As  might  be  expected,  the  pope  was  not  always  well 
informed,  in  individual  cases,  about  the  facts.  As  a  rule, 
however,  his  decisions  were  protected  from  error  and  his 
judgements  rendered  sound,  by  the  employment  of  com- 
missioners in  the  country  to  try  the  issues.  Occasionally 
this  useful-  and  necessary  precaution  appears  to  have  been 
neglected,  with  corresponding  evil  results.  One  such  case 
happened  at  this  time  in  regard  to  the  wife  of  Falkes  de 
Breaut6,  whose  case  had  been,  for  some  not  quite  obvious 
reason,  warmly  espoused  by  the  pope.  On  the  submission 
of  de  Breaute",  after  the  fall  of  Bedford  Castle,  the  wife  of 

1  Royal  Letters,  i.  545.          2  Brit.  Mus.  Add.  MS.,  15,352,  ff.  325,  335. 
3  Roger  de  Wendover,  ii.  544. 


ENGLISH  ECCLESIASTICAL  POLITICS     105 

that  noble  pleaded  for  the  king's  protection.  Before  the 
archbishop  of  Canterbury  she  sued  for  a  divorce,  on  the 
ground  that  she  had  been  married  by  force  and  had  never 
given  her  consent.1  She  had  been  the  widow  of  Baldwin, 
earl  of  Albemarle,  and  when  Falkes  de  Breaute  had 
earned  the  gratitude  of  King  John,  in  1213,  by  his  cruelties 
perpetrated  in  Wales,  John,  as  his  reward,  bestowed  the 
Countess  Margaret,  with  all  her  possessions,  upon  him.2 
Archbishop  Langton  appointed  a  day  to  consider  her  case, 
and  finally  her  lands  and  possessions  were  restored  to  her 
by  Henry,  and  she  was  placed  under  the  protection  of  the 
earl  of  Warrenne.3 

The  pope  was  approached  on  the  subject  by  the  friends 
of  Breaut6.  Possibly  the  late  nuncio,  Otho,  on  his  return 
to  Rome,  had  represented  this  aspect  in  the  case,  about 
which  Honorius  was  specially  interested,  in  which  he  had 
taken  the  view  that  the  baron  had  been  unfairly  treated, 
and  to  which  he  had  specially  instructed  its  representative 
to  try  and  secure  a  settlement  with  Henry.  The  report 
that  de  Breaute  had  received  an  additional  injury  in  being 
separated  from  his  wife,  would  tend  not  unnaturally  to 
rouse  the  pope's  displeasure,  particularly  in  view  of  the 
repulse  of  Otho's  offer  of  mediation  in  the  matter.  On  nth 
July,  1226,  Pope  Honorius  wrote  two  letters  on  the  sub- 
ject. The  first,  directed  to  Archbishop  Langton  and  others, 
expressed  his  desire  to  arrange  the  difficulties  which  ex- 
isted between  the  king  and  de  Breaute.4  In  the  second, 
addressed  to  the  archbishop  alone,  he  speaks  in  very  strong 
language  about  the  matter  in  hand,  and  it  is  abundantly 
clear  that  he  was  entirely  mistaken  in  the  whole  business ; 
for  he  imagined  that  the  wife  of  Falkes  was  detained  from 

1  Roger  de  Wendover,  ii.  281.          2  Matth.  Paris,  ii.  538. 

3  Wendover,  ut  sup.  *  Brit.  Mus.  Add.  MS.  15,352,  f.  341. 


io6  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

him,  apparently  against  her  will,  and  as  part  of  the  manifest 
injustice  with  which  he  had  been  treated.  "  When  we  think 
of  the  great  learning  given  you  by  God,"  he  writes  to 
Langton,  "  we  wonder  how  a  counsellor,  imbued  as  you  are 
with  a  knowledge  of  divine  scripture,  can  approve  of  advice 
which  must  result  in  offence  to  God  and  manifest  danger 
to  souls.  Not  to  speak  of  other  injuries  which  our  beloved 
son,  Falkes  de  Breaute,  has  suffered  against  his  deserts, 
how  can  you  take  it  upon  your  soul  to  support  those  who 
detain  the  wife  of  the  said  noble  from  him,  and,  to  the 
scandal  of  many  and  to  the  danger  of  their  own  souls, 
violate  the  Sacrament  of  marriage?"  He  then  warns  Lang- 
ton  for  the  sake  of  his  own  reputation  to  remember  the 
account  that  will  be  demanded  of  him  at  the  last  day. 
From  one  in  his  high  position  more  is  looked  for  and  more 
will  be  required,  and  therefore  he  specially  appeals  to  him 
to  try  in  every  way  to  get  the  king  to  do  what  he  has 
written  to  tell  him  in  this  matter.1 

During  the  year  1226  an  election  to  the  See  at  Durham 
caused  some  difficulty.  Richard  Marsh,  the  bishop,  died 
suddenly  at  Peterborough,  on  ist  May;  the  chronicler, 
Matthew  Paris,  seeing  in  this  an  instance  of  the  divine 
punishment  on  one  who  was  "from  the  first,  a  persecutor 
of  monks  and  religious."2  The  bishop  was  actually  on  his 
way  to  London  with  a  number  of  legal  advisers,  to  prose- 
cute his  quarrel  against  the  monks  of  his  cathedral,  and 
had  halted  to  pass  the  night  at  the  abbey.  Next  morning 
he  was  discovered  dead  in  his  bed,  having  retired  to  rest 
apparently  in  his  usual  health.  The  monks  of  Durham 
applied  to  the  king  for  leave  to  proceed  to  the  election  of  a 
successor.  Henry  offered  them  his  chaplain  Luke,  pressing 
them  to  accept  him  as  their  bishop.  The  electors  replied 
1  Royal  Letters,  i.  547.  a  Ibid.,  iii.  in. 


ENGLISH  ECCLESIASTICAL  POLITICS    107 

that  they  would  receive  no  one  without  a  canonical  election, 
and  they  remained  firm  in  this  resolution,  in  spite  of  the 
royal  threat  that,  if  they  did  not  choose  his  nominee,  they 
should  wait  seven  years  for  a  bishop.1 

On  proceeding  to  the  actual  election  the  convent  came 
to  the  unanimous  conclusion  that  the  king's  chaplain  was 
unworthy  of  so  high  a  dignity.  They  therefore  made  choice 
of  the  archdeacon  of  Worcester,  William  de  Stechil,  and 
presented  him  to  the  archbishop  of  York  for  confirmation,3 
and  to  the  king  for  approval.3  The  king  refused  his  consent ; 
and  the  archbishop,  probably  on  that  account,  withheld 
confirmation.  An  appeal  was  made  to  Rome,  but  the  case 
apparently  dragged  on  for  more  than  two  years.  The  elect 
himself  and  several  of  the  monks  went  thither  to  support 
the  election,  and  the  king  dispatched  the  bishop  of  Chester 
and  the  prior  of  Lenton  to  oppose  it,  and  to  prevent  if 
possible  the  papal  ratification  of  the  monks'  choice.  In 
December,  1226,  Pope  Honorius  wrote  to  the  metropolitan 
of  York  to  know  why  he  had  taken  no  steps  in  regard  to 
the  election  of  William  the  archdeacon,  who  had  been  com- 
mended to  the  Curia  for  approbation  as  "  prudent,  upright, 
learned  and  worthy."  If  within  two  months  the  archbishop 
has  not  held  his  canonical  inquiry  and  certified  the  Roman 
authorities  of  the  result,  then  the  pope  declares  that  he 
will  himself  proceed  to  consider  and  determine  the  case.4 

The  metropolitan  then  evidently  held  his  inquiry,  and 
reported  against  the  form  of  the  election.  For  Robert 
Graystones,  the  historian  of  Durham,  records  that  at  length, 
on  the  vigil  of  the  Ascension,  1228,  the  case  was  settled. 
Honorius  III  was  dead,  and  his  successor,  Gregory  IX,  pro- 

1  Roger  de  Wendover,  ii.  309. 

8  Hist.  Dunelmensis  Scriptores  (res  (Surtees  Soc. ).    App. ,  li.  68. 

3  Roger  de  Wendover,  ut  sup. 

4  Hist.  Dunelmensis  Scriptores  (res,  ut  sup. 


io8  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

nounced  judgement.  The  pope  declared  that  the  election 
was  uncanonical  and  must  be  judged  to  be  void,  because 
the  monks,  wishing  to  save  time,  had  determined  to  elect 
by  "inspiration  of  the  Holy  Spirit."  The  convent,  therefore, 
asked  the  prior  to  name  some  person,  and  upon  his  desig- 
nating the  archdeacon  William,  the  monks  all  cried  out: 
'•''Placet:  for  he  is  a  good  man."  Whereupon  the  prior, 
making  the  sign  of  the  cross,  declared  that  he  made  choice 
of  the  said  William ;  and  in  the  same  way,  and  using  the 
same  form  of  words,  the  monks  declared  their  agreement 
with  him.  This  was  no  known  form  of  canonical  election, 
and  for  this  reason  the  election  was  quashed.  It  is  a  cu- 
rious thing  that  at  this  time  many  letters  of  the  pope  deal 
with  irregularities  in  the  process  of  elections ;  and,  as  in  the 
case  of  Durham,  it  was  found  to  be  necessary  in  several  in- 
stances to  quash  them  altogether  and  appoint  to  the  vacant 
offices.1  Here,  however,  the  pope,  although  pointing  out 
that  by  law  the  appointment  now  devolved  upon  him, 
calling  the  monks  who  were  at  Rome  for  the  purpose  of 
the  appeal,  told  them  to  present  some  names  and  that  he 
would  choose  one  of  them.  After  consultation  they  pro- 
posed the  translation  from  Salisbury  of  Bishop  Richard 
Poore,  whom  they  had  previously  elected,  but  whose  elec- 
tion had  been  quashed  in  Rome.  They  were  unwilling  to 
offer  any  other  names,  and  finally  the  pope  consented  to 
their  choice,  and  translated  Bishop  Poore  from  Salisbury. 

In  Pope  Gregory's  letter,  appointing  Poore  to  his  new 
diocese,  the  pontiff  speaks  of  the  damage  done  to  the  See 
by  the  unfortunate  quarrels  of  the  past  years.  He  implies 
that  Bishop  Marsh  was  one  of  those  unfortunate  rulers 
who  did  not  attend  to  the  work  "  of  correcting  the  wayward 
and  gathering  together  the  wanderers " ;  "  who  was  not 

1  Reg.  de  Gregoire,  ix.,  vol.  i. 


ENGLISH  ECCLESIASTICAL  POLITICS    109 

content  with  the  milk  and  the  wool  of  the  flock,  but  desired 
to  take  the  skin  also  from  the  very  bones  of  the  scattered 
sheep."  Hence,  desiring  to  obtain  for  the  Church  of 
Durham,  which  "had  been  so  injured  in  spiritual  and 
diminished  in  temporal  resources,"  some  ruler  who  was 
likely  to  repair  the  ills  of  the  past,  he  had  fixed  upon  the 
bishop  of  Salisbury  as  one  likely  to  do  all  that  was  needed. 
"  And,"  he  continues,  "  since  it  behoves  you  humbly  to 
accept  what  has  been  settled  by  us  so  deliberately,"  we 
order  you,  under  the  obedience  you  owe,  to  accept  the 
charge  we  have  placed  upon  you.1 

Bishop  Poore  did  not  in  any  way  desire  the  promotion. 
He  would  rather  have  died,  as  he  writes  in  his  letter  to  the 
dean  and  Chapter  of  Salisbury,  than  be  torn  from  the  place 
and  people  he  loved  so  sincerely.  He  would  have  refused, 
he  says,  "  had  not  God  been  the  only  cause,  and  the  order 
of  a  superior  and  the  obedience  due  to  him,  whom  to  resist, 
as  wise  men  have  pointed  out  to  me,  is  to  resist  God.  For 
who  am  I  to  resist  or  contradict  the  orders  of  the  lord 
pope,  the  Vicar  of  Jesus  Christ  on  earth."  2  He  conse- 
quently goes  to  the  north,  as  he  is  ordered,  but  he  hopes 
that  his  canons  will  believe  that  his  heart  will  always  re- 
main in  his  southern  diocese. 

Early  in  the  year  1227,  the  English  king  was  again  in 
great  need  of  money.  At  Northampton  the  barons  were 
obliged  to  agree  to  the  payment  of  .£1,200,  over  and  above 
the  tax  of  a  fifteenth,  which  all  had  to  pay  as  an  aid.  This 
included  the  clergy;  and  all  religious  and  beneficed  clerks 
had  to  assent  to  this  amount  being  levied  upon  their 
property,  ecclesiastical  as  well  as  lay.  They  appealed  to 
the  pope,  but  without  obtaining  protection  from  him,  for 
the  king  had  secured  the  ear  of  the  pontiff  and  "  the  arch- 

1  Reg.  de  Gregoire,  App.  lii.  69.  z  Reg.  S.  Osmundi,  ii.  101. 


no    HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

bishops  and  bishops  under  papal  orders  compelled  them  to 
pay  by  ecclesiastical  censures,"  which,  says  the  chronicler, 
"  the  lay  power  would  not  have  been  able  to  do."  1 

Almost  simultaneously  with  this,  the  king  gave  evidence 
of  the  uncertain  character  of  his  pledges,  which  subse- 
quently made  it  impossible  to  rely  upon  them  any  more 
than  on  those  of  his  father.  In  the  month  of  February, 
Henry  summoned  a  council  at  Oxford,  at  which  he  de- 
clared himself  to  be  of  age,  and  that  he  intended  hence- 
forth to  transact  the  affairs  of  the  State  himself,  without 
the  advice  of  the  bishop  of  Winchester,  who  had  been  his 
tutor  since  the  death  of  William  Marshall,  earl  of  Pem- 
broke. At  the  same  meeting  the  young  king  publicly  re- 
pudiated the  "  Charter  of  liberties  of  the  forest,"  for  granting 
which,  just  two  years  previously,  he  had  obtained  a  grant 
from  the  nation.  The  ground  of  this  repudiation  was  that, 
as  these  charters  had  been  given  whilst  he  was  under  age, 
he  did  not  consider  he  should  be  bound  to  them  in  any 
way,  now  that  he  was  his  own  master.  In  the  same  way, 
religious  and  others  were  informed  that  the  sovereign  did 
not  admit  any  ancient  charter  or  privilege ;  and  that  if  they 
wished  to  enjoy  any  of  the  rights  they  claimed,  they  must 
take  out  new  charters  under  the  king's  own  seal,  and  for 
granting  these  they  were  forced  to  pay  large  sums  into  the 
king's  treasury. 

On  1 8th  March,  1227,  Honorius  III  died.  One  of  his 
last  acts,  so  far  as  England  was  concerned,  was  to  send 
orders  for  the  collection  of  money  for  the  Holy  Land,2  and 
to  remind  those  who  had  taken  the  cross  of  their  duty  in 
regard  to  the  projected  expedition,  which,  now  that  matters 
had  been  arranged  with  the  emperor  Frederick,  he  hoped 
soon  to  direct  upon  its  way.  He  was  succeeded  by  the 

1  Matth.  Paris,  iii.  122.  a  Reg.  S.  Osmundi,  ii.  77. 


ENGLISH  ECCLESIASTICAL  POLITICS    in 

aged  cardinal  of  Ostia,  then  eighty  years  of  age,  who  took 
the  name  of  Gregory  IX.  The  new  pope  wrote  to  the  arch- 
bishop and  bishops  of  England  to  announce  his  accession, 
asking  their  prayers  for  the  divine  assistance  in  the  duties 
of  his  high  office,  and  ordering  them  to  compel  all  in  their 
respective  districts  who  had  taken  the  cross,  to  fulfil  their 
grave  obligations.1  To  King  Henry  he  wrote  in  terms 
similar  to  those  in  which  he  addressed  other  Christian 
rulers.  He  looked  on  him  "  as  a  special  son  of  the  Roman 
Church,"  and  exhorts  and  orders  him  "ever  to  strive  to 
honour  and  revere  the  Holy  Roman  Church,  your  mother, 
thus  walking  in  the  footsteps  of  your  ancestors,"  and,  "  as 
becomes  a  Christian  prince,  humbly  and  devotedly  to  help 
us,  who  by  God's  providence  are  called  to  rule  it."  2  In  a 
second  letter,  which  apparently  followed  that  announcing 
his  election,  the  new  pontiff  addressed  a  more  personal 
letter  of  fatherly  advice  to  the  English  king.  In  it  he 
earnestly  prays  him  to  cultivate  a  knowledge  of  God's  law 
and  endeavour  in  his  acts  to  manifest  true  Christian 
devotion  to  His  service.3 

In  acknowledging  these  letters,  Henry  appears  to  have 
acquainted  Gregory  IX  of  his  desire  to  establish  his  per- 
sonal rule  in  his  kingdom  and  to  get  rid  of  the  governors, 
who,  by  the  authority  of  the  pope's  predecessors,  had  been 
appointed  over  him  during  his  minority.  He  likewise 
seems  to  have  complained  about  certain  lands,  which  he 
thought  belonged  to  the  Crown,  but  which  were  kept  from 
him.  On  this  point  papal  letters  were  dispatched  at  once 
to  Archbishop  Langton,  ordering  him  to  make  all  inquiries 
and  to  satisfy  the  king.4 

1  Registres  de  Gregoire  IX  (ed.  L.  Auvray.)    Tome  i.  No.  I. 

2  Ibid.    No.  3.  3  P.  R.  O.  Papal  Bulls,  Bundle  xxxv.    No.  30. 
*  Ibid.    No.  23. 


112  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

Early  in  this,  pontificate  communications  passed  be- 
tween the  pope  and  the  king,  which  furnish  a  sufficient 
indication  that  the  relations  between  the  State  and  Church 
in  general,  and  between  Archbishop  Langton  and  the  king 
in  particular,  had  become  both  cordial  and  settled.  It  will 
be  remembered  that  Pope  Honorius  had  not  only  refused 
to  ratify  the  election  of  Langton's  brother,  Simon,  to  the 
archiepiscopal  see  of  York;  but  had  forbidden  his  return 
to  England,  and  this  at  the  king's  request,  or  at  any  rate 
at  that  of  his  advisers.  A  few  months  before  the  death 
of  Pope  Honorius  III,  Henry  had  written,  in  December 
1226,  to  beg  that  this  prohibition  might  now  be  cancelled. 
Cardinal  Langton,  he  said,  "was  strenuously  exerting  him- 
self to  shield  him  (the  king)  from  anything  hurtful  and  to 
help  him  to  everything  good."  He  understood  "that  if 
(the  archbishop)  could  occasionally  enjoy  the  society  of 
his  brother  Simon,  of  whom,  as  is  not  to  be  wondered  at, 
he  thinks  not  a  little,  he  would  pass  his  life  in  less  sadness, 
which  we  would  much  desire,  and  would  devote  himself  to 
our  affairs  with  even  greater  ardour."  Henry  consequently 
begs  that  leave  to  come  to  England  may  be  no  longer  re- 
fused to  Simon  Langton ;  and  "  by  the  affection,  which  the 
archbishop  has  for  us,"  we  beg  that  "  the  pope  will  be 
pleased  to  grant  this." l 

In  the  last  days  of  Honorius  nothing  was  done  in  the 
matter;  but  on  iQth  May,  1227,  Pope  Gregory  wrote,  that 
the  petition  addressed  to  his  predecessor  having  come  into 
his  hands,  he  willingly  granted  what  the  king  requested.2 
The  same  day  the  new  pope  wrote  to  Simon  Langton  him- 
self:  "though  the  Roman  Church  may  pour  out  the  wine 
that  you  may  experience  its  discipline,  still  together  with 
the  rod  of  a  father  it  has  the  affection  of  a  mother,  and  we 

1  P.R.O.  Papal  Bulls,  Bundle  xxxv.  No.  83.  a  Ibid.,  No.  84. 


ENGLISH  ECCLESIASTICAL  POLITICS     113 

who,  though  unworthy,  hold  on  earth  His  place,  who  in 
wrath  restrains  not  His  mercy  nor  forgets  to  take  pity, 
now  pour  out  for  you  the  oil  of  mercy,  after  you  have  ex- 
perienced the  bitterness  of  the  punishment,  and  after  the 
rod  offer  to  you  the  salve,"  and  permit  you,  at  the  king's 
request,  to  return  to  England,  which  hitherto  you  have  been 
forbidden  to  do  by  the  Apostolic  See.1 

Gregory,  from  his  first  coming  to  the  papacy,  in  no 
way  relaxed  the  watchful  solicitude  over  the  English  king, 
which  the  policy  of  his  two  predecessors  had  made  tradi- 
tional. On  25th  May,  1227,  he  dispatched  a  letter  of  strong 
remonstrance  to  the  French  king  on  the  policy  of  aggres- 
sion upon  which  he  had  apparently  once  more  embarked. 
He  says  that  the  Roman  pontiffs  had  never  hesitated  to 
interfere  to  prevent  menaces  of  English  rights  by  the 
French  kings,  "  since  the  kingdom  of  England  specially 
belongs  to  "  the  Roman  Church.  It  was  altogether  in  de- 
fiance of  the  papal  prohibition  that  the  grandfather  of  the 
present  French  king  had  attacked  the  English  sovereign, 
who  ought  to  have  been  shielded  from  attacks  as  a  crusader. 
Against  the  pope's  prohibition  also,  the  king's  father  had 
occupied  almost  all  the  possessions  of  England  over  the 
sea,  and  now  once  again  rumour  speaks  of  a  design  to 
disturb  the  peace  which  had  existed  between  the  two 
countries,  and  of  an  attempt  on  the  part  of  France  to  wrest 
the  remaining  English  possessions  on  the  continent  from 
the  English  Crown.  Gregory  II  consequently  warns  the 
French  monarch  to  desist  from  such  designs,  and  at  once 
to  restore  any  parts  of  English  territory  he  may  have 
already  occupied.2 

Notwithstanding  his  great  age,  the  new  pontiff  at  once 
commenced  to  manifest  as  great  a  capacity  of  administra- 

1  Royal  Letters,  i.  548.  3  Registres  de  Greg.  IX.,  etc.,  i.  No.  86. 

I 


ii4  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

tion  as  his  predecessor.    His  letters  deal  with  every  kind  of 
ecclesiastical  business,  from  the  organisation  of  the  great 
crusade  and  the  writing  of  individual  letters  of  protection 
to  those  who  had  taken  the  cross,  to  the  appointment  of 
some  minor  official  to  a  benefice  in  far-off  England.    In 
this  last  matter,  indeed,  Gregory  IX  seems  to  have  taken 
a  more   personal   interest   than   did  even    Honorius   III. 
Several  difficulties  having  risen  about  these  papal  presenta- 
tions, and  indeed,  in  one  case,  one  bishop  having  refused 
to  induct,  it  is  hardly  wonderful  if  the  national  spirit  was 
stirred  against  a  practice  which  could  not    be   regarded 
as  anything  less  than  unwarrantable  exactions  from  the 
revenues  of  the  country.    In  the  first  year  of  his  pontificate 
the  same  thing  had  been  felt  by  the  Church  of  France,  and 
the  Chapter  of  Paris  had  protested  against  the  demands 
that  were  being  made  by  the  legate  in  the  pope's  name. 
He  had  made  great  promises  of  help  to  the  French  king 
out  of  the  ecclesiastical  revenues,  which  the  French  eccle- 
siastics held  to  be  quite  beyond  his  powers,  and  which  they 
determined  to  resist,  since,  if  allowed,  it  would,  in  their 
opinion,  lead  to  the  destruction  of  the  Church.1    Later  on, 
as  will  be  seen,  the  opposition  to  these  "  provisions  "  in  this 
country  became  so  acute,  as  to  call  forth  a  strong  letter  on 
the  subject  from  the  pope.    This,  however,  was  after  Lang- 
ton's  death,  for  so  long  as  he  lived  the  relations  between 
England  and  the  Roman  officials  were  apparently  uniformly 
harmonious. 

There  is  sufficient  evidence,  in  the  royal  correspondence 
of  the  time,  to  show  that  there  was  a  very  great  amount  of 
business  transacted  at  this  period  by  the  king's  agents  in 
Curia.  On  several  occasions  letters  of  credit  for  large  sums 
— in  one  case  amounting  to  as  much  as  3,000  marks — are 

1  Regis t res  de  Grtg.  IX.,  etc.,  i.,  No.  134. 


ENGLISH  ECCLESIASTICAL  POLITICS     115 

notified  from  Henry's  representatives  at  the  papal  court  as 
required  to  meet  expenses.  The  great  fact  in  the  history 
of  the  papacy  in  the  reign  of  Gregory  IX  was,  of  course, 
the  quarrel  between  the  emperor  and  the  pope.  We  are  not 
concerned  with  either  the  origin  of  the  difficulties  or  with 
the  course  of  events,  except  in  so  far  as  England  was 
brought  into  the  matter  in  her  relations  with  the  Holy  See. 
Both  the  emperor  and  the  pope  had  written  their  view  of 
the  situation  to  King  Henry.  In  his  reply  to  the  latter  the 
English  king  had  expressed  his  grief  at  the  sorrow  caused 
to  Gregory,  but  hints  that  he  thinks  the  emperor  has  some- 
thing to  say  on  his  side.  He  had,  he  writes,  shown  the 
letters  received  from  the  emperor  Frederick  to  the  pope's 
clerk,  "  Master  Stephen,"  who  was  then  with  him,  and  by 
his  advice  had  written  in  return  to  beseech  the  emperor 
not  rashly  to  "  depart  from  the  duty  owing  to  you  and  the 
Church,  but  humbly  to  obey  and  follow  your  directions." 
On  the  other  hand  the  king  did  not  hesitate  to  express  his 
hopes  "  in  the  spirit  of  all  fidelity  and  obedience,  by  which 
he  is  bound  to  such  a  father  and  lord,"  that  should 
Frederick  make  any  advances  towards  reconciliation,  Gre- 
gory will  receive  him  into  peace.1 

The  same  day  the  king  dispatched  his  letter  to  the 
emperor.  Whilst  compassionating  Frederick's  wounded  im- 
perial dignity,  he  expresses  his  regret  that  the  "  enemy  of 
mankind  "  has  been  able  to  sow  discord  between  him  and 
the  Roman  Church.  He  trusts  that  the  pope  may  be  some- 
what moved  by  his  prayers  and  advice,  since  he  is  more 
"  bound  to  him  by  great  and  special  obligations  than  to  other 
earthly  princes."  And  he  further  hopes  that  the  emperor 
on  his  part  will  not  "  despise  the  hand  of  the  Church,  which 
is  stretched  out  against  him." 

1  Rymer,  i.  189. 


ii6  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

One  of  the  important  pieces  of  business  transacted  by 
the  royal  agents  in  the  Curia,  in  the  first  years  of  Pope 
Gregory,  had  reference  to  the  king's  coming  of  age.  It  has 
been  pointed  out  already  that  Henry  announced  his  de- 
termination in  the  February  of  1227  to  rule  his  king- 
dom from  that  time  without  further  assistance  from  the 
governor  appointed  over  him.  There  were  many  of  the 
nobles  and  others,  who  saw  in  this  fresh  evidence  of  the 
ascendance  of  de  Burgh,  and  of  his  determination  to  re- 
move the  still  youthful  Henry  from  the  influence  of  Peter 
de  Rupibus,  bishop  of  Winchester.  The  gathering  distrust 
and  dislike  of  the  justiciar  was  not  unknown  to  the  king, 
and  he  took  measures  to  obtain  the  papal  approval  of  his 
design  to  take  the  reins  of  government  into  his  own  hands. 
Honorius  III,  however,  died  before  anything  could  be 
done  in  the  matter,  and  it  was  not  till  the  beginning  of 
1228  that  there  are  indications  that  the  affair  was  again 
being  mooted  in  Rome.  The  first  sign  appears  in  a  letter 
from  Gregory  IX,  directing  that  certain  tournaments  which 
were  being  held  in  England  should  be  put  a  stop  to.  It 
had  been  represented  to  him,  he  says,  that  certain  barons 
and  nobles  were  taking  advantage  of  these  meetings  to 
discuss  the  king's  policy,  and  even  to  make  compacts  to 
resist  it.  This,  if  not  checked,  might  lead  to  a  serious  dis- 
turbance of  the  peace  of  the  kingdom.  The  pope,  there- 
fore, takes  advantage  of  the  attitude  of  disapproval  which 
the  Church  has  always  maintained  towards  these  tourna- 
ments, inasmuch  as  they  frequently  lead  to  loss  of  life, 
to  prohibit  them  altogether,  and  he  authorises  certain 
bishops  to  excommunicate  any  who  persist  in  taking  part 
in  them.1 

A  few  weeks   later,  in  the  April   of  1228,  the   pope 

1  Rymer,  i.  189. 


ENGLISH  ECCLESIASTICAL  POLITICS     117 

addressed  the  nobles  of  England  directly  upon  their  king's 
determination  to  rule,  in  deed  as  well  as  in  name,  and 
gave  the  project  his  approval.  Even  rulers,  he  says,  whilst 
young,  are  rightly  placed  under  tutors  to  prevent  any  rash- 
ness incidental  to  youth.  This  should  last  till  they  were 
grown  up,  unless  an  unwonted  quality  of  prudence  should 
supply  the  defect  of  age.  And  "  though  our  beloved  son  in 
Christ,  Henry,  the  illustrious  king  of  England,  is  in  years  a 
youth,  he  is  already,  as  we  rejoice  to  hear,  possessed  of  a 
man's  mind,  and  has  made  such  progress  (in  the  qualities) 
of  age  and  prudence,  that  what  is  wanting  to  him  in  years 
seems  to  have  been  made  up  to  him  in  the  virtue  of  dis- 
cretion, and  so  there  is  no  longer  any  reason  to  prevent  his 
ordering,  usefully  and  prudently,  the  kingdom  and  its 
affairs."  Gregory  then  commands  all  by  his  "  Apostolic 
letters"  to  give  their  help  and  cordial  assistance  to  the 
directions  he  has  given  to  the  bishop  of  Winchester  and 
the  justiciar,  to  allow  the  king  the  full  and  free  use  of  his 
royal  authority.  Any  one  that  opposes  this  is  to  know 
that  he  lays  himself  open  to  the  penalties  of  excom- 
munication.1 

The  continued  hostility  of  the  emperor  Frederick  to 
the  pope  made  the  latter  naturally  all  the  more  anxious  to 
secure  the  support  of  other  Christian  kings,  and  to  prevent 
any  chance  of  hostilities  breaking  out  between  them.  He 
exerted  himself  from  the  first,  as  has  been  already  pointed 
out,  to  secure  a  continuance  of  peace,  or  rather  of  a  truce, 
between  France  and  England,  which  all  during  this  period 
appeared  to  have  been  of  a  very  precarious  nature.  Henry 
sent  his  ambassadors  to  Louis  of  France  with  every  desire 
to  carry  out  what  "  has  been  ordered  us  by  the  lord  pope  " 
in  this  matter.2  And,  upon  the  French  king  pleading  that 
1  Rymer,  i.  190.  -  Hid. 


ii8  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

he  could  make  no  lasting  peace  without  the  consent  of  the 
count  of  La  Marche,  to  whom  he  and  the  queen  mother, 
Blanche,  were  bound  under  oath  not  to  do  so,  Gregory  IX 
writes  to  his  legate,  Romanus,  either  to  compel  the  count 
to  release  them ;  or,  in  the  event  of  his  refusal,  to  declare 
that  such  oaths  were  illicit  and  consequently  not  binding.1 
So  anxious  was  the  pope  about  this  matter,  that  the  nuncio, 
Master  Stephen,  the  pope's  chaplain,  threatened  Henry 
"with  ecclesiastical  censures  if  his  commands  were  not 
obeyed ; "  and  the  king  gives  this  as  his  reason  for  not  at 
once  proceeding  to  attempt  to  recover  from  the  French 
king  the  ancient  English  possessions  over  the  sea  .2 

In  the  year  1228  a  serious  disagreement  between  Arch- 
bishop Langton  and  the  king  is  recorded  by  the  annalist  of 
Dunstable.  It  was  apparently  on  a  matter  which  affected 
the  privileges  of  the  See  and  monastery  of  Canterbury. 
Langton  produced  ancient  royal  charters  in  support  of  his 
claim,  and  on  the  plea  that  the  archbishops  had  never 
made  use  of  such  rights,  Henry  objected  to  recognise  these 
charters,  but  he  afterwards  gave  way,  and  allowed  the 
claims  advanced  by  Langton.  Before  the  settlement  of  the 
dispute,  however,  the  archbishop  became  seriously  ill  and 
was  carried  in  a  litter  to  Slindon,  where  he  died  on  I5th 
July,  1228. 

1  Royal  Letters,  i.  548.  *  Rymer,  i.  191. 


CHAPTER  VII 
TROUBLES  AT  CANTERBURY  AND  THEIR  RESULT 

ON  the  very  day  of  Langton's  death,  King  Henry  once 
more  attempted  to  reconcile  the  emperor  Frederick  with 
the  pope.  He  made  another  personal  appeal  to  him  ;  his 
only  object,  he  says,  being  "to  bring  about  the  peace  of 
the  Church  and  to  wrest  a  triumph  from  the  enemies  of  the 
cross  of  Christ."  He  exhorts  the  emperor  to  remember 
"  the  honour  due  to  God  and  Holy  Church,"  and  before 
undertaking  his  journey  to  the  Holy  Land  to  seek  recon- 
ciliation with  the  pope.  It  would  redound,  he  says,  to  his 
honour  and  glory ;  and  he  prophesies  that,  if  the  projected 
crusade  were  undertaken  for  God  and  with  the  Church's 
blessing,  many  would  be  found  to  aid  him  in  the  work.1 

About  this  time  the  king  asked  the  pope  to  sanction 
the  removal  of  his  father's  body  from  Worcester  to  Beaulieu. 
King  John  had  apparently  made  a  vow  to  be  buried  in  that 
monastery,  which  he  had  founded ;  but  on  account  of  the 
troublous  times  during  which  he  had  died,  it  was  thought 
better  that  his  body  should  be  buried  near  at  hand.  Now, 
however,  "  kneeling  at  the  foot  of  your  holiness,"  Henry 
says,  "  by  the  bearer  of  this  present  letter  we  beg  you  lov- 
ingly to  permit "  the  proposed  removal.2  The  royal  agents 
in  Rome  at  this  period  also  asked  the  pope  to  unite  the  two 
Sees  of  Waterford  and  Lismore,  in  Ireland.  The  bishop  of 

1  Royal  Letters,  i.  331.  2  Rymer,  i.  192 

IIQ 


120  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

the  latter  See  was  dead  and  the  king  suggested  that,  before 
a  successor  was  appointed,  it  would  be  well  for  Gregory  IX 
to  consider  whether  the  better  interests  of  the  Church  would 
not  be  served  by  uniting  the  dioceses.  Both  were  extremely 
poor,  and  the  works  of  religion  were  hampered  by  want  of 
means,  and  so  Henry  desires  to  submit  the  proposal  for 
amalgamation  "  to  the  holy  Apostolic  See." l 

Whilst  the  archbishopric  of  Canterbury  was  vacant,  it 
became  necessary  to  elect  a  successor  to  Bishop  Richard 
Poore,  who  had  been  translated  to  Durham  from  Salisbury. 
The  letters  and  documents  about  this  election  are  interest- 
ing and  instructive.  By  the  royal  licence  the  electors  met 
in  September,  1228,  and  made  choice  of  Robert  de  Bingeham, 
whom  they  forthwith  presented  to  the  king  for  approval.  A 
few  days  later,  Henry  wrote  to  Rome  to  ask  for  the  papal 
confirmation,  saying,  "  that  as  the  See  of  Canterbury  was 
then  vacant,  such  confirmation  of  the  elect  belonged  of 
right  immediately"  to  the  pope.  The  dean  and  Chapter 
also  wrote  at  the  same  time  to  present  the  elect  formerly 
for  confirmation.  "  Holy  Father,"  they  say,  "  in  this  matter 
you  plainly  act  in  the  person  of  Saint  Peter,  whose  seat  you 
occupy."  They  then  go  on  to  inform  him  that  the  election 
had  been  according  to  the  provisions  of  the  Lateran  Council 
and  that  it  had  been  unanimous.  They  testify  to  the  elect's 
qualifications,  moral  and  intellectual,  and  certify  the  king's 
consent.  Finally  they  beg  that  the  pope  "by  the  plentitude 
of  his  power,  will  ratify  their  election,"  and  having  con- 
firmed it,  will  deign  to  appoint  the  bishop  of  London  and 
other  bishops  to  carry  out  the  consecration. 

The  Salisbury  canons  then  appointed  two  of  their 
number  to  proceed  to  Rome  with  these  and  other  letters, 
in  order  to  expedite  the  business  in  the  Curia  as  much  as 

1  Roycd  Letters,  i.  332. 


TROUBLES  AT  CANTERBURY     121 

possible.  From  the  Eternal  City  the  delegates  wrote  to 
furnish  the  elect  with  an  account  of  their  mission.  They 
arrived,  they  say,  on  1 2th  December,  and  the  day  following 
visited  all  the  cardinals,  in  order  to  interest  and  instruct 
them  in  the  business  which  had  brought  them  to  Rome. 
They  found  all  of  them  favourable  to  de  Bingeham,  the 
bishop-elect;  but  they  were  particularly  well  received  by 
Otho,  the  former  nuncio  in  England,  who  the  next  day 
introduced  them  to  the  pope.  The  Holy  Father  was  at  the 
time  much  occupied  by  a  continuous  stream  of  visitors} 
and  so,  on  that  occasion,  they  were  able  merely  to  give  him 
a  brief  summary  of  their  petition,  and  to  leave  all  the  docu- 
ments with  him.  The  following  day  they  were  again  called 
to  the  pope,  who  asked  them  what  they  themselves  wanted. 
When  they  had  begun  to  say  that,  "  since  it  had  pleased 
him  to  deprive  the  See  (of  Salisbury)  of  a  good  pastor," 
etc.,  the  Holy  Father  "  raised  his  head,  as  if  congratulating 
himself  on  his  choice."  When  they  came  to  the  description 
of  the  elect  as  a  "  prudent  and  discreet  man  of  mature  age» 
highly  cultivated  in  letters,  skilled  in  law,  in  theology  the 
best  of  doctors,  and  a  celebrated  preacher,  all  the  cardinals 
present  applauded."  The  delegates  were  then  told  to  retire, 
and  presently  three  cardinals  came  and  "  very  sharply  and 
minutely  examined"  them  on  all  points  connected  with 
the  election  and  the  manner  of  holding  it,  till,  as  they 
say,  "  we  were  almost  desperate,  as  it  appeared  to  us  to 
mean  that  (the  election)  was  to  be  quashed."  But  they 
were  mistaken,  for  the  next  day,  i6th  December,  Pope 
Gregory  himself  informed  them  that  all  was  entirely  satis- 
factory, and  that  he  confirmed  the  election.  When  they 
wrote  the  account  of  all  this  to  the  elect,  they  were  only 
waiting  for  the  writing  of  the  formal  documents.1 

1  Reg.  S.  Osmundi,  ii.  110-116. 


122  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

At  the  very  time,  when  this  business  about  the  Salisbury 
election  was  thus  so  satisfactorily  concluded,  the  question 
of  the  appointment  to  the  archiepiscopal  See  of  Canterbury 
was  still  in  debate  at  Rome.  On  the  death  of  Langton,  the 
Christ  Church  monks,  having  obtained  the  royal  licence  to 
proceed  to  the  election  of  a  successor,  made  a  choice  of 
their  prior,  Walter  de  Eynesham.  On  being  applied  to  for 
his  approval,  the  king  refused  to  assent  on  various  grounds; 
one  being  that  the  father  of  the  elect  had  been  hanged  as  a 
thief.  The  suffragans  of  the  province  also  protested,  partly 
on  account  of  the  personal  unfitness  of  the  candidate  ;  but 
apparently  more  strongly  because  the  election  of  an  arch- 
bishop ought,  they  contended,  to  have  been  held  in  their 
presence. 

The  elect  would  not,  or,  in  view  of  the  canonical  nature 
of  the  election,  probably  could  not,  give  way;  and  de- 
termined to  apply  for  confirmation  to  the  Holy  See  in 
spite  of  the  king's  opposition.  In  company  with  some  of 
his  monks  he  set  out  for  Rome,  and,  presenting  himself  to 
the  pope,  asked  for  his  decision.  The  royal  agents  were 
already  instructed  to  oppose  the  confirmation  by  every 
means  in  their  power,  and  they  so  contrived  that  nothing 
should  be  done  in  the  matter  until  the  arrival  of  the 
bishops  of  Chester  and  Rochester,  who  with  John,  the 
archdeacon  of  Bedford,  had  been  selected  to  support  the 
objections  of  King  Henry  and  the  suffragans  of  Canterbury. 
The  Crown  candidate  at  this  time  was  apparently  Ralph 
Nevile,  bishop  of  Chichester  and  royal  chancellor.  In  a 
letter  written  somewhere  about  December,  1228,  Bishop 
Nevile's  agent  at  the  Curia,  Philip  de  Arden,  describes  the 
situation.  He  had  been  received  in  audience  by  the  pope, 
he  writes,  and  had  been  questioned  fully  concerning  the 
Canterbury  election.  The  Holy  Father  had  first  desired  to 


TROUBLES  AT  CANTERBURY     123 

know  what  the  king  of  England  had  thought  about  the 
translation  of  Bishop  Poore  from  Salisbury  to  Durham. 
Arden  had  replied  that  "  he  liked  it  well  enough,  but  was 
greatly  annoyed  that  his  advice  had  not  been  obtained  in 
the  matter;  and  he  would  have  been  as  much  vexed  if  his 
own  brother  had  been  appointed  in  this  way."  Then  the 
pope  asked  whom  the  king  would  like  as  archbishop,  if  the 
monks'  election  was  quashed?  "  I  mentioned  your  name," 
writes  Arden,  and  on  the  pope's  saying  that  he  did  not 
know  you,  I  reminded  him  "  that  he  had  seen  you  on  one 
occasion."  I  then  said  all  that  could  be  said  in  your 
favour.  After  that,  Arden  continues,  the  monk  who  was 
archbishop-elect,  with  some  of  his  brethren,  was  introduced 
into  the  papal  presence,  and  "  I  went  in  along  with  them 
to  keep  an  eye  on  their  movements,  and  when  the  pope 
saw  me  he  asked  me,  jokingly,  if  I  wanted  a  cowl  ?  I  said 
no,  but  that  I  should  not  mind  a  prebend  in  Canterbury 
church,  which  these  monks  monopolise.  When  the  monks 
retired  I  explained  to  the  pope  what  a  benefit  it  would  be 
to  the  whole  Church  if  the  monks  were  expelled  and 
secular  canons  put  in  their  place,  as  Innocent  III  had 
proposed  to  do.  The  pope  thereupon  asked  how  it  was  to 
be  done?  I  answered  that  there  were  plenty  of  monasteries 
to  which  the  monks  could  be  sent,  with  competent  pensions 
for  life  from  the  Canterbury  funds;  there  they  could  serve 
God  better  than  in  their  cathedral.  I  took  good  care," 
adds  this  agent,  "  to  go  in  with  the  monks  whenever  they 
had  audience,  as  my  presence  prevented  them  urging  their 
suit."1 

Matters  dragged  on  till  the  beginning  of  Lent,  when 
Pope  Gregory  appointed  the  Thursday  after  Ash  Wednes- 
day to  settle  the  matter.  On  that  day  the  royal  agents,  on 

1  Royal  Letters^  i.  339. 


124  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

pressing  their  suit  eagerly  on  the  pope  and  cardinals,  made 
the  unpleasant  discovery  that  there  was  very  little  chance 
of  preventing  the  confirmation  of  Walter  de  Eynesham  on 
the  grounds  they  had  chosen.  They  therefore  determined 
upon  a  bold  stroke.  They  offered  the  pope  a  tenth  of  all 
property  in  England  and  Ireland  for  carrying  on  his  war 
with  the  emperor,  if  he  would  in  return  do  what  King 
Henry  wished  in  regard  to  the  election  at  Canterbury.1 

If  we  are  to  credit  the  chronicler,  Gregory  was  so 
anxious  to  overthrow  the  emperor  that  he  gladly  consented 
at  once  to  find  a  way  out  of  the  difficulty.  That  way  was 
found  in  the  canonical  examination  of  the  elect  by  the  two 
cardinals  appointed  by  the  pope.  The  elect  was  asked 
apparently  several  elementary  questions  in  theology,  and 
was  found  to  have  answered,  according  to  the  report,  not 
only  minus  bene  but  pessime.  On  this  ground  the  Holy 
Father  quashed  the  election,  and,  on  the  suggestion  of  the 
king's  proctors,  appointed  Richard,  chancellor  of  Lincoln, 
to  the  See  of  Canterbury.  In  thus  nominating  to  the 
vacant  archbishopric,  the  pope,  according  to  the  Dunstable 
annals,2  acted  according  to  a  wise  custom  by  which,  when 
an  election  was  declared  void,  the  pope  by  right  appointed ; 
but  Matthew  Paris  considered  that  the  circumstances  were 
sufficiently  extraordinary  to  note  that  "the  said  Richard 
was  not  elected  archbishop,  but  appointed."3 

The  letter  written  by  the  pope  to  the  suffragans  of 
Canterbury  to  announce  his  decision,  and  to  bid  them 
receive  the  new  archbishop,  is  recorded  by  Roger  de  Wen- 
over.  He  speaks  of  the  importance  of  the  Church  of 
Canterbury  and  of  its  high  position  among  the  metropolitan 
Sees  of  the  world,  and  likens  it,  with  its  monastic  Chapter, 

1  Roger  de  Wendover,  ii.  360.  a  Ann.  Monastici,  iii.  116. 

3  Chronica  Majora,  iii.  170. 


TROUBLES  AT  CANTERBURY     125 

to  the  garden  of  Eden,  over  which  it  was  necessary  to 
place  a  worthy  guardian.  On  examining  the  monk  Walter, 
he  had  not  thought  him  sufficiently  learned  for  so  im- 
portant a  post,  and  he  hopes  that  in  the  person  of  Richard, 
the  chancellor  of  Lincoln,  he  has  found  one  with  every 
necessary  quality.1  The  pope  wrote  also  at  the  same  time 
to  the  prior  and  convent  of  Christ  Church,  and  sent  the 
pallium  to  the  new  archbishop  by  Walter  de  Cantelupe, 
afterwards  the  Bishop  of  Worcester. 

Within  a  few  months  of  the  settlement  of  the  Canter- 
bury question  in  favour  of  the  king,  the  pope  asked  that 
the  promises  made  him  by  the  royal  agents  might  be 
redeemed.  A  papal  chaplain,  Stephen  of  Anagni,  was  sent 
over  to  England  to  collect  the  promised  tenth  of  all  the 
property  in  aid  of  Gregory's  war  with  the  emperor.  He 
brought  with  him,  for  the  information  of  the  English 
nation,  a  full  statement  of  the  charges  which  the  pope  had 
to  make  against  Frederick.  The  king  called  a  parliament 
at  Westminster  on  the  second  Sunday  after  Easter,  2pth 
April,  1229.  In  this  assembly  the  nuncio  read  the  papal 
letters,  and  made  his  demands ;  he  asked  for  the  tenth  of 
all  goods  in  England,  Ireland,  and  Wales,  from  both 
laymen  and  clerks,  which  had  been  promised  to  Pope 
Gregory  by  the  royal  agents. 

In  brief,  the  object  of  the  papal  mission  was  to  induce 
the  English  people  to  accept  the  view  that  Gregory's 
attitude  towards  the  emperor  was  taken  up,  not  for  any 
personal  quarrel,  but  for  the  sake  of  the  Universal  Church, 
which  the  rebellious  and  excommunicated  Frederick  was 
seeking  to  overthrow  altogether.  Granting  this  position,  it 
followed  as  a  matter  of  course,  that  all  loyal  sons  of  Holy 
Church  were  bound  to  come  to  the  aid  of  the  Apostolic 

1  Roger  de  Wendover,  ii.  362. 


126  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

See,  the  riches  and  resources  of  which  were  not  sufficient 
to  enable  the  pontiff  to  cope  with  the  danger.  The  king, 
being  pledged  to  assist  by  the  action  of  his  agents  in 
Rome,  could  say  nothing;  but  the  barons  and  laymen 
absolutely  rejected  the  proposed  tax  of  a  tenth  upon  all 
their  possessions.  The  clergy  were  left  to  their  own  devices. 
After  a  long  conference,  which  lasted  for  several  days,  and 
after  not  a  little  murmuring,  they,  "  being  in  fear  of  ex- 
communication," consented  to  the  demands  of  the  nuncio.1 
Matthew  Paris  adds  to  the  account  of  the  capitulation  of 
the  clergy  that  it  was  known  that  the  nuncio  was  aided  in 
the  pressure  brought  to  bear  upon  them,  by  a  compact  with 
Segrave  the  justiciar.3 

The  nuncio  then  exhibited  papal  letters  appointing  him 
collector  of  the  tenth,  and  determining  how  this  levy  was 
to  be  made.  As  the  pope's  debts  were  already  so  heavy 
that  he  stood  in  urgent  need  of  the  money  it  was  to  be 
collected  not  in  the  usual  way,  but  by  a  method  much  to 
the  pope's  advantage.  The  parliament  then  broke  up  amid 
great  dissatisfaction  and  universal  murmurs. 

The  collection  of  the  tax  was  not  only  unpopular,  but 
it  was  carried  out  in  the  most  oppressive  way.  The  nuncio 
had  devised  a  scheme  to  prevent  delay  in  collection  which 
was  hitherto  apparently  unknown,  at  least  in  England.  On 
his  rounds  he  was  accompanied  by  a  body  of  usurers  of  the 
worst  kind,  who  supplied  the  amount  of  the  tax,  but  at 
exorbitant  interest.  This  not  only  left  a  load  of  debt  upon 
the  shoulders  of  the  clergy  generally,  but  necessitated  the 
pledging  of  the  sacred  vessels  and  church  ornaments  to 
these  rapacious  "  merchants."  In  one  case  a  stand  was 
made,  not  indeed  by  the  clergy,  but  in  their  behalf.  The 
earl  of  Chester,  Ralph  Blundevil,  forbade  any  monk  or 

1  Roger  de  Wendover,  ii.  375-376.  -  Chron.  Majorat  iii.  187. 


TROUBLES  AT  CANTERBURY 


127 


clerk  in  his  fee  to  pay  the  tax,  and  they  only  too  willingly 
sheltered  themselves  under  his  authority.  For  the  rest,  all 
in  "  England,  Wales,  Scotland,  and  Ireland "  were  com- 
pelled to  pay,  soothed,  as  Wendover  says,  by  the  reflection 
that  they  were  not  alone,  and  that  foreign  and  far  distant 
countries  were  also  made  to  feel  the  burden.1  The  nuncio 
Stephen,  having  scraped  up  the  money  by  every  means  in 
his  power,  departed;  and,  adds  Matthew  Paris,  "Anglisfoeda 
reliquit  vestigia"'2  When  the  funds  reached  the  pope's 
hands  he  forthwith  distributed  them  lavishly  among  his 
military  leaders  and  was  thus  able  to  strike  a  heavy  blow 
at  the  emperor. 

1  Matthew  Paris,  iii.  188-189.  a  IMJ.,  189. 


CHAPTER  VIII 
ARCHBISHOP  LE  GRAUND 

THE  departure  of  Stephen,  the  nuncio,  left  ecclesiastical 
England  dissatisfied  and  discontented.  The  pope,  having 
had  his  immediate  wants  supplied,  bestowed  certain  favours 
upon  the  English  in  return.  Some  of  the  religious  houses, 
on  the  score  of  poverty,  obtained  exemption  from  further 
payment  of  tenths,  and  the  English  prelates  were  per- 
mitted to  confer  benefices,  vacated  by  Italians  in  England, 
on  fit  persons  without  considering  whether  such  cures 
once  provided  for  by  the  pope,  by  the  existing  law  re- 
mained in  his  gift  A  still  more  important  concession  on 
the  part  of  the  Holy  See  at  this  time  was,  that  in  future, 
when  any  English  benefice  was  bestowed  upon  an  Italian 
by  a  mandate  of  the  pope,  the  prelates  in  this  country  were 
not  to  be  bound  to  obey  this  order,  if  they  were  unwilling 
to  do  so,  unless  special  mention  of  an  abrogation  of  this 
indulgence  was  made  in  the  document.1 

During  the  year  1230  the  attention  of  the  pope  was  to  a 
considerable  extent  occupied  with  the  emperor  Frederick, 
and  the  number  of  documents  issued  from  the  Roman 
chancery  in  regard  to  other  countries  is  naturally  some- 
what small.  Still  even  in  this  and  the  subsequent  year, 
there  is  sufficient  evidence  of  the  continued  watchful  care 
of  the  papacy  over  the  English  Church  and  kingdom. 

1  Wilkins,  i.  629. 
128 


ARCHBISHOP  LE  GRAUND  129 

Pope  Gregory,  for  example,  exhorts  the  English  king  to 
lay  aside  his  apparent  intention  of  undertaking  a  war  with 
France,  and  the  abbot  of  Citeaux  is  directed  to  act  as 
mediator  between  the  two  countries.  Henry  writes  to  the 
pope  to  beg  him  not  to  permit  the  encroachments  of  the 
Irish  bishops  upon  his  royal  prerogative,1  and  the  pontiff 
enjoins  English  and  Irish  bishops  not  to  excommunicate 
the  justiciars,  sheriffs  and  bailiffs  engaged  in  making  ar- 
rangements respecting  royal  castles  and  other  property 
of  the  Crown,  without  clear  cause  and  due  warning.2  This 
year  also,  the  constantly  recurring  question  of  the  employ- 
ment of  bishops  as  counsellors  of  the  Crown,  came  once 
more  before  the  Curia,  and  the  pope  gave  his  sanction  to 
their  employment.'5 

From  the  time  of  the  king's  repudiation  of  obligations 
contracted  during  his  minority,  and  his  declaration  in  1227 
of  a  determination  to  rule  without  governors  although  not 
legally  of  age,  Hubert  de  Burgh  had  incurred  the  hostility  of 
the  nobility  and  clergy,  who  regarded  him  as  the  originator 
of  both  measures.  For  a  time,  however,  the  departure  of 
the  king's  former  guardian,  Peter  de  Rupibus,  bishop  of 
Winchester,  for  the  Holy  Land,  had  left  de  Burgh  without 
any  competitor  for  influence  over  the  king,  and  in  spite  of 
the  pope's  warning  to  Henry  not  to  throw  himself  into  the 
hands  of  any  party  in  the  State,  he  lent  the  whole  of  his 
authority  to  the  favourite.  An  unsuccessful  expedition  into 
France  for  which  de  Burgh  was  blamed,  which  was  followed 
by  the  return  of  de  Rupibus,  whom  Henry  received  with 
open  expressions  of  pleasure,  were  the  first  signs  that  the 
justiciar's  influence  over  the  youthful  monarch  was  waning. 
Several  circumstances  combined  to  hasten  his  downfall.  A 
quarrel  arose  between  him  and  the  new  archbishop,  le 

1  Royal  Letters,  i.  399.        2  Rymer,  i.  200.         3  Royal  Letters,  i.  549. 

K 


130  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

Graund,  in  regard  to  the  custody  of  Tunbridge  Castle  and 
other  possessions  of  the  earl  of  Clare  during  his  minority. 
On  making  a  formal  complaint  to  the  king  of  what  he  con- 
sidered to  be  a  gross  infringement  of  his  rights,  he  was  told 
that  the  Crown  claimed  the  power  to  appoint  the  guardians 
of  the  persons  and  property  of  earls  that  were  minors.  The 
archbishop  thereupon  took  the  matter  into  his  own  hands 
and  promptly  excommunicated  all  the  invaders  of  the 
possessions  in  question  and  all  who  aided  them  or  held 
communication  with  them,  the  king  alone  excepted,1  since 
he  was  specially  protected  by  the  papal  Bull  of  the  previous 
January  from  all  excommunication  except  by  mandate  of 
the  Apostolic  See.2 

De  Burgh  not  only  had  agents  in  Rome ;  but  he  had  a 
good  friend  in  the  pope  himself;  and  it  appears  probable 
that  the  action  of  the  archbishop  of  Canterbury  in  this 
matter  gave  occasion,  in  July,  1231,  to  the  papal  prohibition 
against  the  excommunication  of  royal  officials  without 
papal  sanction,  above  referred  to.  The  archbishop  went  at 
once  to  Rome  to  plead  his  case,  and  the  king  dispatched 
Roger  de  Cantelupe  with  others  to  support  his  position 
against  him.  The  primate  made  several  complaints  to  the 
pope  against  the  sovereign  in  the  management  of  the  king- 
dom. In  the  first  place  he  declared  that  Hubert  de  Burgh 
practically  ruled  the  kingdom  to  the  exclusion  of  other 
nobles,  who  were  despised ;  and  further,  that  he  had  married 
without  dispensation  a  wife  too  nearly  related  to  his  first 
wife;  and  lastly,  that  he  had  invaded  the  rights  of  the 
Church  of  Canterbury.  In  regard  to  ecclesiastical  affairs  the 
archbishop  complained  that  some  of  the  bishops  of  the 
province  of  Canterbury,  neglecting  their  proper  cures,  sat 
as  judges  in  the  king's  treasury;  that  as  judges  they  tried 
1  Roger  de  Wendover,  iii.  9.  a  Rymer,  i.  199. 


ARCHBISHOP  LE  GRAUND  131 

lay  cases  ;  and  that  they  had  to  decide  even  capital  offences. 
Further,  he  described  how  many  of  the  beneficed  clergy 
held  more  than  two  benefices  with  the  care  of  souls  at- 
tached to  them,  and  how,  like  the  bishops,  they  mixed 
themselves  up  too  much  in  the  affairs  of  State.  For  all 
these  matters  the  archbishop  earnestly  besought  the  pope 
to  find  a  remedy ;  and,  moved  by  his  appeal  and  the  strength 
of  the  case,  Gregory  IX  at  once  granted  all  that  was  asked 
of  him.  The  royal  agents  attempted  to  defend  the  king 
and  the  justiciar,  but  could  obtain  nothing ;  "  the  arch- 
bishop's eloquence,  the  dignity  of  his  personal  appearance 
and  his  wisdom "  gained  the  day  completely.1  Nothing, 
however,  came  of  his  victory  at  the  Curia.  On  his  way 
home,  and  when  only  three  days'  journey  from  the  Eternal 
City,  Archbishop  le  Graund  died  suddenly.  "  And,"  writes 
the  chronicler, "  with  his  death  died  also  all  the  business  he 
had  carried  through."  So  unexpected  was  the  event  that 
there  were  not  wanting  tongues  to  suggest  that  Hubert  de 
Burgh  had  procured  his  death  by  poison.2 

Le  Graund  died  3rd  August,  1231;  and  already  Peter  de 
Rupibus,  who  had  returned  from  the  crusade  this  year,  had 
succeeded  in  supplanting  de  Burgh  as  the  king's  con- 
fidential adviser.  King  Henry  passed  the  Christmas  with 
him  at  Winchester,  when  the  bishop  entirely  recovered  the 
royal  confidence  and  resumed  his  position  of  chosen  ad- 
viser to  the  youthful  monarch.3  He  laboured  to  surround 
Henry  with  foreigners  and  to  alienate  him  from  his  native 
subjects.  Among  the  faithful  foreign  followers  of  de 
Rupibus,  who  readily  seconded  his  efforts  to  displace  the 
justiciar  from  the  high  position  he  had  long  held,  may  be 
named  three,  Peter  de  Rievaulx,  his  nephew,  Segrave  and 

1  Matthew  Paris,  iii.  205.  2  Roger  de  Wendover,  iii.  16. 

3  Matthew  Paris,  iii.  211-212. 


I32  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

Passelew.  When  the  ruin  of  de  Burgh  was  accomplished, 
de  Rupibus  secured  for  these  foreigners  some  of  the  high 
places  in  the  State.  Stephen  Segrave  became  chief  justiciar 
and  Peter  de  Rievaulx  treasurer,1  whilst  the  removal  of  the 
English  servants  of  the  royal  household  quickly  followed 
upon  the  Christmas  festivities  at  Winchester.8 

The  national  feeling  against  foreigners  in  general,  and 
against  the  Roman  clerks  in  particular,  found  expression 
at  the  close  of  the  year  1231,  in  an  unmistakable  way.  A 
body  of  people,  calling  themselves  "  men  ready  to  die  rather 
than  tolerate  the  Romans  beneficed  in  England,"  wrote 
letters  to  all  the  English  bishops  and  cathedral  Chapters 
informing  them  that  they  had  definitely  determined  to  free 
the  country  from  this  abuse  and  slavery.  They  threatened, 
if  the  ecclesiastical  authorities  chose  to  interfere  in  the 
hopes  of  frustrating  their  project,  that  they  would  burn  and 
otherwise  destroy  their  possessions.3  A  similar  letter  was 
sent  to  all  who  were  farming  the  churches  of  the  Roman 
clerics,  warning  them  to  abandon  their  charges.  These 
letters  were  sent  about  the  country  without  signatures,  but 
sealed  with  the  two  swords,  usual  in  the  citations  issued  by 
cathedral  churches  to  such  as  were  called  upon  to  present 
themselves  for  some  purpose  or  other  to  the  diocesan 
authority. 

In  December,  1231,  the  first  outward  sign  of  this  move- 
ment manifested  itself.  By  order  of  the  pope  a  court  had 
been  summoned  at  St.  Alban's  to  investigate  the  question 
of  the  marriage  of  Roger,  earl  of  Essex,  and  his  wife,  who 
had  applied  for  a  divorce.  Wlien  the  court  broke  up  a 
Roman  named  Cincio,  a  canon  of  St.  Paul's,  was  seized  by 
some  members  of  this  secret  society,  and  only  escaped  from 

1  Matthew  Paris,  iii.  220.  a  Ibid.,  240. 

3  Roger  de  Wendover,  iii.  1 6  seqq.t  27. 


ARCHBISHOP  LE  GRAUND  133 

their  hands  after  some  weeks'  confinement  and  after  being 
despoiled  of  his  money.  At  the  same  time  the  archdeacon 
of  Norwich,  John  de  Ferentino,  only  escaped  with  difficulty 
and  had  to  conceal  himself  in  London. 

The  threats  against  foreigners  became  more  numerous 
with  the  new  year,  1232,  and  serious  attacks  were  made 
upon  their  property.  At  Wingham,  in  Kent,  the  barns  of 
a  certain  Roman  clerk  were  pillaged;  and  upon  complaint 
being  made  to  the  sheriff  he  sent  some  of  his  officials  to 
make  inquiry.  They  found  the  place  occupied  by  armed 
men,  who  had  already  disposed  of  all  the  corn  in  the  barn, 
selling  some  on  easy  terms  and  giving  the  rest  to  the  poor. 
On  being  questioned  about  their  proceedings  they  produced 
forged  letters  of  the  king,  prohibiting  anyone  from  inter- 
fering with  them.  Upon  this  matter  being  brought  to  the 
notice  of  the  bishop  of  London,  he  at  once  took  vigorous 
action.  Having  called  together  ten  bishops,  he  got  them  to 
pass  a  joint  excommunication  on  all  who  had  been  engaged 
in  this  work;  and  included  in  the  same  sentence  those  who 
had  laid  hands  upon  Cincio,  the  Roman  canon  of  St.  Paul's, 
and  the  authors  of  the  threatening  letters  which  had  been 
widely  distributed.1 

These  spiritual  threats  appear,  however,  to  have  done 
little  to  put  a  stop  to  the  outrages  by  which  a  small  but 
determined  band  of  men  designed  to  drive  the  strangers 
out  of  the  kingdom.  At  Easter  time,  1232,  a  general  cam- 
paign appears  to  have  been  organised  throughout  the 
country.  The  barns  of  the  Roman  ecclesiastics  in  various 
parts  of  England  were  pillaged,  and  their  contents  sold 
or  given  to  the  poor.  The  perpetrators  of  these  outrages 
obeyed  the  orders  of  one  man,  a  Yorkshire  knight,  called 
Robert  Twenge,  who  took  the  name  of  William  Wither. 
1  Roger  de  Wendover,  iii.  28. 


134  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

He  was  the  owner  of  property,  which  entitled  him  to  pre- 
sent to  certain  benefices,  and  he  was  aggrieved  at  that 
right  being  superseded  by  the  papal  provisions  which 
had  been  made  to  them.  Although  the  number  of  those 
actually  engaged  in  this  work  was  small,  it  is  almost  cer- 
tain that  they  had  the  sympathy  of  a  great  number,  and 
that  many  influential  persons  among  the  clergy  as  well  as 
among  the  laity  knew  of  their  proceedings  and  lent  them 
countenance. 

The  Romans  were  terrified,  and  everywhere  they  sought 
shelter  in  monasteries,  leaving  their  property  to  the  spoilers. 
They  appear  to  have  made  no  complaints,  probably  pre- 
ferring to  sacrifice  their  goods  rather  than  endanger  their 
lives.  It  was  not  long,  however,  before  the  outrages  came 
to  the  ears  of  the  pope,  and  he  at  once  wrote  angrily  to  the 
king  to  put  a  stop  to  the  doings.  He  reminded  him  of  his 
coronation  oath,  and  ordered  him  under  pain  of  excom- 
munication to  hold  a  full  inquiry  and  to  punish  the  guilty 
with  exemplary  sentences.1 

Commissions  were  also  issued  by  the  pope  to  seek  out 
the  guilty;  for  the  south  of  England,  Peter,  bishop  of  Win- 
chester and  the  abbot  of  Bury  St.  Edmund  ;  for  the  north, 
the  archbishop  of  York,  the  bishop  of  Durham  and  John 
Romanus,  a  canon  of  York.  They  were  ordered  to  excom- 
municate all  transgressors  and  to  send  them  to  Rome  for 
absolution  without  right  of  appeal.2 

When  these  courts  of  inquiry  got  to  work  very  many  of 
all  ranks  were  accused  of  being  concerned,  directly  or  in- 
directly, in  these  outrages.  Bishops  (including  the  bishop 
of  London),  royal  clerks,  deans  and  archdeacons  are  named 

1  Rymer,  i.  203. 

2  Brit.  Mus.  Add.  MS.,  15,353,  ff.  133-14°-  The  pope  complains  of  the  out- 
rage to  the  Holy  See  in  the  treading  under  foot  the  Bullae  of  SS.  Peter  and  Paul. 


ARCHBISHOP  LE  GRAUND  135 

as  consenting  parties.  De  Burgh  himself  was  pointed  at 
as  being  the  real  instigator  of  the  movement,  although  to 
him  the  pope  especially  appeals  as  a  faithful  son  of  the 
Roman  church,  to  which,  he  says,  "  in  these  days  you  have 
taken  care  to  manifest  signs  of  your  devotion  and  most 
welcome  obedience."  He  begs  him  to  see  justice  done,  and 
to  temper  the  king's  anger  at  the  issue  by  the  Holy  See  of 
letters  of  inquiry  into  the  disturbances.  He  must  remember 
that  "at  this  time  they  have  often  been  asked  for"  and 
could  not  without  grave  injustice  be  refused.1 

The  ringleader  of  the  movement,  the  knight  Twenge, 
surrendered  to  the  king  and  confessed  that  he  was  actuated 
by  the  sense  of  injustice  in  being  defrauded  of  the  pre- 
sentation of  his  church  by  the  sentence  of  the  pope.  He 
declared  that  he  preferred  to  be  excommunicated  tempor- 
ally than  to  be  despoiled.  In  accordance  with  the  papal 
injunctions  he  was  sent  to  Rome,  but  Henry  himself  gave 
him  letters  testifying  to  his  right  and  begged  the  pope  to 
hear  him.3 

The  conclusion  of  Twenge's  history  is  curious.  In  1239 
he  was  dispatched  to  Rome  with  a  letter  signed  by  many 
of  the  leading  barons,  who  had  grievances  similar  to  his. 
Matthew  Paris  has  preserved  this  letter3  in  which  they 
appeal  to  Gregory  IX  to  safeguard  their  rights.  They  tell 
the  pope  that  "  the  ship  of  liberties,  won  by  the  blood  of 
their  forefathers,"  seems  to  be  threatened  more  than  ever 
by  the  stress  of  storms.  They  "consequently  feel  con- 
strained to  wake  the  Lord,  who  is  sleeping  in  the  bark  of 
Peter,  loudly  calling  with  one  voice,  'Lord  save  us,  we 
perish,' "  and  to  invoke  the  authority  of  the  Apostolic  See 
to  protect  their  right  of  patronage. 

1  Royal  Letters ;  549.  a  Roger  de  Wendover,  iii.  29. 

*  Chron.  Maj.  iii.  610-612. 


136  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

His  mission  was  entirely  successful.  The  pope  not 
only  restored  Twenge's  right  of  presentation,  but  in  two 
letters  addressed  to  Richard  of  Cornwall  and  the  legate 
Otho,  then  in  England,  he  confirmed  the  rights  of  the 
English  lay  patrons  over  their  benefices.  On  which  letters 
Matthew  Paris  moralised :  "  In  this  fashion  the  rights  of 
laymen  are  protected,  whilst  those  of  ecclesiastics  and  poor 
helpless  religious  are  left  to  the  mercy  of  the  spoiler. 
Truly  the  world  threatens  to  rush  onward  to  complete 
ruin." 

To  revert  to  the  national  movement ;  the  return  of  de 
Rupibus  to  power  caused  widespread  consternation  ;  and 
a  determined  opposition  was  formed  under  the  leadership 
of  Richard,  the  earl  marshal,  son  of  the  former  regent. 
When  summoned  to  a  meeting  of  the  council  at  Oxford 
on  24th  June,  1233,  they  refused  to  attend  and  explained 
their  motives  in  plain  terms,  whilst  Robert  Bacon,  a  Do- 
minican, explained  to  the  king  that  there  could  be  no 
peace  as  long  as  the  bishop  of  Winchester  retained  his 
paramount  influence.1  At  a  second  meeting  the  barons 
insisted  upon  the  removal  of  the  foreigners  and  declared 
that,  unless  this  was  done  at  once,  they  would  summon  a 
great  council  and  elect  a  new  king.  All  the  summer  and 
autumn  of  this  year,  1233,  there  was  practically  civil  war  in 
the  country.  The  earl  marshal  was  declared  a  traitor  and 
the  king  fixed  the  date  for  his  trial.  The  barons  denied  the 
legality  of  this  step,  as  a  peer  had  a  right  to  be  tried  by 
his  peers.  The  bishop  of  Winchester  retaliated  by  boldly 
denying  that  there  were  any  peers  in  England  in  the  same 
sense  that  there  were  in  France.  Upon  this  the  power  of 
the  Church  was  invoked,  and  the  bishops  threatened  de 
Rupibus  with  excommunication  as  a  disturber  of  the  public 

1  Matthew  Paris,  iii.  244-245. 


ARCHBISHOP  LE  GRAUND  137 

peace,  and  in  fact  they  actually  promulgated  a  general 
sentence  against  all  who  had  turned  the  mind  of  the  king 
from  his  subjects. 

For  some  time  after  the  death  of  Archbishop  le  Graund 
the  archiepiscopal  chair  of  Canterbury  remained  vacant. 
The  first  choice  of  the  monks  of  Christ  Church  was  unfor- 
tunate, though  it  would  appear  that  they  made  it  with  the 
best  intention  of  avoiding  difficulties.  Having  obtained  the 
royal  licence  to  elect,  they  chose  Ralph  Nevile,  the  bishop 
of  Chichester,  the  royal  confessor,  and  at  that  time  the  king's 
chancellor,  whom  Henry  had  wished  them  to  have  for  arch- 
bishop at  the  previous  vacancy.1  Matthew  Paris  speaks 
in  high  terms  of  Bishop  Nevile's  ability  and  qualities, 
saying  that  the  monks  regarded  him  as  an  approved  de- 
fender of  their  Church,  and  likened  him  to  Saint  Thomas, 
who  also  had  been  made  archbishop  whilst  chancellor  of 
the  kingdom.  Their  choice  was  of  course  at  once  ratified 
by  the  king,  and  the  monks  came  to  inform  the  bishop  and 
to  ask  him  to  defray  their  journey  to  Rome  to  obtain  the 
confirmation  of  the  pope,  and  for  money  to  meet  the  fees 
in  the  Curia.  Nevile  refused  to  give  them  anything  what- 
ever for  this  purpose,  and  they  had  to  set  out  without  his 
help,  and  having  reached  Rome  asked  the  pope  for  the 
canonical  confirmation  of  the  elect.  Gregory  IX  at  this 
period  had  for  his  adviser  in  English  matters  Simon  Lang- 
ton,  the  brother  of  the  late  archbishop,  and  upon  being 
applied  to  for  information  about  the  elect,  Langton  spoke 
of  him  as  "  a  courtier  and  illiterate,"  and  said  that  he  was 
"rapid  and  hasty  in  speech."  He  hinted  that  if  he  were 
promoted  he  would  aid  the  king  and  the  whole  king- 
dom to  free  England  from  its  suzerainty  to  the  pope,  and 
would  try  and  get  rid  of  the  tribute  with  which  King  John 

1  Matthew  Paris,  iii.  207. 


138  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

had  burdened  the  country.  In  Langton's  opinion,  Nevile 
would  even  go  to  the  length  of  risking  his  life  to  repudiate 
this,  relying  upon  the  protests  made  by  Archbishop  Lang- 
ton  at  St.  Paul's  to  the  act  of  John  in  resigning  his  crown 
to  the  papal  legate,  and  setting  his  hand  to  the  document 
"hateful  to  the  whole  world."1  Upon  hearing  this,  the  pope 
quashed  the  election,  telling  the  monks  to  go  and  choose 
someone  who  would  be  a  good  pastor  of  souls,  of  utility  to 
the  English  Church,  and  a  faithful  and  devoted  son  of  the 
Roman  Church.* 

After  this  further  disappointment  the  monks  applied  to 
the  king,  saying  they  were  ordered  to  hold  another  election. 
On  nth  March,  1232,  Henry  wrote  to  the  prior  on  the 
subject.  He  forbade  the  monks  to  act  upon  the  Apostolic 
mandate  they  had  brought  from  Rome,  as  it  seemed  to 
trench  upon  the  royal  prerogatives.  The  monks  must 
obtain  his  leave  before  they  ventured  to  engage  in  any 
election  even  in  the  Curia.3 

The  king's  difficulties  having  been  met,  and  his  royal 
licence  obtained,  the  monks  were  finally  allowed  to  pro- 
ceed to  an  election.  This  time  they  made  choice  of  their 
prior,  John  de  Sittingbourne  who,  having  been  accepted  by 
Henry,  forthwith  proceeded  to  Rome  for  examination  and 
confirmation.  The  pope  handed  the  elect  over  to  Cardinal 
John  de  Colonna  and  others,  who  for  three  days  examined 
him  under  nineteen  heads,  and  finally  expressed  themselves 
well  satisfied.  Pope  Gregory,  who  was  himself  ninety-four 
years  old  at  this  time,  came  to  the  conclusion,  however, 
that  Prior  John,  "  though  a  holy  man,  was  too  aged  and 
simple,  and  unfit  for  such  a  dignity ;  a  good  man  but  not 
made  for  that  position."  He  was  not  rejected,  but  was 

1  Matthew  Paris,  iii.  207.  2  Ibid.,  208. 

3  Royal  letters,  i.  406. 


ARCHBISHOP  LE  GRAUND  139 

strongly  recommended  to  resign.  This  he  at  once  did, 
and  requested  leave  to  return  home.1 

Once  more  the  monks  were  sent  back  to  England  to 
hold  another  election  at  Canterbury.  By  this  time  Peter  de 
Rupibus  had  attained  to  the  post  of  supreme  adviser  of 
the  king;  and  at  his  suggestion,  John  le  Blund,  a  teacher  of 
theology  at  Oxford,  was  chosen.  Having  received  the  royal 
assent,  he  too  set  out,  accompanied  by  some  of  the  monks, 
to  obtain  confirmation  at  Rome.  Again  the  election  was 
quashed.  Matthew  Paris  says  that  Peter  de  Rupibus  even 
wrote  to  the  emperor  to  interest  himself  in  behalf  of  the 
elect2  But,  in  view  of  the  relations  between  Frederick  and 
the  Holy  See,  it  is  difficult  to  suppose  that  this  could  have 
been  the  case.  There  is  also  a  story  about  John  le  Blund 
having  received  a  large  sum  of  money  towards  the  expenses 
of  his  confirmation,  from  the  bishop  of  Winchester.  But 
apparently  the  elect  confessed  to  holding  two  benefices 
with  the  care  of  souls  attached,  against  the  provisions  of 
the  Lateran  Council,  and  on  this  ground  the  election  was 
set  aside.3 

The  pope,  meanwhile,  had  caused  inquiries  to  be  made 
as  to  the  most  fit  man  for  the  position  of  archbishop,  and 
the  monks  were  directed  to  turn  their  thoughts  towards 
Edmund  Rich,  then  treasurer  of  Salisbury.  On  the  return 
of  the  envoys  from  Rome  for  the  fourth  time,  the  Christ 
Church  monks  applied  for  the  royal  licence  to  hold  the 
election,  which  took  place  on  2Oth  September,  1233.  They 
acted  upon  the  pope's  suggestion  and  chose  Edmund  Rich 
as  their  archbishop,  being  actuated  also  by  the  fear  that, 
through  the  influence  of  de  Rupibus,  they  might  perhaps 
have  a  foreigner  thrust  on  them.4  The  pope's  confirmation 

1  Roger  de  Wendover,  iii.  29.          2  Matthew  Paris,  iii.  243.         3  Ibid. 
4  Cotton  MS.   Jul.  D.    vi.  f.    130  (Life  of  St.  Edtntind,  by  Dom.  W. 
Wallace,  554). 


HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

was,  of  course,  a  foregone  conclusion,  and  this  was  accorded 
on  22nd  December,  1233,  on  which  date  Gregory  IX  wrote 
to  the  suffragans  announcing  his  ratification  of  the  election, 
and  to  the  king  and  the  monks  of  Canterbury  urging  them 
to  accept  the  new  archbishop.1 

Even  before  his  consecration,  the  new  archbishop-elect 
was  called  upon  to  act  in  a  gravely  difficult  matter.   A  par- 
liament was  held  at  Westminster  on  2nd  February,  1234, 
at  which  he  was  present,  and  in  which,  at  the  head  of  the 
bishops,  he  presented  a  remonstrance  to  the  king  on  the 
course  he  was  pursuing,  in  putting  himself  so.  completely 
into  the  hands  of  foreign  advisers.   The  bishop  of  Lichfield, 
"vested  in   full  pontificals,"  had  indignantly  denied  that 
friendship  for  the  fallen  earl  marshal  in  any  way  implied 
enmity  to  the  king,  and  he  had  obtained  from  the  bishops 
generally  a  promise  to  utter  an  anathema  against  all  who 
made  such  accusations.2    This  was  followed  by  a  solemn 
warning,   given   by   the   bishops  to   the   king   in   person, 
against  trusting  to  the  bishop  of  Winchester  or  Peter  de 
Rievaulx,  and  their  accomplices,  and  letting  them  persuade 
him   that   his   English   subjects,   whom    they   hated   and 
despised,  were  disloyal  to  him.    It  was,  they  declared,  by 
just  such  a  policy  that  King  John  had  been  alienated  from 
the  affection  of  his  people,  and  further,  that  it  was  by  fol- 
lowing the  advice  of  the  same  bishop,  that  he  had  lost 
Normandy,  dissipated   all   his  treasures  uselessly,  nearly 
sacrificed  his  rule  over  England  and  never  knew  peace 
again,  except  by  making  his  country  pass  through  the 
horrors  of  an  interdict,  and  by  leaving  it  in  the  end  as 
a  tributary  kingdom.    They  felt  constrained  to  tell  him 
the  truth,  they  said,  and  they  warned  him  that  unless  he 
changed  all  this,  they  would  not  hesitate  to  place  him  and 

1  Registres  de  Grtg.  IX.,  i.  col.  907.  a  Matthew  Paris,  iii.  268. 


ARCHBISHOP  LE  GRAUND  141 

all  his  advisers  under  ecclesiastical  censure,  only  waiting 
till  after  the  consecration  of  the  new  archbishop  of  Can- 
terbury to  do  so,  should  it  be  necessary.1 

Meanwhile  the  king's  agents  in  Rome  had  evidently 
not  been  idle,  and  the  pope  was  induced  to  write  a  letter 
to  the  bishops  of  Durham  and  Rochester,  which  was  in- 
tended to  check  the  action  of  the  archbishop.  He  had 
learnt  with  sorrow,  he  says,  that  the  bishops  had  not  acted 
as  vigorously  against  the  disturbers  of  the  peace  as  he  had 
urged  them  to  do.  He  hopes  that  the  archbishop  will  now 
prove  that  the  choice  made  of  himself  was  right,  and  that 
he  will  take  every  means  to  restore  the  tranquillity  of  the 
country,  imperilled  by  the  negligent  attitude  of  the  epis- 
copate in  the  past.  If  he  and  his  suffragans  neglect  their 
duty,  then  Gregory  IX  enjoins  the  two  bishops  to  act 
promptly  with  full  papal  power.2 

This  letter  was  followed  by  another  papal  admonition 
directed  to  Archbishop  Edmund  himself,  dated  3rd  April, 
1234. 3  His  mission,  as  pope,  is  to  unite  and  bring  to 
harmony  where  there  was  division.  "  It  is,  therefore,  neces- 
sary," writes  the  pope,  "that  you  sedulously  exhort  and 
warn  those  born  in  England  not  to  take  it  amiss  if  strangers 
living  amongst  them  obtain  honours  and  benefices  in  the 
country,  since  with  God  there  is  no  acceptance  of  persons, 
and  he  who  lives  according  to  justice  in  any  nation,  finds 
favour  in  His  sight."  It  is  proper  that  you  "  show  spiritual 
love  and  kind  feeling  to  such  as  the  English  king  has 
honoured,  and  "  earnestly  exhort  others  to  show  their  trust 
and  devotion  to  him.  In  this  way,  and  in  this  way  only, 
the .  new  archbishop  will  be  able  to  prove  that  the  good 
reports  upon  which  the  pope  had  appointed  him  to  his  high 
office  were  well  founded."4 

1  Matthew  Paris,  Hi.  270-271.     *  Royal  Letters,  i.  554.     3  Ibid.,  556.     *  Ibid. 


142  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

The  archbishop  was  consecrated  in  his  metropolitan 
church  on  2nd  April,  and  within  a  week  he  was  called  upon 
again  to  come  into  official  opposition  to  the  king  on  the 
all-disturbing  question  of  foreigners.  At  a  meeting  on  9th 
April,  a  long  list  of  grievances  was  read,  and  St.  Edmund 
declared  that  he  and  his  fellow-bishops  were  fully  prepared 
to  excommunicate  the  king  if  he  refused  to  listen  to 
reason.  Henry  surrendered,  and  the  following  day  sent  an 
order  to  de  Rupibus  to  confine  himself  henceforth  to  the 
episcopal  duties  of  his  diocese,  and  no  longer  to  take  any 
part  in  the  government  of  the  kingdom.  Peter  de  Rievaulx, 
the  bishop's  ally  and  friend,  was  ordered  to  furnish  an 
account  of  his  receipts  as  treasurer,  from  which  office  he 
was  to  consider  himself  dismissed.  At  the  same  -time  all 
the  Poitevins  were  deprived  of  their  posts  in  the  public 
service  and  ordered  to  quit  the  country.  The  archbishop, 
with  the  bishops  of  Rochester  and  Chester,  went  from  the 
king  to  the  earl  marshal,  to  take  him  the  royal  assurance 
of  peace  and  friendship.1 

Before  the  close  of  the  year  1234  the  pope  was  again 
bestirring  himself  to  obtain  the  money  necessary  to  pro- 
secute the  crusade  in  the  Holy  Land.  He  addressed  an 
earnest  appeal  to  the  English  bishops  and  people  to  help 
him.  Those  taking  the  cross  were  to  be  protected  by  the 
spiritual  arm  of  the  Church,  and  if  they  were  in  debt,  their 
creditors  were  to  be  compelled  to  act  reasonably  towards 
them;  if  these  creditors  were  Jews  and  had  already  ex- 
acted usurious  interest,  the  secular  power  was  to  compel 
them  to  forego  that  interest,  and  until  they  did  so  no 
Christian  was  to  be  allowed,  under  pain  of  excommunica- 
tion, to  deal  with  them.2  The  crusade  was  preached  every- 
where by  the  friars,  Dominican  and  Franciscan,  who  were 
1  Matthew  Paris,  iii.  272,  273.  *  Ibid.,  280-287. 


ARCHBISHOP  LE  GRAUND  143 

received  in  towns  and  villages  with  great  ceremony  and 
enthusiasm. 

With  a  view  to  the  more  speedy  collection  of  this  aid, 
Roman  officials  came  over  into  England.  Matthew  Paris 
tells  us  that  while  they  went  under  the  name  of  simple 
nuncios,  they  really  possessed  the  ample  powers  of  Apos- 
tolic legates,  and  by  preaching,  supplicating,  ordering, 
threatening,  excommunicating,  not  to  mention  their  own 
fees,  obtained  under  the  name  of  "  procurations,"  they 
reduced  many  of  the  clergy  to  practical  beggary.1 

Sometime  in  the  following  year,  1235,  Peter  de  Rupibus 
was  summoned  to  Rome.  Gregory  IX  was  at  war  with  the 
Romans  and  desired  his  assistance.  He  had  experience, 
gained  in  the  Holy  Land,  and  there  was  plenty  of  money 
in  the  Winchester  diocese  which,  Matthew  Paris  hints,  the 
pope  was  anxious  to  share  with  the  bishop.3 

At  the  same  time  many  disturbances  were  caused  in 
England  by  the  oppressions  of  the  foreign  usurers,  who  had 
come  into  the  country  in  the  train  of  Stephen  of  Anagni, 
and  who,  by  lending  the  clergy  money  to  pay  the  papal 
tenth,  had  them  in  their  power.  The  bishop  of  London 
first  warned  these  rapacious  money-lenders  ;  and  rinding 
this  of  no  avail,  excommunicated  them.  Upon  this,  through 
their  influence  at  the  Curia,  they  prevailed  upon  the  Roman 
authorities  "peremptorily"  to  summon  abroad  the  bishop, 
who  was  now  old  and  infirm,  to  answer  to  injuries  done  to 
papal  merchants !  The  bishop,  however,  unwilling  to  ex- 
pose the  shame  of  those  connected  with  Rome,  gave  way, 
and  placed  himself  under  the  patronage  of  St.  Paul,  who 
had  said,  that  "  even  if  an  angel  were  to  preach  the  con- 
trary (to  the  faith)  let  him  be  anathema? 3 

1  Matthew  Paris,  279.  z  Ibid.,  331-332.  3  Ibid.,  332. 


CHAPTER  IX 

ST.  EDMUND  AS  ARCHBISHOP 

THE  episcopate  of  St.  Edmund  was  one  long  series  of 
troubles.  It  is  difficult,  perhaps,  in  these  days,  to  apportion 
the  blame  for  all  the  quarrels  and  contentions,  which 
naturally  must  have  interfered  with  the  due  working  of  the 
See  and  province  of  Canterbury  during  the  six  years  that 
he  was  archbishop.  But  it  is  not  unreasonable  to  see  in  St. 
Edmund's  previous  career  one  cause  at  least  conducive  to 
that  attitude  of  mind  which  led  to  misunderstandings  with 
those  with  whom  in  later  life  he  had  to  do.  He  was  a  student, 
whose  training  had  not  previously  brought  him  much  into 
contact  with  his  fellow  men,  and  a  professor  whose  authority 
had  been  rightly  accepted  without  question  by  his  disciples. 
Because  of  this  mental  training  it  is  more  than  likely  that 
he  was  unable,  or  found  it  difficult,  to  make  allowances  for 
that  deviation  from  strict  law  and  principle,  which  every 
practical  ruler  of  men  has  to  admit  as  a  working  hypothesis. 
The  word  of  the  superior  is  not  always  in  practice  a  law  to 
his  subjects,  as  that  of  the  professor  rightly  is  to  his 
students ;  and  the  man  who  has  been  buried  in  books  and 
used  to  teaching  in  the  schools  is  apt  to  expect  more  of 
mathematical  precision  in  obedience,  from  those  over  whom 
he  may  afterwards  be  placed  by  Providence,  than  in  real 
life  is  usually  accorded. 

Be  the  cause  what  it  may,  the  fact  is  obvious  that  the 
attitude  adopted  by  St.  Edmund  in  the  government  of  his 

144 


ST.  EDMUND  AS  ARCHBISHOP  145 

archbishopric  involved  him  in  quarrels  and  contentions 
which  lasted  till  his  death.  Almost  the  first  sign  of  any 
difficulty,  other  than  that  with  the  king,  is  to  be  found  in  a 
letter  of  admonition  addressed  to  him  by  the  pope  in 
February,  1234,  less  than  a  year  from  his  consecration. 
This  proves  at  least  that  reports,  somewhat  reflecting  on 
his  prudence,  had  already  reached  the  pope's  ears.  Gregory 
had  looked,  he  says,  for  great  things  from  Edmund's  pro- 
motion, and  had  rejoiced  to  hear  that  he  had  been  so  well 
received  in  the  Church  of  Canterbury.  For  this  reason  it  is 
all  the  more  needful  by  prudent  action  to  prove  the  wisdom 
of  the  choice :  "  Wherefore,  although  you  are,  as  indeed 
you  should  be,  a  zealous  defender  of  ecclesiastical  liberty, 
and  though  we  wish  you  to  protect  and  specially  to  cherish 
it,  we  warn  your  Fraternity,  and  by  our  Apostolic  letters 
order  you,  not  to  neglect  the  quality  of  moderation  in  your 
zeal.  As  becomes  the  dignity  of  your  office,  you  should 
strive  in  all  your  acts  to  manifest  a  spirit  of  peace  rather 
than  of  discord."1 

At  the  same  time  it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  whilst 
the  course  of  his  public  life  shows  St.  Edmund  as  involved 
in  what  seem  to  be  never-ending  quarrels,  there  can  be  no 
sort  of  doubt  as  to  the  strict  sense  of  duty  which  con- 
strained him  to  embark  upon  them.  As  regards  the 
personal  sanctity  which  characterised  his  life,  as  well  as 
his  upright  character  and  his  fearless  devotion  to  all  his 
obligations,  there  never  was  any  question  in  his  day,  nor 
can  there  be  now,  when  time  has  revealed  the  facts  more 
fully.  That  he  was  canonised  by  the  popular  voice  directly 
it  was  known  that  he  was  dead,  and  that  this  judgement 
was  ratified  almost  immediately  by  authority,  is  sufficient 
to  testify  to  the  personal  esteem  in  which  he  was  held,  in 

1  Royal  Letters,  i.  558. 
L 


146  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

spite  of  all  the  differences  and  disputes  in  which  he  was 
engaged  in  his  official  capacity. 

Early  in  his  episcopal  rule  the  archbishop  was  destined 
to  come  into  collision  with  the  monks  of  his  cathedral 
monastery  at  Christ  Church.  The  difficulty  arose  out  of  the 
consecration  of  Bishop  Grosseteste  to  the  See  of  Lincoln, 
which,  for  some  reason  or  other,  the  archbishop  proposed 
to  confer  in  Reading  Abbey.  Being  a  Berkshire  man 
himself,  and  Reading  being  near  to  his  native  place,  he 
may  have  been  more  at  home  there  than  he  yet  was  at 
Canterbury.  The  monks  of  Christ  Church,  however,  claimed 
that  it  was  their  undoubted  privilege  to  have  the  conse- 
cration of  any  suffragan  of  Canterbury  carried  out  in  the 
metropolitan  cathedral  under  their  charge.  The  archbishop, 
however,  would  not  give  way  in  the  matter,  and  determined 
to  disregard  the  protests  of  the  monks.  A  short  time 
before,  a  question  about  the  expenses  of  the  various 
elections  to  the  archbishopric  had  been  discussed  between 
the  convent  and  himself,  and  he  had  applied  to  Pope 
Gregory  on  the  subject.  He  specially  asked  that  the  entire 
cost  of  the  election  of  John  le  Blund,  which  was  quashed 
by  the  pope,  should  be  borne  by  the  religious,  and  not  by 
himself;  or,  as  an  alternative,  that  at  least  they  should  be 
compelled  to  pay  half  of  the  six  hundred  marks  which  it 
had  cost.1  The  pope  ordered  an  inquiry  to  be  held  by  the 
abbots  of  Westminster  and  Waltham ;  and,  on  their  find- 
ing, the  expenses  were,  on  3ist  May,  1235,  divided  equally, 
according  to  the  alternative  proposal  of  the  archbishop,2 
between  the  monks  and  the  archbishop. 

Before  the  pope's  decision  in  this  matter  could  have 
been  known  in  England,  the  question  of  the  consecration 
at  Reading  was  already  mooted,  and  had  apparently  al- 

1  Brit.  Mus.  Add.  MS.,  15,353,  f.  292.     2  Registres  de  Greg.  IX.,  ii.  No.  96. 


ST.  EDMUND  AS  ARCHBISHOP  147 

ready  passed  beyond  the  region  of  concession  on  either 
side.  To  some  who  have  written  on  this  matter,  the  action 
of  the  monks  in  claiming  such  privileges  appears  unreason- 
able, if  not  puerile.  In  justice  to  them,  however,  it  should 
be  remembered  that,  where  a  privilege  is  denied  or  threat- 
ened, it  may  become  the  duty  of  those  possessing  it  to 
protect  their  rights  at  all  costs.  Concession  which,  when 
privileges  are  admitted  or  at  any  rate  not  attacked,  may 
be  possible,  becomes  under  such  hostile  circumstances  un- 
wise, and  indeed  generally  impossible.  This  seems  to  have 
been  exactly  the  case  at  Canterbury.  From  a  letter  written 
by  Grosseteste  himself  to  the  archbishop  on  the  very  eve 
of  his  consecration,  it  would  appear  that  the  Christ  Church 
monks  not  only  refused  their  consent,  but  declared  their 
intention  of  appealing  to  the  supreme  authority  of  the 
pope,  should  their  protest  be  disregarded.  The  bishop- 
elect,  consequently,  earnestly  implored  St.  Edmund  not  to 
insist,  but  to  give  way  and  allow  the  ceremony  to  take 
place  at  Canterbury  as  usual,  "  unless  some  reason  of  which 
I  am  not  aware  makes  it  impossible  "  for  you  to  do  so  with- 
out sin.1  It  certainly  looks  as  if  the  archbishop  was  deter- 
mined to  carry  out  his  intention  for  the  very  purpose  of 
setting  aside  the  privilege,  and  without  other  reasons.  The 
existence  of  the  privilege  was  undoubtedly  known  to  him, 
as  it  was  granted  by  St.  Thomas  in  his  celebrated  Charter 
of  Liberties,  which  made  "the  common  consent  of  the 
whole  Chapter  of  monks  of  Canterbury  "  necessary  for  the 
consecration  of  any  suffragans  elsewhere  than  in  the  cathe- 
dral church.2  What  adds  strength  to  the  belief  that  the 
archbishop  was  acting  more  upon  a  whim  than  anything 
else  is,  that  no  real  reason  was  apparently  known  to  the 
Canterbury  monks  for  his  action ;  at  least,  they  left  Grosse- 
1  Grosseteste's  Letters,  54.  2  Literae  Cantuarienses,  i.  Int.,  xlviii. 


148  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

teste  himself  under  that  impression  when  he  visited  them 
and  talked  the  matter  over  with  them.1 

In  the  event,  Archbishop  Edmund  remained  firm,  and 
the  consecration  was  held  at  Reading.  The  monks  appear  to 
have  behaved  well  in  the  matter.  Whilst  resolving  to  have 
their  rights  determined  finally  by  the  Holy  See,  in  order  not 
to  prejudice  their  case  unnecessarily,  they  formally  pro- 
tested; but  gave  way  in  this  instance  for  the  sake  of  peace, 
and  allowed  the  ceremony  to  proceed.2  In  November  of 
this  same  year,  1235,  Pope  Gregory  IX  having  heard  the 
question  at  issue,  formally  confirmed  the  privilege  by  Bull, 
for  which  the  monks  had  contended.3 

The  misunderstandings  with  the  Christ  Church  com- 
munity did  not,  however,  end  here.  In  fact,  at  this  very 
time,  another  appeal  against  St.  Edmund  was  already 
lodged  in  Rome  by  the  prior  of  Canterbury  in  behalf  of  his 
community.  This  question  was  in  some  ways  even  more 
serious,  as  it  regarded  the  revenues  of  certain  impropriated 
churches  and  other  matters,  in  which  the  monks  considered 
that  they  had  been  gravely  injured  by  the  action  of  the 
archbishop.  On  22nd  December,  1235,  the  pope  appointed 
a  commission  to  hear  and,  by  agreement  of  the  parties,  to 
determine  the  questions  at  issue;  or,  as  an  alternative,  to 
establish  the  facts  in  dispute,  and  then  remit  its  finding  to 
Rome  for  final  decision.4  Acting  on  this  commission,  the 
abbots  of  Boxley  and  Lesnes  summoned  the  archbishop 
and  the  prior  to  appear  before  them  at  Rochester  on  loth 
May,  1236.  The  monks  appeared  by  their  proctor,  but  St. 
Edmund  took  no  notice  whatever  of  the  summons.  A 
second  citation  was  issued  for  June,  and  the  particulars  of 

1  Grosseteste's  Letters,  56. 

*  Wallace's  Life  of  St.  Edmund  of  Canterbury,  App.  iv.  477. 

8  Brit.  Mus.  Add.  MS.,  15,353,  f-  3^9-     4  Wallace,  ut  sup.  App.  ix.  488. 


ST.  EDMUND  AS  ARCHBISHOP  149 

the  claims  of  the  monks  against  him  was  at  the  same  time 
furnished  to  the  archbishop.  He  had  interfered  with  their 
rights  in  regard  to  certain  manors  and  churches,  and  he 
had  claimed  certain  revenues  which  had  always  been  re- 
garded by  his  predecessors  as  belonging  to  the  monastery. 
He  had  even  appointed  certain  officials  of  the  house,  such 
as  the  sacrist,  cellarer,  and  guestmaster,  etc.  Apparently 
also,  the  question  of  the  appointment  of  a  prior  over  the 
community  complicated  the  situation.  The  archbishop  not 
only  claimed  to  make  choice  of  the  superior,  but  actually 
carried  out  his  claim  by  an  appointment.  The  monks,  for 
the  sake  of  peace,  accepted  his  nomination,  but  appealed 
to  the  pope.  Gregory  IX,  whilst  praising  them  for  accept- 
ing the  nominee  of  the  archbishop,  declared  that  de  jure 
the  election  belonged  to  the  community.1  To  the  second 
citation  served  upon  him,  St.  Edmund  again  paid  no  atten- 
tion, although  the  commissioners  had  reminded  him  that 
they  were  acting  with  the  full  power  and  authority  of  the 
Apostolic  See.  Out  of  respect  to  his  office,  however,  they 
delayed  once  more  giving  judgement,  even  on  the  facts  of 
the  case,  until  the  March  following  (1237). 

A  third  time,  although  cited  "peremptorily,"  St.  Edmund 
neglected  to  appear,  either  personally  or  by  a  proctor,  and 
once  again  the  settlement  was  adjourned  till  /th  May.  On 
the  following  day,  however,  I4th  March,  each  of  the  two 
delegates  was  served  with  a  prohibition  from  proceeding 
further  in  the  matter,  this  being  contained  in  a  letter  from 
the  king,  obtained  by,  or  in  behalf  of,  the  archbishop.  King 
Henry  claimed  that  questions  as  to  revenues  and  appoint- 
ments to  churches  were  not  matters  to  be  brought  before 
the  common  court  of  Christendom  (Curia  Christianitatis], 
and  that  even  the  holding  of  such  a  court  was  an  offence 

1  Brit.  Mus.  Add.  MS.,  15,353,  f-  3&9- 


ISO  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

against  the  rights  of  the  Crown  and  his  royal  dignity.  He 
consequently  ordered  the  two  abbots  commissioned  by  the 
pope  to  desist  and  refrain  from  citing  the  archbishop  before 
them.  Whilst  they  were  still  in  doubt  whether  to  proceed 
and  risk  the  consequences  of  disobedience  to  the  king,  or 
stay  the  cause  and  thus  disobey  the  strict  orders  of  the 
pope,  they  received  a  second  letter  from  Gregory  IX.  The 
monks  had  naturally  complained  of  the  repeated  failure  of 
the  archbishop  to  appear  before  the  Apostolic  tribunal,  and 
of  his  reputed  intention  to  invoke  the  royal  authority  to 
put  an  end  to  the  proceedings  altogether.  The  pope  directed 
the  commissioners  to  ignore  any  royal  prohibition  they 
might  receive,  and  to  do  what  they  had  been  directed  to 
do  without  delay. 

Upon  receipt  of  this  second  papal  letter  the  commis- 
sioned abbots  again  cited  the  parties  to  appear  on  i6th  July 
1237.  The  monks  once  more  put  in  an  appearance,  and 
lodged  a  formal  complaint  that  the  royal  authority  had  been 
invoked  to  prevent  their  cause  being  tried  and  determined 
in  accordance  with  justice;  but  once  again  the  archbishop 
refused  to  come,  and  in  his  behalf  the  delegates  were  served 
with  another  royal  prohibition.  The  king  asserted  that  the 
papal  assumption,  that  cases  such  as  this  were  to  be  tried 
by  any  commission  from  the  "  Court  of  Christianity,"  and 
not  by  judges  appointed  by  the  Crown,  had  never  been 
allowed  in  England.  Moreover,  as  there  had  now  been  a 
legate  appointed  by  the  pope  to  England  who  was  "  even 
now  on  the  point  of  arriving,"  the  royal  orders  were  that 
nothing  further  whatever  was  to  be  done  in  the  matter  until 
his  coming.  Finally,  in  August,  1237,  by  the  advice  of  the 
legate,  the  commissioned  abbots  remitted  the  case  to  the 
Holy  See,  and  fixed  26th  January,  1238,  as  the  day  when 
the  parties,  either  personally  or  by  proxy,  should  appear  in 


ST.  EDMUND  AS  ARCHBISHOP  151 

the  Roman  Curia.  This  phase  of  the  long-continued  dis- 
pute was,  brought  to  an  end  by  a  compromise.  St.  Edmund 
appeared  in  the  Chapter  house  at  Canterbury  and  himself 
proposed  terms,  which  were  at  once  accepted  by  the  monks1 
as  satisfactory.  The  mutual  agreement  was  of  course  sub- 
ject to  the  confirmation  of  the  Holy  See,  and  St.  Edmund 
set  out  for  Rome  to  obtain  this  sanction. 

Unfortunately  this  was  not  to  be  the  close  of  these  long 
and  acrimonious  disputes  between  the  archbishop  and  his 
monastic  Chapter.  Before  the  papal  sanction  could  be  ob- 
tained to  the  proposed  compromise,  fresh  occasion  of  offence 
was  given  by  the  monks,  or  taken  by  St.  Edmund;  and  he 
returned  to  England  with  the  whole  matter  still  at  issue 
between  them.  A  visit  to  Canterbury,  in  company  with  the 
legate  Otho,  led  to  an  unpleasant  discovery.  The  copy  of 
the  Charter  of  St.  Thomas,  which  had  been  produced  as  the 
original,  was  in  truth  merely  a  copy.  It  was  made  by  two 
of  the  monks,  with  the  approval  or  connivance  of  the  prior, 
from  the  ancient  document  which  had  accidentally  been 
torn.  The  three  incriminated  monks  received  condign  pun- 
ishment; but  the  stigma,  which  for  some  time  after  attached 
to  the  religious  generally,  was  finally  removed  by  a  letter 
of  Pope  Gregory  IX,  written  in  1241,  after  St.  Edmund's 
death.  This  document  declared  the  community  entirely 
innocent  of  complicity  in  the  matter,  and  formally  found 
that  the  Charter  of  St.  Thomas  was  genuine  and  au- 
thentic.2 

The  relations  of  Archbishop  Edmund  with  the  Canter- 
bury monks  are  from  any  point  of  view  distressing  reading. 
The  two  parties  seem  to  have  been  incapable  of  understand- 
ing each  other.  The  continuator  of  Gervase,  the  historian 

1  Wallace.    App.  ex.  pp.  488-495. 

8  Brit.  Mus.  Add.  MS.,  15,354,  f.  341. 


152  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

of  Canterbury,  has  summed  up  the  chief  points  upon  which 
St.  Edmund  insisted,  and  against  which  the  monks  con- 
tended: the  archbishop  claimed  the  right  to  establish  a 
prebendal  church  for  secular  priests;  he  claimed  to  have 
the  right  to  consecrate  suffragan  bishops  where  he  wished, 
without  the  consent  of  the  monks,  notwithstanding  the  im- 
memorial privilege  of  the  Canterbury  religious;  he  wished 
to  substitute  secular  canons  for  the  monks  in  the  metropo- 
litan cathedral;  and  as  archbishop  he  desired  to  take  an 
active  part  in  the  government  of  the  monastery,  and,  as  its 
superior,  to  correct  abuses  should  he  think  fit  to  do  so. 

It  is  not  difficult  to  understand  the  reason  of  the  oppo- 
sition which  these  proposed  changes  met  with  on  the  part 
of  the  monks.  However  right  and  reasonable  they  may 
have  seemed  to  the  archbishop,  they  cannot  but  have  ap- 
peared unjust,  and  even  tyrannical,  to  the  bulk  of  the 
Christ  Church  community.  The  election  of  a  successor  to 
the  prior,  who  had  resigned  in  consequence  of  his  complicity 
in  the  business  of  the  forged  Charter  of  St.  Thomas,  led  to 
hopeless  misunderstandings  and  complications.  The  arch- 
bishop suspended  the  monks  and  placed  their  church  under 
an  interdict;  and  the  monks,  after  a  long  delay,  disregard- 
ing the  suspension,  elected  a  prior  notwithstanding  the 
archbishop's  positive  prohibition.  St.  Edmund  promptly 
excommunicated  all  who  had  taken  part  in  the  proceed- 
ings, and  the  consequent  chaos  continued  from  month  to 
month  in  spite  of  the  efforts  of  the  legate  Otho  and  of 
sundry  English  bishops,  until  St.  Edmund's  departure  from 
the  country.  The  cause  of  the  delay  in  settling  the  question 
at  issue  before  the  Roman  courts  was  entirely  the  fault  of 
St.  Edmund  or  of  his  representatives.  The  pope  declares  in 
his  letters  that  a  judge  was  appointed  in  the  person  of  the 
bishop  of  Ostia,  but  that  he  was  unable  to  proceed,  "on 


ST.  EDMUND  AS  ARCHBISHOP  153 

account  of  the  contumacious  action  of  the  archbishop's 
proctor,"  who  kept  the  case  dragging  on.1 

The  Christ  Church  quarrel  was  by  no  means  the  only 
one  in  which  St.  Edmund  was  involved.  The  abbey  of 
St.  Augustine's  at  Canterbury  was  likewise  constrained  to 
resist  his  assumption  of  authority  over  it,  and  the  abbot 
appealed  to  the  Holy  See  for  protection  against  what  the 
community  conceived  to  be  an  encroachment  upon  their 
liberty.  The  question  was  more  easily  settled  than  that 
which  for  years  disturbed  the  peace  and  well-being  of  the 
neighbouring  monastery  of  Christ  Church,  and  interfered 
with  the  possibility  of  cordial  relations  between  the  arch- 
bishop and  his  monastic  Chapter.  The  chief  matter  at  issue 
in  the  case  of  St.  Augustine's  related  to  the  abbot's  juris- 
diction over  tenants  and  clerics  subject  to  the  monastery ; 
the  annual  payments  levied  in  parishes  belonging  to  it,  and 
the  benediction  of  the  abbot  without  any  oath  of  canonical 
obedience.  The  matter  ended  in  a  compromise,  but  not 
before  extreme  measures  had  been  resorted  to  by  the  arch- 
bishop and  the  authority  of  the  Holy  See  had  been  in- 
voked. The  monks  were  excommunicated,  and  at  once  ap- 
pealed to  the  pope  for  protection.  Gregory  IX  without  de- 
lay wrote  to  the  archbishop  to  say  that  he  had  appointed 
a  commission  to  determine  the  question,  meanwhile  he 
was  to  remove  his  sentence.  It  behoved  an  archbishop,  the 
pope  said,  "  to  safeguard  the  rights  "  of  the  abbey,  not  to  in- 
fringe upon  its  privileges.  He  had  heard  with  sorrow  that 
St.  Edmund  had  excommunicated  the  abbot  and  monks, 
and  had  caused  the  sentence  to  be  published  throughout 
the  diocese,  even  in  churches  belonging  to  the  monks 
placing  these  churches,  which  were  subject  to  the  jurisdic- 
tion of  the  abbey,  under  an  interdict,  and  suspending  all 

1  Brit.  Mus.  Add.  MS.,  15,294,  f.  338. 


154  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

who  had  paid  an  annual  sum  to  the  abbey  in  recognition 
of  its  patronage.  He  orders  the  archbishop  to  desist  from 
such  proceedings,  and  he  tells  him  that  he  has  appointed 
a  commission  of  abbots  to  see  that  what  he  thus  orders  is 
done.1  The  same  pontiff  subsequently  confirmed  all  the 
privileges  of  St.  Augustine's,  and  took  the  monks  under 
the  special  protection  of  the  Holy  See. 

At  the  same  time  a  case  of  even  graver  importance 
had  been  raised  by  the  monks  of  Rochester  against  the 
archbishop.  On  the  death  of  Henry  de  Stamford,  the 
bishop  of  Rochester,  on  24th  February,  1235,  the  monks 
proceeded  to  elect  a  successor,  and  presented  him  to  St. 
Edmund  for  archiepiscopal  confirmation.  St.  Edmund  re- 
fused to  confirm  the  elect  on  the  ground  that  Rochester 
was  under  the  patronage  of  Canterbury,  and  that  the 
nomination  of  the  bishop  belonged  by  right  to  the  arch- 
bishop. An  appeal  to  Rome  followed  this  refusal,  and 
Pope  Gregory  IX  again  appointed  a  commission  to  try 
the  facts  at  issue.4  Here,  as  in  the  case  of  Christ  Church, 
Canterbury,  the  commissioners  were  hampered  in  their 
work  by  the  refusal  of  the  archbishop  to  plead  before 
them.  Their  first  report  was  sent  back  from  Rome  as  not 
being  in  proper  form,  and  a  second  report  was  drawn  and 
dispatched  by  some  of  the  monks  to  the  pope  on  i/th 
February,  1237.  A  delay  of  another  year,  however,  was 
caused  by  the  need  of  waiting  for  the  arrival  of  the  arch- 
bishop in  the  Eternal  City.  Finally  on  2oth  March,  1238, 
rather  more  than  three  years  after  the  commencement  of 
the  dispute,  the  pope  decided  in  favour  of  the  monks  on  all 
counts. 

It  is  unnecessary  to  pursue  the  history  of  the  arch- 
bishop's unfortunate  quarrels  further.  He  had  difficulties 

1  Brit.  Mus.  Add.  MS.,  15,353,  f-  38?-  3  Ibid,,  f.  384. 


ST.  EDMUND  AS  ARCHBISHOP  155 

and  costly  litigation  with  the  abbey  of  Westminster  and 
with  the  bishop  of  London  on  the  subject  of  certain  rights 
of  visitation,  which  he  claimed.  In  both  of  these  his  con- 
tention was  disallowed  by  Rome  on  appeal.  Meanwhile,  if 
naturally  his  ecclesiastical  government  somewhat  suffered 
by  these  long  and  acrimonious  disputes  which  embittered 
his  relations  with  so  many;  still,  there  exists  in  the  pro- 
visions of  a  provincial  synod,  evidence  of  his  desire  to 
maintain  and  support  sound  discipline  in  the  Church.1 
Perhaps  the  most  interesting  of  his  exhortations  in  these 
constitutions,  in  view  at  least  of  St.  Edmund's  own  un- 
fortunate disputes,  is  the  fifth  decree  which  urges  the  need 
of  mutual  peace  and  charity.  "  Dearest  children,"  he  says, 
"  we  are  all  strictly  obliged  to  keep  the  peace,  since  God 
Himself  is  the  author  and  lover  of  peace,  Who  came  to 
bring  us  peace  not  only  (hereafter)  in  heaven,  but  also 
between  those  now  on  earth.  And  since  we  can  never 
come  to  eternal  peace  save  through  the  temporal  peace 
which  dwells  in  our  mortal  breast,  we  admonish  you  and 
charge  you  to  keep  this  peace  as  far  as  possible  with  all 
men.  Declare  unto  your  parishioners  that  they  be  one 
body  in  Christ,  in  the  unity  of  the  faith  and  in  the  bond  of 
peace ;  carefully  suppress  any  enmities  that  may  arise  in 
your  parishes;  foster  friendships;  reconcile  those  at  variance 
and,  as  far  as  in  you  lies,  permit  not  the  sun  to  go  down 
upon  the  wrath  of  any  of  your  parishioners." 

With  the  removal  of  Bishop  Peter  de  Rupibus  and 
other  foreign  councillors  of  the  king,  Henry,  whose  char- 
acter always  inclined  him  to  lean  upon  some  one  or  other, 
placed  himself  under  the  archbishop  as  his  chief  adviser. 
Under  his  influence  he  pardoned  Gilbert  Marshall  and 
Hubert  de  Burgh,  and  declared  the  outlawry,  previously 

1  Wilkins,  i.  635. 


156  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

pronounced  against  them,  to  be  annulled  "  because  it  had 
been  promulgated  unjustly  and  contrary  to  the  law  of  the 
land." l  The  pope,  who  had  warmly  espoused  the  cause  of 
the  fallen  de  Burgh,  congratulated  Henry  on  his  action  in 
thus  generously  pardoning  him.  And  the  king  took  the 
opportunity  when  informing  Pope  Gregory  of  his  compli- 
ance with  his  request  about  de  Burgh,  to  demand  that 
nobles  and  others  might  not  be  summoned  to  plead  and  be 
judged  by  any  court  out  of  England.  The  pope  in  granting 
this,  took  occasion  to  remind  Henry  that  "  the  Apostolic 
See,  your  mother,"  had  always  shown  favour  and  special  love 
to  you,  and  that  he  personally  had  "  on  every  opportunity 
supported  the  interests  of  king  and  kingdom,"  and  hoped 
ever  to  do  so.2  In  return,  the  English  king  expressed  his 
desire  and  intention  of  "obeying  the  orders  of  the  lord 
pope,"  by  entering  upon  any  arrangement  for  the  con- 
tinuance of  the  good  relations  between  his  kingdom  and 
France.3  This  assurance  prompted  the  papal  letters  of 
November,  1234,  to  Louis  IX,  " earnestly  exhorting  him" 
to  do  his  part  in  the  matter.4  The  final  arrangements  were 
still,  however,  somewhat  delayed  by  the  refusal  of  the  earl 
of  March  to  agree  to  the  peace  or  truce,  and  this  attitude 
called  forth  a  letter  from  Henry  to  the  pope  asking  him  to 
use  his  authority  and  compel  the  earl  to  come  to  reason/ 

Before  the  close  of  the  year,  1234,  what  is  called  in  the 
Chronicles,  "  a  grave  discord  "  sprung  up  between  the  pope 
and  the  Romans  generally.  This  necessitated  the  direct 
interference  of  the  emperor  in  the  Eternal  City,  an  echo  of 
which  was  heard  even  in  England.6  It  is  said  by  the  writers 
of  the  period  that  all  Roman  clerics  beneficed  in  England 

1  Royal  Letters,  i.  444.  z  Rymer,  i.  211.  3  Ibid.,  212. 

4  Royal  Letters,  i.  557.  s  Rymer,  i.  215. 

8  Ann.  de  Theokesberia  (Ann.  Mon.,  i.),  94. 


ST.  EDMUND  AS  ARCHBISHOP  157 

were  at  this  time  deprived  of  their  livings  ;  and  in  the  case 
of  Rufinus,  the  nephew  of  the  late  legate,  Cardinal  Gualo,  it 
was  found,  when  inquiry  was  ordered  by  the  pope,  that  he 
was  in  possession  of  many  benefices,  a  thing  prohibited  by 
law.1 

At  the  beginning  of  1235,  the  pope  exerted  himself  to 
bring  about  a  good  understanding  between  England  and 
Scotland.  He  wrote  personally  to  the  two  sovereigns, 
and  sent  orders  to  the  archbishop  of  York  to  proceed  to 
Scotland  in  order  to  urge  the  king  to  carry  out  his  exhorta- 
tions.2 In  his  letter  to  the  Scotch  monarch  he  reminds  him 
that  he,  the  pope,  "is  bound  to  the  English  king  by  a 
special  bond  of  love,"  and  that,  loving  him  as  he  does,  he 
cannot  refuse  the  office  of  mediator,  "  especially  when  he 
has  been  requested  "  to  try  and  make  the  existing  union 
between  the  two  countries  sure  and  lasting.  The  English 
king  has  shown  him  the  outlines  of  the  agreement  made  by 
William  of  Scotland,  when  he  became  liege  of  the  king  of 
England,  and  has  asked  him  to  confirm  it "  by  his  Apostolic 
authority."  3 

Almost  at  the  same  time  Henry  applied  to  the  pope  to 
use  his  authority  also  against  the  count  of  Brittany,  and 
to  compel  him  to  return  to  his  allegiance  to  the  English 
Crown,  even  if  necessary  by  the  use  of  the  spiritual  sword 
of  ecclesiastical  censures.4  The  great  question,  too,  of  the 
king's  proposed  marriage  occupied  the  latter  half  of  the 
year  1235.  At  first  Henry  offered  his  hand  to  Joan, 
daughter  of  the  count  of  Poictou,  and  at  his  own  suggestion 
the  lady  applied  to  the  pope  to  confirm  the  proposed  union 
by  his  Apostolic  authority.5  In  a  short  time,  however, 
the  royal  attentions  were  transferred  to  Eleanor,  second 

1  Registre  de  Grtg.  IX,  i.  2,326.         2  Rymer,  i.  214.         3  Ibid.,  215. 
4  Ibid.,  215.  5  Ibid.,  216. 


158  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

daughter  of  Raymund  of  Provence,  niece  of  the  count  of 
Savoy,  and  sister  of  the  French  queen.1  The  royal  agents, 
who  had  been  directed  to  obtain  the  papal  dispensation  in 
Rome  for  the  proposed  marriage  with  Joan,  were  conse- 
quently told  to  keep  their  own  counsel  for  the  time  and  not 
to  proceed  in  the  matter.2  Eleanor  was  brought  to  Eng- 
land in  the  January  of  1236  by  her  uncle  William,  bishop- 
elect  of  Valence,  and  married  at  once  to  the  king.  A  few 
months  later  the  pope,  at  the  request  of  Joan,  the  jilted 
lady,  wrote  to  make  it  clear  to  the  world,  that  the  reason 
of  the  king's  rejection  of  their  proposed  union  was  nothing 
derogatory  to  her  in  any  way.3 

Simultaneously  with  his  own  marriage  Henry  arranged 
for  a  union  between  his  sister  and  the  emperor  Frederick. 
The  match  was  made  "  by  the  advice  and  arrangement "  of 
the  pope  with  the  king  and  emperor.4  And  when  the  con- 
tract was  fully  ratified  Henry  addressed  a  letter  to  the 
pope  explaining  all  that  had  been  done  and  thanking  him 
for  his  part  in  the  matter.  "  He  wished  in  this  and  all  other 
matters,"  he  says,  "to  carry  out  humbly  and  devotedly 
what  you  advise  to  be  done  according  to  your  good  will 
and  pleasure,  as  becomes  one  who  is  the  most  devoted  son 
of  the  Holy  Roman  Church."  s  He  promises  to  pay  a 
dower  "  according  to  the  advice  and  order  of  your  Holi- 
ness," and  asks  the  pope,  "  in  the  name  of  the  Holy  Roman 
Church,"  to  be  surety  to  the  emperor  for  its  punctual  pay- 
ment,6 promising  to  submit  to  any  ecclesiastical  punish- 
ment if  he  failed  to  meet  his  obligations. 

William,  bishop-elect  of  Valence,  the  queen's  uncle,  re- 
mained in  England  after  the  royal  marriage  and,  quickly 
acquiring  supreme  influence  over  Henry,  reintroduced  the 

1  Rymer,  i.  217.      z  Ibid.,  218.      3  Brit.  Mus.  Add.  MS.,  15,353,  f.  356. 
4  Rymer,  i.  220.      s  Ibid.,  225.      6  Ibid.,  226. 


ST.  EDMUND  AS  ARCHBISHOP  159 

old  and  burning  question  about  foreigners.  Shortly  after 
the  marriage  and  coronation  of  the  queen,  a  great  council 
of  the  realm  was  held  at  Merton  Abbey,  and  several  wise 
provisions  were  exacted.  In  one  point,  the  law  of  the 
Church  was  directly  affected  and  led  to  some  difficulty. 
According  to  English  common  law,  children  born  out  of 
wedlock  have  always  been  regarded  as  illegitimate,  and  not 
even  the  subsequent  marriage  of  the  parents  has  been  held 
to  restore  them  to  the  rights  of  legitimate  offspring.  Ac- 
cording to  Roman  law  and  to  the  law  of  the  Church,  founded 
upon  it,  subsequent  marriage  was  considered  to  legitimate 
pre-nuptial  offspring.  Bishop  Grosseteste  had  been  inter- 
ested in  the  question  in  a  practical  way,  since  he  had  been 
summoned  before  the  king's  court  for  acting  upon  the  view 
supported  by  canon  law.  He  had  consulted  Archbishop  St. 
Edmund  as  to  how  far  it  might  be  possible  for  him  in  con- 
science to  make  concession  to  the  law  of  the  land,  to  which 
he  had  been  ordered  by  the  king's  courts  to  make  the  de- 
cisions of  his  episcopal  court  conform.  At  Merton  an  earn- 
est appeal  was  made  by  the  bishops  to  have  the  English 
law  changed.  They  pointed  out  that  the  Roman  and  canon 
law  was  strictly  in  accordance  with  the  principles  of  justice, 
that  the  change  would  certainly  be  to  the  interest  of 
morality  and  tend  to  secure  the  peace  of  families.  Their 
arguments,  however,  were  met  by  a  refusal  on  the  part  of 
the  barons  :  they  "  would  not  have  the  laws  changed." 

Hardly  had  the  parliament  of  Merton  been  dissolved 
than  an  alarm  was  raised  that  the  foreigners  had  already 
regained  once  more  their  supremacy  in  the  councils  of  the 
king.  There  was  indeed  some  ground  for  the  fear;  Henry 
had  chosen  twelve  sworn  councillors  presided  over  by 
William,  the  elect  of  Valence,  and  had  bound  himself  to  do 
nothing  in  the  State  without  their  consent.  The  discontent 


160  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

of  the  barons  reached  such  a  pitch,  and  their  attitude  be- 
came so  menacing,  that  Henry  retired  for  safety  to  the 
Tower,  where  he  made  liberal  promises  of  better  govern- 
ment. He  still,  however,  retained  his  foreign  council,  and 
even  recalled  some  of  the  most  unpopular  of  his  late 
officials ;  and  he  allowed  Bishop  Peter  de  Rupibus  to  re- 
turn to  his  See,  although  he  had  but  just  before  told  the 
emperor  Frederick  to  beware  of  him  as  an  evil  counsellor ' 
who  was  not  to  be  trusted. 

Henry  was  now  no  doubt  in  great  straits.  He  stood 
in  urgent  need  of  money ;  and  his  attitude  to  all  parties 
except  the  foreigners  had  left  him  without  a  friend  upon 
whom  to  rely.  In  his  difficulties  he  bethought  himself, 
as  usual,  of  the  pope,  and  directed  his  agents  to  beg 
Gregory  IX  to  send  a  legate  over  to  England  to  help  him. 
On  the  2  ist  August,  1236,  the  Holy  Father  replied  to  this 
request,  in  terms  which  show  that  this  was  not  the  first  time 
it  had  been  made :  "  The  Roman  Church,"  he  said,  looked 
upon  Henry  "  as  a  special  son  and  watched  over  his  welfare 
like  a  mother,  since  by  so  doing  it  was  consulting  not  any 
foreign  interests,  but  its  very  own."  The  king's  messengers 
had  presented  the  royal  request  for  the  mission  of  a  legate 
in  the  presence  of  the  cardinals  in  Curia,  but  they  thought 
it  best  to  wait  awhile  before  taking  any  step.  Henry  must 
remember  that  "  previously  he  had  urged  the  same  request 
for  a  legate,  and  that  when  one  had  actually  been  appointed, 
then  he  had  changed  his  mind  and  had  asked  to  have  the 
appointment  revoked."  Some  of  the  cardinals  had  ex- 
pressed a  fear  that  this  might  happen  again,  and  as  also  at 
present  there  was  no  one  in  the  Roman  Curia  proper  to 
send  to  England,  the  matter  had  better  be  delayed  2  for  a 
time. 

1  Royal  Letters,  i.  467.  a  Brit.  Mus.  Add.  MS.,  15,353,  f-  392. 


ST.  EDMUND  AS  ARCHBISHOP  161 

The  year  1236  passed,  and  the  king's  needs  became  still 
more  pressing.  He  was  constrained  to  summon  a  parlia- 
ment to  meet  in  London  on  I3th  January  of  the  new  year. 
William  de  Raleigh,  an  official  of  the  king,  was  deputed  to 
demand  an  aid  for  him.  The  nobles  were  greatly  angered 
at  this  fresh  demand  for  money  and  at  his  unpopular 
attitude  towards  the  foreigners.  By  the  advice  of  some  of 
the  nobles  the  king  professed  himself  ready  to  make  re- 
forms, to  dismiss  his  present  councillors,  to  accept  as  ad- 
visers three  nobles  elected  by  the  barons,  and  to  allow  the 
sentence  of  excommunication  to  be  published  against  all 
who  should  impugn  the  great  charters  which  he  had  al- 
ready more  than  once  before  confirmed.  The  money  was 
granted  in  the  form  of  a  tax  of  a  thirtieth  on  all  the  mov- 
ables of  ecclesiastics  as  well  as  of  laymen.  Henry,  how- 
ever, had  evidently  taken  precautions  to  let  the  pope  know 
the  constraints  that  had  been  put  upon  him,  and  the 
presence  of  a  legate  was  once  again  urged  as  a  matter 
of  pressing  necessity.  On  I3th  February,  1237,  Pope  Gre- 
gory writes  that  his  request  was  granted.  As  Henry  had 
urged  him  to  do,  he  has  determined  to  send  over  Cardinal 
Otho  as  legate.  The  cardinal  knew  England  well,  when 
previously  in  the  country  as  nuncio,  and  he  would  do  what 
the  king  desired.  Otho's  presence  was  indeed  very  neces- 
sary in  Rome  at  the  time,  but  the  pope  cannot  refuse  the 
king's  importunity.  He  hopes  that  the  cardinal  will  be  re- 
ceived in  such  a  way  as  "to  make  evident  the  devotion 
of  a  Catholic  king,  and  to  prove  abundantly  indeed  the 
true  filial  reverence  that  Henry  has  for  his  mother  the 
Roman  Church."  l 

1  Brit.  Mus.  Add.  MS.,  15,353,  f.  433. 


M 


CHAPTER  X 
THE  LEGATE  OTHO 

ON  28th  January,  1237,  Henry  received  formal  absolution 
from  the  archbishop  for  any  censures  he  might  have  in- 
curred by  his  frequent  violation  of  the  charters,  which  had 
been  placed  under  the  protection  of  the  Church's  anathemas. 
St.  Edmund  took  this  opportunity  of  obliging  the  king  to 
renew  his  oath  to  respect  all  the  liberties  of  his  subjects 
secured  by  these  charters.    The  solemn  ceremony  of  abso- 
lution took  place  in  St.  Catherine's  Chapel,  Westminster, 
in  the  presence  of  the  suffragans  of  the  Canterbury  pro- 
vince.    Each  bishop   held  a  lighted  candle  in  his  hand, 
and   Henry,  holding   his   taper   in  the  left  hand,  placed 
his  right  upon  the   Book  of  the  Gospels,  whilst   taking 
the   oath   dictated   to   him    by  the   archbishop.     At  the 
conclusion  of  the  king's  part,  St.  Edmund   pronounced 
excommunicate  any  who  should  violate  the  rights  secured 
by  these  charters,  and,  says  Matthew  Paris,  whilst  all  ac- 
cording to  custom  had  cried  "  Amen,"  "  Amen "  to  this 
sentence,  the  candles  were  extinguished  and  cast  smoking 
upon  the  floor  of  the  chapel.    The  archbishop,  in  conclu- 
sion, spoke  these  solemn  words:    "Thus,  let  those  who 
violate  or  wrongfully  interpret  these  charters,  be  destroyed 
and  their  condemned  souls  smoke  and  stink  in  their  place 
of  punishment."  Once  more  all  present  cried  "  Amen,"  and 
above  all  other  voices  it  was  noticed,  says  the  chronicler, 

162 


THE  LEGATE  OTHO  163 

that  the  king  loudly  signified  his  approval  of  this  solemn 
curse.1 

Henry's  sincerity  in  all  this  may  be  doubted,  however, 
without  much  injustice,  since,  as  we  now  know,  he  had 
already  taken  precautions  to  obtain  what  he  hoped  would 
prove  to  be  the  restraining  presence  of  a  papal  legate  in 
England.  By  the  middle  of  February,  preparations  for  the 
departure  of  Otho  from  Rome  were  well  advanced,  and 
letters  had  been  written  to  the  English  bishops  as  well  as 
to  the  king  announcing  his  advent.2  Amongst  the  special 
faculties  supplied  to  him  for  his  mission,  was  one  authoris- 
ing him  to  absolve  Henry  from  whatever  oaths  he  had 
been  constrained  to  take  in  prejudice  to  the  rights  of  the 
Crown.3  What  this  document  especially  refers  to  is  made 
clear  by  two  letters  addressed  at  this  time  to  Henry  by  the 
pope ;  one  on  the  same  day  as  the  legate  had  received  his 
faculties,  the  second  a  few  months  after  the  legate's  arrival 
in  England.  In  the  first,  Gregory  IX  reminds  the  king 
that  at  his  coronation  he  had  sworn  to  protect  all  the 
rights  and  liberties  which  pertain  to  the  honour  and  dignity 
of  his  Crown.  Notwithstanding  this,  as  he — the  pope — 
had  been  given  to  understand,  Henry  had  imprudently 
been  induced  to  alienate  many  things  which  belonged  to 
the  Crown  by  right,  and  to  alienate  which  was  not  fitting 
nor  according  to  the  kingly  honour.  Such  abjurations 
were  also  prejudicial  to  the  kingdom,  and  consequently 
also  to  the  Roman  Church,  to  which  (England)  is  known 
"  to  belong,  in  a  special  manner."4 

The  second  letter,  written  after  the  arrival  of  the  legate, 
was  even  more  explicit:  "  We  were  greatly  moved,"  writes 
the  pope,  "  on  hearing  that,  acting  under  the  advice  of 

1  Matthew  Paris,  v.  360.  2  Brit.  Mus.  Add.  MS.,  15,353,  *•  426. 

3  Ibid.,  f.  439.  *  Ibid.    f.  437. 


164  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

some  indiscreet  people,  you  have,  with  improvident  liber- 
ality, surrendered  to  prelates  and  nobles,  etc.,  certain 
liberties,  possessions,  and  dignities,  as  well  as  many  other 
privileges  which  belong  to  the  rights  and  dignity  of  the 
Crown,  to  the  great  prejudice  of  the  Roman  Church,  to 
which  the  kingdom  of  England  is  known  to  belong,  and 
to  the  great  injury  of  the  kingdom  itself.  You  have,  more- 
over, bound  yourself  by  oaths  and  charters  not  to  recall 
these  grants.  Seeing,  therefore,  that  by  the  said  alienation 
this  Holy  See,  the  rights  of  which  you  may  not  in  any  way 
prejudice,  is  injured  in  no  small  degree,"  and  the  kingdom 
itself  is  damaged,  we  order  you,  notwithstanding  your 
oaths,  to  recall  the  said  grants  and  charters.1 

Only  a  few  months  before  the  legate's  appointment  in 
June,  1236,  the  pope  had  carefully  explained  to  Henry 
that  by  his  coronation  oath  he  was  precluded  from  giving 
up  in  any  way  the  rights  and  privileges  inherent  in  the 
Crown.  He  pointed  out  that  consequently  any  concessions 
that  had  been  obtained  from  him  by  force  of  circumstances, 
or  by  those  who  traded  upon  his  youth,  were  not  to  be  held 
as  in  any  way  binding  upon  his  conscience.2  It  was  no 
doubt  in  view  of  the  concessions  and  promises  made  in  the 
January  of  1237  by  Henry,  and  of  the  solemn  circum- 
stances, which  had  attended  the  renewal  of  his  oaths  at 
Westminster,  that  fresh  letters  of  instruction  had  been 
obtained  by  the  royal  agents,  and  that  the  legate  had 
received  full  faculties  of  absolution  for  the  king  from  all 
promises  whatsoever. 

Cardinal  Otho  arrived  in  England  about  29th  June, 
1237.  The  king's  request  for  the  appointment  of  a  papal 
legate  had  been  kept  so  profound  a  secret,  that,  as  Matthew 
Paris  says,  "  the  nobles  of  the  country  were  unaware  of 

1  Rymer,  i.  234.  a  Ibid.,  299. 


THE  LEGATE  OTHO  165 

his  coming."  They  were  both  surprised  and  angry  when 
the  news  that  he  was  on  his  way  became  known.  "  Our 
king,"  they  said,  "  perverts  all  things.  In  every  way  he  sets 
at  nought  our  laws  and  disregards  his  plighted  faith  and 
promises.  At  one  time,  by  the  advice  of  his  followers,  and 
without  even  the  knowledge  of  his  friends  and  natural 
subjects,  he  contracted  a  marriage ;  now  he  has  secretly 
called  a  legate  into  the  country,  who  will  change  the  whole 
face  of  the  land ;  now  he  gives  and  now  at  will  he  takes 
back  what  he  has  given."1 

This  great  English  historian  relates  that,  according  to 
report  at  the  time,  the  archbishop  of  Canterbury  was  as 
much  surprised  and  annoyed  as  anyone,  and  rebuked  the 
king  for  having  summoned  a  legate  from  Rome.  His 
advent,  so  thought  St.  Edmund,  would  certainly  be  a  bad 
thing  for  the  country.  He  could  not,  however,  induce  the 
king,  even  at  the  last  moment,  to  stop  his  coming.  Some 
of  the  English  bishops,  on  the  other  hand,  bowing  ap- 
parently to  the  inevitable,  sent  messengers  as  far  as  Paris 
to  meet  the  cardinal  whilst  on  his  way,  and  to  make  him 
rich  presents.  Otho  prudently  took  only  some  of  the  pre- 
cious things  offered  him,  and  distributed  them  amongst 
those  who  accompanied  him.  Henry  meanwhile  waited 
with  impatience  for  his  arrival,  and  welcomed  him  at  the 
sea  coast  with  every  sign  of  reverence  and  honour,  ac- 
companying him  on  his  progress  towards  London.  Bishops 
and  abbots .  and  other  prelates,  we  are  told,  received  him 
everywhere  in  endless  processions,  and  with  the  ringing  of 
bells,  showing  him  every  honour,  and  heaping  presents 
upon  him.  These  manifestations  of  joy  were,  in  the 
opinion  of  Matthew  Paris  "  plus  quam  decuit " — more  than 
was  proper.2 

1  Matthew  Paris,  iii.  395.  a  Ibid.,  396. 


166  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

But  although  strongly  biassed  against  the  legate,  the 
historian  admits  that  his  conduct  in  refusing  so  many  pre- 
sents was,  whilst  "contrary  to  the  custom  of  Romans," 
prudent  and  so  exceptional  as  at  first  to  disarm  the  pre- 
judice against  him  which  undoubtedly  existed.1 

As  time  went  on,  however,  Otho  naturally  became 
the  recipient  of  costly  stuffs,  much  money,  plate,  and  an 
abundance  of  provisions  of  all  kinds.  De  Rupibus,  the 
bishop  of  Winchester,  was  foremost  in  pressing  his  gifts 
upon  the  cardinal's  acceptance,  but  still  Otho  continued  to 
act  upon  the  dictum  of  Seneca :  "  to  take  everything  that 
is  offered  is  avaricious,  to  take  nothing  is  churlish;  to  take 
something  is  a  sign  of  your  friendship,"2  and  so,  whilst 
accepting  some  things  that  were  offered  to  him,  he  refused 
others. 

Otho's  first  work  on  coming  to  England  was  to  try  and 
reconcile  certain  of  the  nobles  who  had  quarrelled,  and  that 
so  seriously,  that  a  tournament,  which  had  been  held  at 
Blyth  a  few  months  before  his  arrival,  had  been  turned 
really  into  a  battle.  Having  accomplished  this  errand  of 
peace,  he  next  summoned  the  clergy  to  meet  him  in  synod 
at  London.  The  assembly  was  called  for  i8th  November, 
1237,  in  order  that  he  might  publish  his  appointment  as 
legate  with  plenary  powers,  and  to  discuss  certain  matters 
of  ecclesiastical  discipline  with  the  clergy.3 

Meanwhile  King  Henry  seemed  bent  on  further  alienat- 
ing the  affections  of  his  subjects.  Whilst  relying  almost 
entirely  for  advice  upon  his  foreign  councillors,  he  was  yet 
constrained  once  more  to  appeal  to  his  nobles  to  help 
him  in  his  serious  pecuniary  straits.  He  asked  now  for  a 
thirtieth  part  of  all  movables,  and,  after  some  hesitation 
and  upon  the  renewed  promises  of  the  king  to  take  his 

1  Matthew  Paris,  iii.  403.  a  Ibid.,  412.  3  Ibid.,  404. 


THE  LEGATE  OTHO  167 

own  subjects  as  his  chief  advisers  in  place  of  foreigners, 
this  was  granted,  but  only  that  the  nation  might  find  once 
again  that  when  the  money  was  paid  the  royal  protesta- 
tions were  forgotten.  Richard,  earl  of  Cornwall,  the  king's 
brother,  at  this  juncture  voiced  the  popular  discontent,  and 
upbraided  Henry  with  thus  alienating  the  affection  of  his 
people,  and  with  squandering  the  great  wealth  he  had 
already  extracted  from  them.  His  plain  speaking,  however, 
had  little  apparent  effect  upon  the  king,  who,  "  more  and 
more,"  says  the  historian,  "disregarded  the  advice  of  his 
own  natural  subjects."  He,  moreover,  followed  implicitly 
the  advice  of  the  legate,  whom  he  had  summoned  into  the 
country  without  consultation  with  anyone,  "  so  that,"  to 
use  the  expression  of  Matthew  Paris,  "  he  seemed  to  wor- 
ship his  very  footsteps,  and  declared  in  public,  as  well  as  in 
private,  that  without  the  consent  either  of  the  lord  pope,  or 
of  his  legate,  he  was  unable  to  do  anything  in  the  kingdom, 
or  to  change  or  to  alienate  anything  in  it,  since  he  was 
really  not  so  much  king  as  feudatory  of  the  pope."1 

Before  the  day  appointed  for  the  London  synod,  Otho 
had  had  time  at  least  to  endeavour  to  carry  out  a  com- 
mission with  which  he  had  been  charged  by  Pope  Gregory 
in  regard  to  the  unsatisfactory  relations  which  existed 
between  England  and  Scotland.2  On  2/th  March,  1237, 
the  pope  had  written  to  inform  Henry  that  he  had  com- 
missioned his  legate  to  try  and  arrange  all  outstanding 
difficulties  between  the  two  countries ; 3  and  a  month  later 
he  had  sent  a  letter  to  the  king  of  Scotland,  whom  he 
blames  for  not  observing  his  oath  of  fealty  to  the  English 
sovereign.4  On  the  7th  May,  in  order  to  make  Otho's  position 
in  the  matter  clear  and  legal,  the  pope  appointed  him 

1  Matthew  Paris,  412.  2  Brit.  Mus.  Add.  MS.,  15,354,  f.  I. 

3  Ibid.,  f.  2.  4  Rymer,  i.  371. 


168  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

legate  to  Scotland,  as  well  as  to  England.1  By  Otho's 
advice  Henry  summoned  the  nobles  to  meet  him  at  York, 
on  1 4th  September,  1237,  and  by  the  legate's  invitation 
the  king  of  Scotland  came  to  the  meeting,  where  terms 
were  satisfactorily  arranged,  and  a  treaty  of  friendship 
entered  into  between  Alexander  II  and  Henry.  The  Scotch 
king  renewed  his  fealty  at  this  meeting,  and  every  occasion 
of  quarrel  was  thus  happily  removed. 

Before  leaving  the  northern  parts,  Otho  proposed  to 
cross  the  border  into  Scotland  and  there  to  discuss  certain 
ecclesiastical  affairs  relating  to  that  kingdom,  as  he  was 
proposing  to  do  in  the  forthcoming  synod  for  England. 
King  Alexander,  however,  practically  refused  to  allow  him 
to  do  as  he  proposed.  He  did  not  remember,  he  said,  that 
any  legate  had  ever  visited  Scotland ;  there  never  had 
been  an  occasion  to  ask  for  one,  he  said,  and  now,  thanks 
be  to  God !  everything  was  well  in  his  country  and  did 
not  require  any  change.  He  warned  Otho  that  the  men  of 
the  north  were  rough  country  people,  and  he  told  him  he 
would  not  answer  for  his  safety  if  he  attempted  to  enter 
Scotland.  This  was  sufficient  for  Otho,  and  he  elected  to 
remain  with  "  the  king  of  England  who  was  obedient  to 
him  in  everything."2 

1  Brit.  Mus.  Add.  MS.,  15,354,  f.  19. 

2  Matth.  Paris,  iii.  414.    The  Scotch  king,  of  course,  must  have  meant  that 
no  legate  to  England  had  ever  claimed  to  visit  Scotland  as  legate.    The  Bull  of 
Clement  III  addressed  to  William,  king  of  the  Scots,  on  I3th  March,  1188, 
makes  it  quite  clear  that  legates  from  Rome  to  the  Scotch  Church  were  by  no 
means  unknown.    Pope  Clement  speaks  to  the  king  of  the  "  love  and  devotion 
which  you  have  from  long  past  had  to  the  Roman  See,"  and  also  that  "as  the 
Scottish  Church  is  the  special  daughter  of  the  Apostolic  See,  it  ought  to  be 
specially  and  immediately  subject  to  it."  For  this  reason  "  it  is  lawful  for  no  one 
except  the  Roman  pontiff,  or  the  legate  a  latere  sent  by  him,"  to  pronounce  any 
general  sentence  of  excommunication  or  interdict,  etc. ;  and,  further,  that  "no 
one  might  exercise  the  office  of  legate,"  unless  specially  sent  by  the  pope  for 
that  purpose. — (Haddan  and  Stubbs,  Councils  and  Ecclesiastical  Documents ; 
II.,  L  273.) 


THE  LEGATE  OTHO  169 

Great  preparations  were  made  for  the  November  synod 
at  St.  Paul's.  The  legate  had  a  sumptuous  throne  prepared 
for  himself  at  the  western  end  of  the  church,  and  the  arch- 
bishops, bishops,  abbots,  and  other  prelates,  as  well  as 
representatives  of  all  the  conventual  and  cathedral  chapters, 
were  summoned  to  assist  personally  or  by  proxy  at  the 
meeting.  All  obeyed  the  summons,  and  a  vast  assembly 
gathered  together  on  the  appointed  day,  iSth  November. 
At  the  first  session,  on  ipth  November,  Otho  was  not  pre- 
sent, since  the  bishops  had  asked  him  to  allow  them  a  day  in 
which  to  examine  the  statutes  he  proposed  to  enact,  and 
to  discuss  their  provisions  among  themselves.  The  follow- 
ing day,  however,  the  cardinal  presided  over  the  meeting, 
having  first  taken  the  precaution  of  getting  the  king  to 
station  some  two  hundred  soldiers  about  the  church  in  un- 
seen places,  as  the  rumour  had  gone  about  that  pluralists 
and  others,  who  were  likely  to  be  affected  by  legative 
legislation,  would  probably  not  hesitate  to  offer  him  per- 
sonal violence.  So  large  was  the  multitude  of  people 
present,  says  the  chronicler,  that  Otho  only  with  diffi- 
culty could  pass  through  the  throng.  After  he  had  been 
vested  in  full  pontificals  at  the  altar,  a  procession  was 
formed  to  the  throne,  the  archbishops  of  Canterbury  and 
York  walking  in  front  of  the  legate,  the  former  upon 
the  right  the  latter  on  the  left.  Before  the  real  business 
of  the  meeting  commenced,  the  archbishop  of  York 
claimed  the  right  of  sitting  in  the  first  place,  but,  by  the 
exercise  of  a  little  tact,  Otho  settled  the  difficulty  in  favour 
of  Canterbury.  Upon  the  formal  opening  of  the  meeting 
a  message  was  brought  to  the  assembly  from  the  king 
by  two  nobles  and  a  canon  of  St.  Paul's,  forbidding  the 
passing  of  statutes  in  any  way  repugnant  to  the  prerog- 
atives of  his  Crown,  and  William  de  Raleigh,  the  above- 


I/O  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

named  canon,  remained  to  watch  the  subsequent  proceed- 
ings on  Henry's  behalf. 

The  preliminaries  were  not  even  yet  concluded,  for 
Simon  Langton,  the  archdeacon  of  Canterbury,  requested 
that  the  formal  document  of  the  legate's  commission  should 
be  read.  This  was  followed  by  the  publication  of  a  privi- 
lege, granted  by  Pope  Gregory  to  England,  for  the  universal 
keeping  of  St.  Edward's  day,  and  of  the  Bull  by  which  he 
had  canonised  St.  Dominic  and  St.  Francis.  The  burning 
question  of  the  day  was  that  relating  to  the  holding  of 
more  benefices  than  one  by  any  one  individual ;  this  the 
Council  of  Lateran  had  forbidden,  and  by  reason  of  the 
murmurings  and  manifestations  of  resentment,  which  even 
the  rumour  of  coming  legislation  had  brought  to  light, 
certain  members  of  the  nobility  were  formed  into  a  body- 
guard to  protect  the  person  of  the  legate  in  coming  and 
going  to  the  synod. 

After  the  gospel  "lam  the  good  shepherd"  had  been  read, 
and  the  Veni  Creator,  with  the  proper  prayers  had  been 
said,  the  legate  opened  the  deliberations  with  an  address, 
after  which  he  caused  the  statutes  he  had  prepared  to  be 
read  to  the  meeting.  These  celebrated  articles,  known  as 
the  Constitution  of  Cardinal  Otho,  for  centuries  formed  the 
principal  basis  of  the  ecclesiastical  law  in  this  country. 
They  made  no  pretence  to  be  exhaustive,  for,  as  the  car- 
dinal expressly  declared,  "  the  other  canons  of  the  church 
were  supposed  to  be  observed,"  but  they  were  merely  in- 
tended to  form  a  useful  code  which  would  certainly  tend 
"  to  strengthen  and  improve  the  ecclesiastical  state  in  Eng- 
land," if  passed  "  by  the  vote  and  consent  of  the  assembled 
council."1  That  there  was  considerable  discussion  upon 
certain  matters  is  apparent  from  what  the  historian  relates 
1  Matthew  Paris,  iii.  420. 


THE  LEGATE  OTHO  171 

concerning  the  statute  as  to  plurality  of  benefices.  Upon 
the  words  of  the  article  being  read,  the  bishop  of  Worcester, 
Walter  de  Cantelupe,  taking  off  his  mitre,  made  an  appeal 
for  some  consideration  towards  those  who  were  then  plural- 
ists  and  had  not  received  the  dispensation  declared  to  be 
necessary  by  the  Council  of  Lateran.  By  means  of  these 
benefices,  he  pleaded,  they  had  been  accustomed  in  Eng- 
land to  keep  up  an  honourable  state,  and  to  dispense  their 
charities  to  the  poor.  To  take  away  their  benefices  now 
would  in  many  cases  necessitate  giving  all  this  up.  For 
himself,  he  said,  he  had  resolved,  when  called  to  the  eccle- 
siastical state,  that  if  any  of  his  benefices  had  to  be  sur- 
rendered, he  would  surrender  all  of  them ;  and  as  he  feared 
there  were  many  of  the  clergy  in  the  same  mind,  he  begged 
that  the  legate  would  refer  the  matter  again  to  the  fatherly 
consideration  of  the  pope. 

The  bishop  further  appealed  for  some  mitigation  of  the 
statutes  which  regarded  the  Benedictines,  by  which  it  was 
proposed  to  forbid  entirely  the  use  of  flesh  meat.  He  said 
that  this,  in  his  opinion,  would  be  a  very  harsh  measure  to 
many,  on  account  of  their  poverty,  and  in  particular  to  the 
nuns,  who  were  weak  and  delicate,  and  for  this  reason  alone 
this  law  required  to  be  wisely  relaxed.  In  this  case  also  the 
bishop  petitioned  that  the  pope  might  be  approached  on 
the  subject  before  the  statute  was  made  obligatory.  To  this 
the  legate  replied  by  saying  that  if  the  archbishops  and 
bishops  agreed  with  Bishop  Cantelupe  in  these  requests,  he 
would  willingly  write  to  the  pope  on  the  matter.  He  added 
that,  as  he  had  heard  that  some  thought  the  statutes  pro- 
posed by  him  would  only  remain  in  force  during  the  time 
he  held  the  office  of  legate,  it  was  necessary  to  let  it  be 
clearly  understood  that  this  was  not  the  case,  but  that  such 
legislation  would  be  permanent.  At  his  command,  his  clerk 


172  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

read  a  certain  decree  he  pointed  out  in  the  register  of  the 
lord  pope,  which  declared  that  such  legatine  statutes  had  a 
lasting  authority.1  On  the  third  day  of  the  meeting  the^ 
business  of  the  synod  came  to  an  end,  and  after  appropriate 
prayers  Otho  dismissed  the  Fathers  with  his  blessing.  They 
departed,  says  Matthew  Paris,  "  not  too  well  satisfied  with 
their  experiences."  * 

Apparently  about  the  time  of  this  assembly,  the  arch- 
bishops, in  the  name  of  the  whole  clergy,  presented  a  long 
list  of  grievances  which — so  they  considered — they  had 
against  the  king.  Henry  had  given  them  a  charter  of  liber- 
ties, and  had  sworn  to  keep  it.  By  his  suggestion  and  assent, 
and  with  the  consent  of  all  prelates  and  nobles,  a  general 
sentence  of  excommunication  was  pronounced  publicly 
against  all  who  violated  its  provisions.  Notwithstanding 
this,  the  king  himself  was  now  in  fact  indifferent  to  it. 
They  complained  also  about  many  instances  of  a  com- 
plete disregard  of  ecclesiastical  law  and  privilege,  and  of 
lay  judges  claiming  to  determine  whether  a  cause  was  to 
be  tried  in  civil  or  ecclesiastical  courts.  The  authority  of 
the  king  had  been  invoked,  and  used,  to  stay  religious 
causes,  and  to  compel  bishops  to  assign  reasons  why  they 
refused  to  induct  persons  presented  to  certain  livings  by 
patrons,  or  confirm  elections  made  in  abbeys  and  other 
religious  houses.  People  excommunicated  for  perjury  and 
other  offences  against  the  Church,  appealed  to  lay  courts 
to  oblige  the  ecclesiastical  authorities  to  show  cause  why 
they  should  not  be  compelled  to  remove  the  censure;  and 
generally  they  urged  that  the  rights  of  clerics  and  others 
were  either  disregarded  altogether,  or  deliberately  infringed. 
For  this  state  of  things  they  begged  that  the  legate  would 
find  full  and  immediate  remedy. 

1  Matthew  Paris,  iii.  419.  a  Ibid.,  441. 


THE  LEGATE  OTHO  173 

To  return  to  the  legislation  of  the  synod  of  London.  A 
considerable  number  of  the  constitutions  of  the  legate  Otho 
were  concerned  with  laws  regulating  the  bestowal  and  pro- 
per holding  of  ecclesiastical  benefices,  and  the  qualifications 
of  those  beneficed.  The  question  of  married  clerks  was 
dealt  with  in  some  stringent  provisions,  and  it  was  ordered 
that  all  such  were  to  be  deprived  of  the  benefices  they  held, 
whilst  a  special  declaration  pointed  out  that  according  to 
the  canons  it  was  never  lawful  for  sons  to  succeed  their 
fathers  in  any  ecclesiastical  office.  The  clergy  were  warned 
against  permitting  certain  abuses  in  the  administration  of 
the  sacraments ;  and  they  were  ordered  frequently  to  ex- 
plain on  Sundays  to  their  people  in  the  common  language, 
the  proper  form  of  baptism.  The  duties  of  archdeacons  in 
their  districts,  and  those  of  bishops  in  their  dioceses,  were 
caiefully  laid  down,  and  particular  attention  was  paid  to 
the  statement  of  the  proper  mode  of  hearing  and  determin- 
ing causes  in  ecclesiastical  courts.  The  particular  articles, 
or  chapters,  were  two  only  in  number:  one  dealt  with  the 
consecration  or  dedication  of  churches,  the  necessity  for 
which  the  legate  had  reason  to  believe  had  not  been  suffi- 
ciently understood  in  England.  This  statute  directed  that 
within  two  years  from  the  date  of  this  synod,  all  cathedral, 
parochial,  and  abbatial  churches  should  be  consecrated. 
The  second  particular  statute  referred  to  the  diet  of  monks. 
Otho  rejoiced  to  understand,  he  says,  that  in  the  late  Gen- 
eral Chapter  the  black  monks  had  determined  to  keep  the 
strict  letter  of  St.  Benedict's  rule  as  to  abstinence  from  flesh 
meat.  This  decision  he  approves  and  confirms  by  his  lega- 
tine  authority. 

To  this  he  added  a  reminder  as  to  the  law  of  Pope 
Honorius  III  that  every  novice  after  a  year's  probation 
should  be  obliged  to  make  his  profession. 


174 

Shortly  after  the  close  of  the  synod,  the  archbishop  of 
Canterbury,  St.  Edmund,  set  out  for  Rome.  The  legate 
endeavoured  to  prevent  his  departure,  but  was  unable  to  do 
so.1  He  had  in  Cardinal  Otho,  says  Matthew  Paris,  "a 
powerful  adversary  at  the  Roman  Curia,  as  well  as  at  the 
king's  court.  In  the  Eternal  City  St.  Edmund  had  the  case 
of  the  Rochester  election  decided  against  him,  as  well  as  an 
appeal  of  the  earl  of  Arundel.  In  this  latter  case,  besides 
being  compelled  to  take  off  the  sentence  of  excommunica- 
tion he  had  passed  against  that  nobleman,  St.  Edmund  had 
to  pay  costs  amounting  to  many  thousands  of  marks.2 

During  the  absence  of  the  archbishop  from  England, 
Simon  de  Montfort,  with  the  king's  leave,  married  his  sister 
Alcinor,  daughter  of  King  John,  and  widow  of  William 
Marshall,  earl  of  Pembroke.  Richard,  earl  of  Cornwall,  the 
king's  brother,  and  the  nobles  without  exception,  were  much 
incensed  with  Henry  for  permitting  this,  and  the  people 
also  seemed  generally  to  side  with  them  against  de  Mont- 
fort.  The  legate  Otho,  recognising  the  dangerous  condition 
of  affairs,  approached  the  earl  of  Cornwall  on  the  matter. 
He  promised  that  if  the  earl  would  support  the  king  at  this 
juncture,  he  would  get  Henry  to  bestow  large  possessions 
upon  him,  and  that  "  the  lord  pope  would  confirm  "  these 
grants  in  his  behalf.  The  earl  replied  by  reminding  Cardinal 
Otho  that  as  legate  he  had  nothing  whatever  to  say  to  the 
granting  of  lands,  or  even  to  the  confirmation  of  such  grants. 
He  complained  that  though  immense  sums  had  passed 
through  the  king's  hands,  he  was  still  poor,  and  that  eccle- 
siastical revenues  and  benefices  which  pious  founders  had 
given  to  the  Church  had  been  secured  as  so  much  spoil  by 
the  crowd  of  foreigners  who,  through  the  king's  policy,  had 
found  a  home  in  England.3  Upon  receiving  this  reply, 

1  Matthew  Paris,  iii.  470.  a  Ibid.,  480.  3  Ibid.,  477. 


THE  LEGATE  OTHO  175 

Cardinal  Otho  recognised  at  once  the  serious  nature  of  the 
situation.  He  went  without  delay  to  the  king,  accompanied 
by  Bishop  de  Rupibus,  and  strongly  urged  upon  him  the 
need  of  attending  without  delay  to  the  just  grievances  of 
his  subjects.  This,  after  some  hesitation,  Henry  agreed  to 
do,  and  the  danger  passed  away  for  the  time. 

Early  in  this  same  year,  1238,  the  pope  and  the  Roman 
Curia  learnt,  probably  through  Archbishop  St.  Edmund, 
then  in  Rome,  that  the  minds  of  the  English  generally  were 
gravely  disturbed  by  the  multitude  of  foreigners  at  that  time 
in  the  country,  and  more  than  all,  by  the  presence  of  the 
legate,  whom  the  king  had  called  from  Rome  without  the 
knowledge  of  his  people.  Gregory  IX  consequently  hastened 
to  recall  Otho,  and,  somewhat  to  disguise  the  cause,  wrote 
to  him  about  the  difficulty  of  insisting  upon  the  surrender 
of  benefices  by  those  who  held  more  than  one.    This  could 
not  be  done,  he  understood,  without  grave  disturbances, 
and  as  it  seemed  for  the  time  more  prudent  to  leave  matters 
so,  it  would  be  better  for  the  legate  to  retire,  so  that  by  his 
presence  he  might  not  appear  to  give  this  the  force  of 
approval.   The  idea  of  recall  did  not  please  Otho,  and  he 
obtained  a  letter  from  the  king,  sealed  with  the  royal  seal, 
and  with  the  seals  of  the  earl  of  Cornwall  and  of  all  the 
bishops,  declaring  that  his  presence  in  England  was  very 
useful  to  the  king,  the  kingdom,  and  the  English  Church.1 
In  the  spring  of  this  same  year,  1238,  the  legate  paid  a 
visit  to  Oxford,  and  whilst  being  entertained  at  Osney 
Abbey,  the  students  went  out  to  the  monastery  to  salute 
him.   They  were  denied  access  to  the  cardinal  by  a  foreign 
doorkeeper,  and  this  rebuff  led  to  a  riot,  during  which 
Otho's  foreign  cook  was  killed.   The  papal  legate  was  terri- 
fied. After  hiding  in  the  tower  of  the  church,  he  himself 

1  Matthew  Paris,  iii.  473. 


i;6    HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

escaped  in  disguise  at  night  to  the  king,  leaving  his  attend- 
ants in  hiding  at  Osney.  The  riot,  which  evidently  com- 
menced almost  by  accident,  brought  about  a  serious  mani- 
festation of  hostility  to  the  person  of  the  cardinal,  who,  the 
rioters  declared,  was  upsetting  the  kingdom  and  enriching 
his  foreign  followers  with  the  spoils  of  the  English.  The 
king  was  then  at  Abingdon ;  and  being  greatly  disturbed  at 
the  insults  shown  to  Otho,  sent  at  once  to  Oxford,  and 
seizing  some  of  the  rioters  put  them  into  prison,  first  at 
Wallingford,  and  then  at  London.  The  legate  meanwhile 
placed  the  city  and  university  of  Oxford  under  an  interdict, 
and  called  the  archbishop  of  York  and  the  other  bishops  to 
London  to  discuss  the  affair  with  him.  By  their  advice,  on 
the  humiliation  of  some  of  the  ringleaders,  he  removed  the 
interdict.1 

On  9th  June  of  this  year  the  celebrated  bishop  of  Win- 
chester, Peter  de  Rupibus,  after  an  episcopate  of  two  and 
thirty  years,  died  at  Farnham.  Henry  now  thought  he  saw 
a  chance  of  securing  the  See  for  the  queen's  uncle,  Wil- 
liam, the  bishop-elect  of  Valence.  The  Winchester  monks, 
however,  refused  to  consider  the  royal  nominee,  and  elected 
Ralph  Nevile,  bishop  of  Chichester,  and  chancellor  of  the 
kingdom.  The  king  declined  to  ratify  their  choice,  and  not 
only  sent  at  once  to  Rome  to  give  notice  that  the  con- 
firmation was  to  be  opposed  cost  what  it  might,  but  imme- 
diately deprived  the  bishop-elect  of  the  chancellorship. 
Gregory  IX  quashed  the  election;  and  upon  the  monks 
asking  for  the  king's  licence  to  proceed  to  a  second  choice, 
Henry  again  did  all  in  his  power  to  make  them  promise  to 
choose  his  former  nominee.  To  this  they  refused  to  agree, 
and  after  some  delay  they  determined  upon  William  de 
Raleigh,  who  was  at  once  rejected  by  the  king.  The  fol- 

1  Matthew  Paris,  iii.  485. 


THE  LEGATE  OTHO  177 

lowing  year  de  Raleigh  was  chosen  bishop  of  Lichfield, 
and  subsequently  bishop  of  Norwich,  to  which  See  he  was 
finally  consecrated. 

On  1 8th  November,  1239,  the  anniversary  of  his  great 
synod,  the  legate  Otho  presided  over  a  Chapter  of  the 
Benedictines.  At  this  meeting  he  published  a  body  of 
statutes  for  the  Order,  founded  to  a  great  extent  upon  the 
legislation  of  the  popes,  and  especially  upon  those  of  Gre- 
gory IX  and  Honorius  III.  A  few  months  later  he  took 
occasion  of  a  meeting  of  bishops  in  London,  on  2Oth  Feb- 
ruary, 1 240,  to  mitigate  certain  regulations  which  were  con- 
sidered too  rigorous  for  general  observance  in  this  country. 
At  this  meeting  Otho  informed  the  English  episcopate 
that  he  had  been  recalled  by  the  pope  to  Rome  because 
rumours  of  dissatisfaction  and  scandal  caused  by  the  greed- 
iness of  the  Roman  clerics  in  this  country  had  reached 
the  pontiffs  ears.  Once  more,  however,  the  king  interfered. 
He  had  been  intending  to  hold  a  parliament  at  Easter,  in 
which  he  hoped  to  secure  the  return  to  power  of  the  queen's 
uncle,  William  the  bishop-elect  of  Valence,  and  he  looked 
to  the  legate's  presence  to  protect  him  against  the  inevit- 
able anger  of  the  nobles.  He  consequently  sent  to  Rome 
an  urgent  appeal  for  the  retention  of  the  legate,  and  moved 
heaven  and  earth  that  he  might  be  allowed  to  stay  in  Eng- 
land to  help  him.  Meanwhile  the  legate  waited1  for  the 
decision.  His  preparations  were  all  made,  and  even  pre- 
sents upon  his  departure  had  been  received,  when  the  king's 
messenger,  a  clever  lawyer  named  Simon  the  Norman,  re- 
turned in  haste  from  the  Curia  with  the  expected  letters, 
cancelling  the  previous  orders  for  his  immediate  return. 

At  the  end  of  July,  1240,  Otho,  his  position  in  England 
secured,  again  called  a  meeting  of  the  bishops.    In  this  he 

1  Matthew  Paris,  iii.  526. 
N 


178  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

made  proposals  for  a  further  tax  to  be  levied  upon  the 
ecclesiastics  of  the  country,  under  the  name  of  "  procura- 
tions," for  his  own  support  in  England.  The  bishops  were 
unanimous  in  resisting  this  fresh  burden,  saying  that  the 
Roman  demands  had  already  so  exhausted  the  property 
of  the  Church  in  England  that,  even  if  they  would,  they 
could  give  no  more.  "  Let  him  keep  you,"  they  said,  "  who 
has  called  you  into  England  without  our  advice." l  "  What 
use,"  they  exclaimed,  "has  the  rule  of  the  legate  been  to 
the  kingdom  or  to  the  Church  ?  He  supports  the  king  who 
afflicts  the  Church  with  various  exactions."  From  this 
meeting,  in  which  he  obtained  little  satisfaction,  the  legate 
departed  northwards  with  the  intention  of  visiting  Scotland. 
On  the  borders  Otho  was  met  by  King  Alexander  II,  who 
again,  as  he  had  previously  done,  strongly  objected  to  his 
entry  as  legate  into  the  kingdom.  No  such  mission  had  ever 
been  sent  into  Scotland,  and  as  religion  was  flourishing 
there,  and  the  Church  was  both  prosperous  and  peaceful, 
there  was  no  need  for  any  such  visitation  as  was  proposed. 
After  several  long  discussions,  it  was  agreed  that  Otho 
should  be  allowed  to  remain  in  the  Lowland  towns  for  a 
time,  so  as  not  to  appear  as  if  expelled  by  force  from  the 
country.  On  his  side,  the  legate  undertook  that  by  his 
stay  no  precedent  was  to  be  created.2 

During  the  year  1239  the  quarrel  between  Pope 
Gregory  IX  and  the  emperor  Frederick  had  issued  in 
the  excommunication  of  the  latter,  and  the  publication 
of  the  sentence  in  the  various  countries  of  Europe.  In 
England  the  declaration  was  made  in  every  church  of  the 
kingdom  ;  and  the  legate,  visiting  St.  Alban's  on  his  return 
from  Scotland,  personally  pronounced  the  papal  sentence 
in  the  monastic  Chapter-house.  According  to  the  chron- 

1  Matthew  Paris,  iii.  567,  616.  2  Ibid.,  568. 


THE  LEGATE  OTHO  179 

icier  of  that  house,  Matthew  Paris,  the  pope's  letter, 
describing  the  causes  which  had  led  to  the  breach,  would 
have  had  much  more  effect  on  the  clergy  and  people  of 
England  generally  in  proving  to  them  that  Frederick  was 
really  the  enemy  of  the  Church  and  of  Christ,  had  not  the 
avaricious  conduct  of  the  Roman  officials  already  alienated 
the  popular  affections.  "  Alas ! "  he  exclaims,  "  how  many 
sons  have  been  turned  against  their  father  the  pope?"1 
"  The  western  Church  and  in  particular  the  religious,  and 
the  English  Church  above  all,  has  been  made  to  feel  the 
daily  burden  of  the  Romans,"  were  the  reflections  of  the 
people  on  hearing  of  the  quarrel.  "The  emperor  writes 
humbly  and  in  a  Catholic  spirit  of  God,  and  only  in  his 
last  letter  has  he  attacked  the  pope,  and  that  only  in  his 
person,  not  in  his  office  ;  as  far  as  we  know  he  has  neither 
publicly  nor  obstinately  maintained  anything  heretical, 
nor  has  he  sent  usurers  amongst  us,  nor  devourers  of  our 
revenues."2  Whilst  these  were  the  thoughts  of  the  English 
people,  the  pope  was  in  great  money  difficulties.  Almost 
at  this  very  time  the  pontiff  was  writing  to  Otho,  begging 
him  to  secure  some  money  from  the  English  Church  to 
help  him  in  his  struggle  with  the  emperor.  He  suggests 
that  the  clergy  should  give  a  thirtieth  part  of  their  revenue 
for  three  years  as  an  aid  to  the  Roman  Church  in  its 
necessity.3 

During  the  year  1239,  King  Henry,  in  order  to  compass 
the  appointment  of  the  queen's  uncle,  William  the  bishop- 
elect  of  Valence,  to  the  See  of  Winchester,  intruded  upon 
the  monks  a  prior  named  Andrew.  He  was  a  foreigner, 
and  obviously  the  freedom  of  election  whilst  he  remained 
over  the  convent  was  much  endangered.  Through  him  the 

1  Matthew  Paris,  Hi.  608.  a  Ibid.,  609. 

3  Brit.  Mus.  Add.  MS.,  15,354,  f.  179. 


i8o  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

king,  in  fact,  managed  to  influence  many  of  the  religious, 
who  were  really  tired  of  the  struggle.  What  would  have  been 
the  result  need  not  be  considered,  as  William  the  bishop- 
elect  of  Valence  died  by  poison  at  Viterbo  on  ist  Novem- 
ber, I239.1  On  nth  January  of  the  following  year  Pope 
Gregory  quashed  the  election  of  the  bishop  of  Chichester 
to  the  See  of  Winchester,  as  before  related,  but  gave  the 
monks  leave  to  hold  another  election.  The  legate  was 
charged  to  inquire  and  determine  whether  there  was  any- 
thing in  the  contention,  urged  on  the  king's  behalf,  that 
the  two  archdeacons  of  the  diocese  had  a  right  to  take 
part  in  the  election.  Otho  was  also  to  declare  that  any 
suspension  or  excommunication,  which  had  been  pro- 
nounced on  the  monks  by  anyone,  was  not  to  be  allowed 
to  stand  in  the  way  of  their  holding  a  valid  election.2 

Meanwhile  the  Winchester  election  and  the  king's 
action  in  regard  to  it  had  caused  much  talk.  Bishop 
Grosseteste  had  written  to  the  legate,  begging  him  to  see 
that  a  "  fitting  pastor "  was  chosen  for  the  vacant  See, 
and  urging  him  "  to  prevent  manfully  all  schemes"  for 
capturing  the  office  for  some  creature  of  the  Crown.  Re- 
port said,  he  wrote,  that  Henry  was  at  Winchester,  and 
"  now  using  threats  and  warnings,  now  making  promises 
or  uttering  prayers  and  persuasions,  was  endeavouring  by 
all  means  to  compass  his  end."  This,  he  said,  must  inter- 
fere with  the  necessary  freedom  of  election,  which  the 
king  ought  to  be  the  first  to  safeguard  ;  and  the  bishop 
begs  Otho  to  prevent  such  a  scandal  as  an  election  con- 
ducted in  so  unworthy  a  manner.  In  a  second  and  longer 
letter  Grosseteste  returns  to  the  subject,  and  explains  how 
important  he  considers  it,  that  a  worthy  bishop  should 

1  Brit.  Mus.  Add.  MS.,  15,354,  ff.  622-623. 

a  Ibid.,  15,354,  ff.  262,  264,  etc.    Cf.  Matthew  Paris,  iii.  630. 


THE  LEGATE  OTHO  181 

be  elected,  and  that  the  election  should  in  every  way  be 
free.1 

The  king,  on  the  other  hand,  was  determined  to  carry 
his  point,  and  was  urgent,  through  his  agents  in  Rome, 
that  the  pope  should  do  what  he  wished.  He  declared  that 
there  was  reason  to  suppose  that  the  monks  intended  to 
elect  someone  disloyal  to  him,  or  at  least  someone  whose 
loyalty  might  reasonably  be  suspected.  Early  in  January, 
1240,  Gregory  IX  replied  to  these  representations  in  a 
letter  addressed  to  Henry.  He  had  restored,  he  said,  the 
right  of  election  to  the  monks  of  Winchester,  as  he  had 
been  pressed  to  do,  but  on  the  other  hand  he  had  written 
to  the  legate  that  he  was  to  watch  carefully  that  no  one 
was  put  into  the  position  who  was  not  pleasing  to  Henry.2 
In  the  same  sense  the  pope  replied  to  Richard,  earl  of 
Cornwall,  and  other  nobles,  who  had  written  to  Rome  to 
assist  the  king  in  the  matter  so  long  in  dispute  with  any 
influence  they  might  possess  in  the  Curia.  Before  receiving 
their  communication,  Pope  Gregory  said,  he  had,  by  the 
advice  of  the  cardinals,  settled  what  was  to  be  done,  and 
had  even  dispatched  the  document  he  had  penned  on  the 
matter.  He  could  not  now  change  again,  if  only  "  for  fear 
that  the  Roman  Church  should  be  charged  with  levity  "  in 
dealing  with  such  grave  matters.  Still,  he  promised  to 
take  care,  through  his  legate,  to  avoid  the  appointment 
of  any  one  likely  to  be  displeasing  to  the  king.3 

The  year  1 240  opened  by  a  meeting  in  London  between 
the  legate  and  the  archbishops  and  prelates  and  many  of 
the  nobles.  It  assembled  in  January,  during  the  Octave 
of  the  Epiphany,  and  the  ecclesiastics  at  once  formulated 
complaints  against  the  king  and  his  advisers.  Churches, 
they  said,  had  been  kept  vacant,  and  the  rights  and  liberties 

1  Grosseteste,  Letters,  183-188.  2  Rymer,  238.  3  Ibid. 


182  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

of  clerics  had  constantly  been  ignored  or  abused.  They 
pointed  out  that  again  and  again  Henry  had  sworn  to 
protect  these  liberties,  and  that  on  one  special  occasion  he 
had  himself,  like  the  bishops,  held  a  candle  whilst  sentence 
of  excommunication  had  been  pronounced  against  all 
violators  of  these  privileges.  The  discussion  ended  as 
they  desired,  and  the  sentence  was  once  again  fulminated 
against  all  those  counsellors  of  the  king  who  had  aided 
and  advised  him  in  the  course  he  had  pursued.1 

Bishop  Grosseteste  wrote  to  Archbishop  St.  Edmund 
in  strong  terms,  to  strengthen  him  in  his  determination  to 
secure  the  right  of  free  election  for  all  ecclesiastical  posi- 
tions. He  said,  that  if  the  bribery,  corruption,  and  in- 
timidation then  practised  by  State  officials  was  allowed 
to  go  on,  it  would  result  in  the  destruction  of  the  Church. 
It  was,  moreover,  he  pointed  out,  distinctly  a  violation  of 
that  freedom  secured  to  the  Church  by  the  provision  of 
Magna  Charta,  and  by  the  confirmation  of  that  charter  by 
Pope  Innocent  III.a 

Whilst  the  council  of  January,  1240,  was  still  sitting, 
two  messengers  arrived  from  the  emperor  Frederick.  They 
brought  a  letter  to  King  Henry,  in  which  the  emperor 
complained  vehemently  that  the  papal  excommunication 
had  been  allowed  to  be  published  in  England.  He  de- 
manded that  the  legate  Otho,  who  had  been  brought  by 
Henry  into  the  kingdom,  without  the  knowledge  of  any  of 
his  subjects,  should  be  told  to  leave.  As  legate  of  the 
pope  he  was  undoubtedly  his  enemy  as  emperor,  and  he 
was  in  reality  getting  together  money  to  enable  the  pope 
to  fight  against  him.  The  king  replied  that  it  was  neces- 
sary for  him  to  obey  papal  and  ecclesiastical  orders  before 
those  of  any  earthly  prince,  particularly  as  it  could  be 

1  Matthew  Paris,  iv.  3.  a  Grosseteste,  Letters,  264. 


THE  LEGATE  OTHO  183 

shown  that  he  (as  king  of  England)  was  a  tributary  and 
feudatory  subject  of  the  pope.  Notwithstanding  this  reply, 
Henry  wrote  at  once  to  Gregory  IX  on  behalf  of  the 
emperor,  without,  however,  doing  much  good  ;  and,  on 
consideration,  he  advised  the  legate  that  it  would  be  politic 
for  him  to  leave  the  country.  Otho  promised  to  do  so 
if  a  safe  conduct  was  furnished  him,  saying :  "  It  was 
you  that  called  me  from  the  Curia,"  and  now  "  I  demand  a 
safe  conduct  from  you  that  I  may  return  in  security." 1 

In  view  of  his  departure,  the  cardinal  sent  official 
letters  to  the  various  episcopal  sees  in  England  requiring 
immediate  payment  of  large  sums,  said  to  be  due  as  "  pro- 
curations," for  the  proper  support  of  his  dignity  in  the 
country.  At  the  same  time,  acting  on  letters  from  the  pope, 
he  offered  to  absolve  all  who  had  taken  the  crusading  oath, 
on  the  payment,  of  a  sum  of  money  to  go  towards  re- 
plenishing the  papal  coffers.  He  also  devised  a  scheme 
for  levying  a  tax  of  a  fifth  on  all  foreigners  beneficed  in 
England,  for  the  papal  quarrel  with  the  emperor.  To  those 
who  upbraided  Henry  for  allowing  all  these  sums  of  money 
to  be  taken  out  of  the  kingdom,  he  merely  replied :  "  I 
neither  dare  nor  wish  to  oppose  the  pope  in  anything."2 
At  the  same  time,  on  the  other  hand,  he  was  induced 
to  declare  that  the  "  Caursini  "  money  lenders,  who  had 
for  the  most  part  come  from  Siena,  should  be  at  once 
banished  from  the  kingdom.  Many  of  them,  however, 
by  a  judicious  expenditure  of  money,  were  enabled  to 
remain  secretly  in  the  country.3 

In  the  late  spring  of  1240  the  English  prelates  were 
again  called  together  to  hear  from  the  legate  an  "  instant 
demand "  from  the  pope.  Otho  explained  what  great 
sums  Pope  Gregory  had  been  obliged  to  spend  in  de- 

1  Matthew  Paris,  iv.  4-5.  *  Ibid.,  iv.  10.  3  Ibid.,  7-8. 


1 84     HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

fending  the  Church  against  the  emperor,  and  to  help  him 
in  his  difficulties,  he  required  them  to  give  him  a  fifth  part 
of  all  ecclesiastical  goods.  Without  hesitation  the  bishops 
unanimously  refused.  They  replied  that  they  could  not, 
without  much  consideration,  agree  to  any  such  impossible 
burden,  especially  as  this  really  was  a  matter  affecting  the 
whole  Church.  The  meeting  was  consequently  adjourned  to 
some  future  time.1 

Before  this  second  meeting  could  take  place,  however, 
the  archbishop  of  Canterbury,  by  urgent  letters  to  the 
pope,  endeavoured  to  secure  some  redress  of  the  evil 
custom  by  which  the  king  could  keep  bishoprics,  etc., 
vacant  for  long  periods  of  time.  He  proposed  that  should 
such  benefices  be  vacant  for  more  than  six  months,  they 
might  be  rilled  by  the  appointment  of  the  archbishop  of 
Canterbury.  This  was  granted  to  him  by  papal  letters 
on  1 4th  May,  I24O,2  but  on  the  protest  of  the  king  that 
this  was  an  infringement  of  his  royal  prerogative,  the  pope 
gave  way ;  but  "  not  without  the  expenditure  of  great 
sums  of  money,"  writes  Matthew  Paris,  did  Henry  obtain 
the  practical  revocation  of  these  letters,  by  another,  dated 
28th  July,  I24O.3  The  result  of  the  royal  victory  in  this 
matter  over  the  archbishop  was  that  the  king,  feeling  him- 
self stronger  than  ever,  once  more  effectually  prevented 
the  papal  confirmation  of  the  election  of  Boniface  to 
Winchester,  although  the  choice  had  been  canonically  and 
fittingly  made.* 

About  this  time  it  was  rumoured  in  England  that  the 
pope  had  promised  the  Roman  citizens  that  if  they  would 
help  him  against  the  emperor,  he  would  find  fitting  bene- 
fices for  their  sons  and  relatives  in  England.  Colour  was 

1  Matthew  Paris,  iv.  IO.  2  Brit.  Mus.  Add.  MS.,  15,354,  f.  294. 

3  Ibid.,  f.  316.  *  Matthew  Paris,  iv.  15. 


THE  LEGATE  OTHO  185 

given  to  this  report  by  the  assertion  that  the  archbishop 
of  Canterbury,  Bishop  Grosseteste,  and  the  bishop  of 
Salisbury  had  been  directed  to  make  provision  for  some 
300  Romans  from  the  first  benefices  that  fell  vacant  in 
their  dioceses,  their  own  right  of  presentation  being  sus- 
pended until  these  had  been  satisfied.1  Before  this,  how- 
ever, St.  Edmund  first,  and  then  the  other  prelates,  had 
capitulated  to  the  pope's  demands  upon  the  property  of 
the  English  Church,  and  the  papal  collectors  swept  some 
800  marks  into  their  coffers  from  the  episcopal  revenues.2 
Upon  this  final  demand,  blank  despair  as  to  the  state  to 
which  the  English  Church  was  reduced  seized  upon  the 
archbishop,  and  he  fled  from  England  for  ever. 

Many  of  the  ecclesiastics  could  ill  spare  the  large  sums 
which  were  at  this  time  extorted  from  them  and  sent  over 
to  Rome  to  make  a  protest.  One  collector,  Peter  Rosso, 
earned  an  unenviable  reputation  by  endeavouring  to  set  the 
ready  generosity  of  one  prelate  against  the  tardy  reluctance 
of  another,  in  order  thus  to  induce  prompt  payment.  The 
abbots  of  Bury  St.  Edmunds  and  of  Battle,  acting  for  the 
religious  of  England,  complained  to  the  king  of  the  impossi- 
bility of  paying  the  proposed  tax  and  of  keeping  up  their 
houses.  The  king,  however,  denounced  them  to  the  legate, 
and  offered,  should  Otho  desire  to  imprison  them  for  their 
disobedience  to  the  pope,  to  lend  him  a  prison  for  the  pur- 
pose. Seeing  themselves  thus  abandoned,  most  of  the  abbots 
paid  as  best,  they  might,  and  only  a  few  stood  out  against 
what  they  declared  to  be  an  absolutely  insupportable  tax. 

Meanwhile  Pope   Gregory  had  calculated  beforehand 

upon  the  money  he  expected  to  receive  from  England  and 

had  endeavoured  to  discount  it  in  France.    Writing  to  his 

legate,  he  pointed  out  that  the  Holy  See  had  borrowed  on 

1  Matthew  Paris,  iv.  38.  2  Ibid.,  15. 


1 86     HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

the  credit  of  large  sums  payable  to  it  by  all  nations.  The 
English  were  behind  the  other  nations  in  their  payments, 
and  creditors  were  pressing ;  the  pope  consequently  sug- 
gested that  various  foreign  monasteries,  of  which  a  list  was 
given  in  another  document,  should  be  invited  to  take  up  the 
credits,  and  that  the  English  collectors  should  be  ordered 
to  send  on  the  English  money  when  it  came  to  hand.1 

All  during  the  year  1240,  the  attempts  to  extract  money 
out  of  the  unwilling  English  clergy  went  on.  Two  more 
meetings  were  held  at  Northampton  between  the  bishops 
and  the  legate,  who  was  now  accompanied  by  the  notorious 
Peter  Rosso.  At  the  first  of  these  nothing  was  done, 
as  the  prelates  declared  that  they  were  obliged  to  con- 
sult their  archdeacons  before  consenting  to  anything.  At 
the  second,  they  urged  many  reasons  why  they  should  not 
be  compelled  to  pay.  Previously,  they  declared,  they  had 
given  a  tenth  to  the  pope,  on  the  condition  that  it  should 
not  be  construed  into  a  precedent ;  and  now  that  another 
demand  was  made,  it  was  necessary  that  they  should 
refuse,  or  it  would  be  argued  by  canonists  "  that  two  acts 
make  a  custom."  Moreover,  they  pointed  out  that  the 
universal  feeling  was  that  the  clergy  did  not  wish  to 
contribute  to  the  expenses  of  a  war  against  the  emperor, 
and  that  if  the  contribution  was  to  be  general,  it  ought 
to  be  settled  by  some  general  council.2 

The  legate  concluded  from  the  experience  of  these  two 
meetings  that  his  only  chance  of  success  was  to  try  and 
carry  his  point  in  small  assemblies.  His  first  attempt 
was  upon  the  rectors  of  Berkshire,  and  in  their  reply,  ac- 
cording to  the  annalist  of  Burton,  the  other  clergy  of  Eng- 
land acquiesced.3  They  first  declared  their  complete  un- 

1  Mon.  Germ.,  Ep.  Sekctae,  \.  693.  a  Matthew  Paris,  iv.  38. 

3  Ann.  Burton  (Ann.  Mon.,  i.),  265. 


THE  LEGATE  OTHO  187 

willingness  to  contribute  to  support  the  war  against  the 
emperor  Frederick,  who  was  not  excommunicated  "be- 
cause he  had  seized  upon  or  attacked  the  patrimony  of 
the  Roman  Church."  Further,  just  as  "the  Roman  Church 
had  its  patrimony,  the  administration  of  which  belonged 
to  the  lord  pope,"  so  "  other  Churches  had  theirs,  consist- 
ing of  the  gifts  of  kings,  princes,  and  other  faithful  nobles," 
which  was  not  subject  to  tax  nor  liable  to  "  pay  tribute 
to  the  Roman  Church;"  also  "all  the  Churches  were 
under  the  care  and  guardianship  of  the  lord  pope,  but 
were  not  under  his  dominion  nor  were  they  his  property." 
Their  protest  then  went  on  to  point  out  that  ecclesiastical 
revenues  were  intended  for  the  up-keep  of  church  fabrics, 
for  the  support  of  the  ministers,  and  for  alms  to  the  poor, 
and  such  revenues  ought  not  to  be  used  for  other  things, 
especially  as,  in  most  cases,  they  were  not  sufficient  to 
carry  out  these  specific  ends,  etc.  The  legate,  seeing  that 
when  united  he  could  do  little  with  them,  determined 
to  take  them  apart.  He  first  secured  the  goodwill  of  the 
king,  and  then  getting  the  authority  of  the  bishops,  who 
had  already  given  in  to  his  demands,  won  over  some  of 
the  archdeacons  to  his  side.  The  rest,  rather  than  become 
noted  as  opposed  to  their  brethren,  gradually  relaxed 
their  opposition. 

In  the  October  of  this  year,  1240,  the  legate  was  at 
last  really  recalled  to  Rome.  Gregory  IX  had  determined 
upon  assembling  a  general  council  in  the  Eternal  City, 
and  required  the  assistance  of  Otho  in  preparation  for 
it.  In  August  the  pontiff  had  issued  his  letters  to  kings 
to  send  their  proctors,  and  the  bishops  to  assemble  early 
in  the  coming  year.  He  wrote  to  the  bishop  of  Glasgow 
that  the  time  had  come  for  others  to  share  his  troubles 
and  cares.  "  From  the  very  foundation  of  the  Church," 


i88  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

he  says,  "  Eternal  Providence  had  intended  it  to  be 
governed  by  one  pastor  with  the  plenitude  of  power;  the 
other  pastors  being  assumed  to  bear  a  part  of  his  charge ; 
just  as  the  members  (support)  the  head  united  to  them,  so 
are  both  bound  together  with  an  indissoluble  union  in  any 
difficulty."1  To  prepare  for  this  council,  as  has  been  just 
now  said,  the  pope  desired  the  services  of  the  legate,  who, 
however,  did  not  on  that  account  stop  his  preparation  of 
supplies  for  the  winter  in  this  country,  and  his  demand 
for  "  procurations "  towards  the  expenses  of  his  stay  in 
England.  Meanwhile,  about  the  Feast  of  All  Saints,  1st 
November,  Peter  Rosso  and  Ruffinus,  Otho's  two  agents, 
returned  from  Scotland  with  £3,000  for  the  pope;  and 
at  the  same  time  there  arrived  Mumelino,  another  papal 
collector,  bringing  with  him  twenty-four  Romans  wanting 
to  obtain  benefices  in  England.  "  Thus,"  writes  Matthew 
Paris,  "  the  English  were  the  most  wretched  of  all  wretched 
people.  They  were  ground  between  the  upper  and  nether 
millstones.  Now  it  was  Peter  Rosso,  now  Mumelino, 
now  the  legate,  who  ground  down  prelates,  religious  and 
clerics." a 

On  All  Saints'  day,  by  the  advice  of  the  pope,  Otho 
summoned  the  clergy  to  meet  him  for  the  last  time  in 
London,  having  first  won  the  goodwill  of  the  king  to 
his  demands.  At  the  meeting,  so  far  from  the  clergy 
finding  that  they  could  rely  upon  Henry  to  protect  them, 
he  showed  plainly  that  he  was  against  them,  and  so  they 
reluctantly  consented  to  pay  what  the  departing  legate 
demanded.  The  only  religious  who  made  a  stand  against 
the  exactions  were  the  Cistercians,  who  upon  Otho  de- 
manding "  procurations  "  from  them,  appealed  at  once  to 
the  Holy  See  to  defend  them.  Gregory  advised  his  legate 
1  Brit.  Mus.  Add.  MS.,  15,354,  f.  319.  3  Matthew  Paris,  iv.  55. 


THE  LEGATE  OTHO  189 

to  content  himself  with  moderate  gifts  of  food  from  them, 
and  to  refrain  from  demanding  money. 

This  was  almost  the  last  act  of  the  papal  legate  Otho 
in  the  country.  Henry  kept  the  Christmas  of  1240  at 
Westminster,  and  acceding  to  the  legate's  request,  on  the 
feast  day  created  Otho's  nephew  a  knight,  and  gave  him 
a  revenue  of  £30  Stirling,  which  the  youth  promptly  sold 
for  a  capital  sum,  as  he  knew  he  was  leaving  the  country 
at  once.  Then  at  a  banquet  given  to  the  legate,  to  the 
astonishment  of  many,  Henry  set  Otho  in  the  highest 
place — the  royal  place — in  the  centre  of  the  table,  himself 
taking  the  right  hand  and  placing  the  archbishop  of  York 
on  the  left.  Four  days  later  Otho  set  out,  accompanied  by 
the  king  and  his  court  to  the  very  sea  shore.  When,  on 
7th  January,  they  had  embraced  and  separated,  and  Otho 
had  really  left,  there  was,  says  Matthew  Paris,  a  general 
sigh  of  relief  that  the  three  years  of  the  legate's  stay  in 
England  had  really  been  brought  to  a  close. 


CHAPTER  XI 

FROM  THE  DEPARTURE  OF  OTHO  TO  THE 
ELECTION  OF  INNOCENT  IV 

EARLY  in  the  year  1241,  the  difficulty  between  the  monks 
of  Durham  and  the  king,  as  to  a  successor  to  Bishop  Poore, 
was  settled  by  the  resignation  of  the  prior,1  who  had  been 
the  first  choice  of  the  community,  and  the  subsequent 
election  of  Nicholas  de  Farnham.  The  bishop-elect  had 
had  a  distinguished  career  at  the  University  of  Paris,  had 
graduated  in  medicine  at  Bologna,  and,  subsequently  tak- 
ing to  the  study  of  theology,  had  become  a  professor  of  that 
science  in  the  latter  university.  By  the  advice  of  the  legate 
King  Henry  had  called  him  over  to  England  to  "  look 
after  the  souls  and  bodies "  of  himself  and  his  queen,  as 
their  confessor  and  physician. 

It  was  with  difficulty  that  Nicholas  de  Farnham  could 
be  induced  to  consent  to  take  upon  his  shoulders  the 
burden  of  the  episcopate.  Bishop  Grosseteste,  however, 
finally  overcame  his  reluctance,  by  representing  that,  as 
the  king  would  certainly  accept  this  election,  his  consent 
would  put  an  end  to  the  troubles  and  difficulties  which 
had  long  afflicted  the  monks  and  See  of  Durham.  "  If  you 
do  not  accept,"  he  said,  "  the  king  will  get  some  foreign, 
ignorant  and  unworthy  person  appointed  "  to  the  See.2  The 
bishop-elect  consequently  withdrew  his  objection  and  was 
consecrated  on  gth  June  of  this  year  1241. 

1  Brit  Mus.  Add.  MS.,  15,354,  f-  5,323.  a  Matthew  Paris,  iv.  87. 

190 


THE  ELECTION  OF  INNOCENT  IV        191 

The  death  of  St.  Edmund  abroad  on  i6th  November, 
1240,  seemed  to  the  king  to  present  a  favourable  oppor- 
tunity for  the  advancement  of  the  queen's  uncle,  Boniface 
of  Savoy,  the  bishop-elect  of  Belley.  The  Canterbury 
monks,  who  had  proceeded  to  Rome  to  obtain  canonical 
absolution  from  the  censures  placed  on  them  by  St. 
Edmund,  returned  to  England  in  April,  1241,  bringing 
with  them  letters  addressed  by  the  pope  to  the  abbots  of 
St.  Alban's  and  Waltham,  to  declare  the  monastery  of 
Christ  Church  free  of  all  interdict,  etc.,  ad  cautelam,  so 
that  the  monks  might  elect  with  safe  consciences.1  The 
king  at  once  let  them  know  pretty  plainly  his  wish  as  to 
the  result  of  their  free  choice ;  and  the  monks  on  their 
side,  knowing  that  the  pope  and  king  would  help  each 
other,  and  that  any  other  election  would  certainly  be 
quashed,  made  a  virtue  of  necessity  and  elected  Boniface 
as  archbishop.  They  knew  nothing  more  about  him  than 
that  he  was  the  queen's  uncle,  and  that,  although  bishop- 
elect  of  Belley  since  1232,  he  was  still  only  in  subdeacon's 
orders. 

Henry,  in  order  to  prevent  the  pope's  rejection  of  the 
elect  as  unworthy,  not  only  wrote  to  Gregory  IX  urging 
his  claims  and  testifying  that  he  was  worthy  to  receive  con- 
firmation, but  also  had  a  special  letter  of  recommendation 
drawn  up,  and  persuaded  many  bishops  and  prelates  to 
affix  their  names  and  seals  to  it,  and  this  he  forwarded  to 
his  agents  in  Rome,  instructing  them  to  forward  the  cause 
of  Boniface  by  every  means  in  their  power.  Matthew  Paris 
relates,  however,  that  many  of  the  monks  had  grave  qualms 
of  conscience  as  to  their  part  in  electing  to  so  high  an 
office  one  about  whom  so  little  was  known  except  his 
royal  connections.  Some  were  so  greatly  disturbed  in 
1  Brit.  Mus.  Add.  MS.,  15,354,  f.  343. 


I92  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

mind  at  what  they  had  done  that  they  betook  themselves 
to  the  shelter  of  a  Carthusian  monastery,  to  expiate  by  a 
life  of  continual  penance  what  they  had  come  to  look  on 
as  a  crime.1  The  pope's  confirmation  was  long  delayed,  in 
spite  of  all  the  royal  agents  could  do  to  expedite  matters  ; 
and,  before  it  could  be  obtained,  Gregory  IX  died.  It  was 
not  till  after  the  accession  of  Pope  Innocent  IV,  in  1243, 
that  the  elect  was  able  to  obtain  recognition  from  the  Holy 
See  and  be  consecrated  to  the  Chair  of  St.  Augustine. 

Meanwhile  the  election  at  Winchester  still  remained 
unsettled,  owing  to  the  action  of  the  king  in  refusing  to 
accept  the  choice  made  by  the  monks.  It  is  difficult  to 
understand  on  what  grounds  the  royal  objections  were 
based,  as  the  elect,  William  de  Raleigh,  had  been  faithful 
in  the  king's  service,  and  had  previously  been  chosen  to 
present  the  king's  protest  to  claims,  advanced  by  the 
legate  in  behalf  of  the  pope,  at  one  of  the  councils  held  at 
St.  Paul's ;  and,  as  the  royal  representative,  had  remained 
behind  to  watch  the  proceedings  on  Henry's  behalf.  Since 
he  had  been  first  chosen  for  Winchester  and  rejected  by 
the  king,  de  Raleigh  had  been  chosen  and  consecrated 
bishop  of  Norwich.  The  monks,  however,  in  spite  of  the 
royal  determination  not  to  accept  him  for  Winchester, 
carried  their  case  to  the  Holy  See.  Whilst  the  decision 
was  pending,  the  king  tried  by  every  means  in  his  power 
to  bend  the  refractory  electors  to  his  will.  Immediately 
upon  this  second  choice  becoming  known,  the  king  required 
de  Raleigh  to  sign  a  paper  refusing  the  nomination  to 
Winchester.  This  the  bishop  absolutely  refused  to  do,  on 
the  ground  that  to  refuse  translation  "  was  altogether  un- 
reasonable, and  contrary  to  his  profession  as  a  bishop. 
For,  should  the  pope  order  him  under  holy  obedience,  he 

1  Matthew  Paris,  iv.  105. 


THE  ELECTION  OF  INNOCENT  IV        193 

could  not  under  any  circumstances,  if  he  were  an  obe- 
dient son,  refuse."1  Seeing  that  he  could  not  prevail 
with  de  Raleigh,  Henry  next  tried  the  monks.  He  in- 
truded a  foreign  prior,  who  first  created  divisions  among 
them,  and  then  pronounced  them  excommunicated  for 
their  attitude  towards  the  king.  The  unfortunate  re- 
ligious, however,  remained  firm,  although  he  went  to 
the  length  of  sending  amongst  them  creatures  of  his  own 
to  tempt  or  brow-beat  them  into  submission.  Their 
steadfastness  called  forth  the  anger  of  those  who  could 
not  succeed  in  the  task  set  them  by  the  king.  "  Monk- 
ish obstinacy,  unworthy  pride  disguised  in  a  cowl," 
are  samples  given  by  the  chronicler  of  the  expressions 
which  were  used  by  the  royal  agents.  Finally  recourse 
was  had  to  force,  and,  respecting  neither  age  nor  posi- 
tion, the  king's  officials  carried  off  many  of  the  monks  to 
prison.8 

Before  the  final  settlement  was  arrived  at  in  the  Curia, 
as  in  the  case  of  Canterbury,  Pope  Gregory  IX  died.  For 
two  years  more  nothing  was  done ;  but  when  Innocent  IV 
became  pope  he,  without  any  delay,  at  once  settled  the 
matter  in  favour  of  the  monks.  On  i/th  September,  1243, 
the  new  pope  addressed  a  letter  to  William  de  Raleigh, 
bishop  of  Norwich,  translating  him  to  the  See  of  Win- 
chester. This  document  furnishes  some  particulars  of  the 
state  in  which  the  action  of  the  legate  Otho,  prior  to  his 
departure  from  England,  had  left  the  matter.  It  seems 
that  on  the  ground  that  the  monks,  by  not  electing  within 
the  canonical  time,  had  lost  their  right,  which  had  con- 
sequently lapsed  to  the  pope,  Gregory  IX  had  proposed 
to  appoint  to  the  vacant  See.  The  pontiff  was,  however, 
induced  by  the  legate  Otho  to  permit  another  election  to 

1  Matthew  Paris,  iv.  159.  2  Ibid.,  icS. 

O 


194  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

be  held  under  his  presidency,  giving  Otho,  moreover, 
special  powers  to  confirm  the  elect  in  his  place.  On  the 
day  of  the  election,  acting  upon  the  advice  of  the  legate, 
the  monks  chose  six  of  their  numbers  and  the  archdeacon 
of  Winchester  to  elect  in  their  names  and  in  their  behalf. 
Upon  a  scrutiny  it  was  found  that  four  had  voted  for  the 
bishop  of  Norwich,  and  that  the  minority  of  three  had 
chosen  the  bishop-elect  of  Belley.  Upon  this  the  cardinal- 
legate  was  unwilling  to  confirm  the  choice  made  by  so 
narrow  a  majority,  and  recourse  was  again  had  to  the 
Holy  See.  When  the  matter  came  before  Pope  Innocent 
IV,  shortly  after  his  election  to  the  papacy,  one  of  the  two 
original  candidates,  Boniface  of  Belley,  had,  as  already 
noted,  been  elected  to  Canterbury  in  succession  to  St 
Edmund.  The  proctors  of  the  monks  consequently  begged 
the  pope  to  confirm  the  election  of  William  de  Raleigh ; 
this  he  did  in  the  letter  which  recites  the  above  particulars.1 

As  the  time  approached  for  the  assembling  of  the 
Council,  to  which  the  aged  Pope  Gregory  had  summoned 
the  bishops  and  prelates,  many  of  them  were  gathered  to- 
gether at  Genoa  for  the  last  stage  of  their  journey.  The 
emperor  Frederick  endeavoured  to  persuade  them  to  travel 
thence  to  Rome  under  his  protection,  hoping  that  he  might 
in  this  way  gain  the  ear  of  some  of  them  and  get  them  to 
voice  his  grievances  against  the  pope  at  the  meeting.  They 
elected,  however,  to  entrust  their  safety  to  some  Genoese 
merchants,  who  undertook  to  convey  them  to  their  desti- 
nation. 

Amongst  these  prelates  were  three  cardinals,  Otho, 
who  had  been  legate  in  England,  the  legate  of  France,  and 
the  then  legate  to  Genoa;  with  them  were  a  great  number 
of  archbishops,  bishops,  and  others.  The  emperor  con- 

1  Les  Registres  d1  Innocent  IV,  ed.  Elie  Berger,  tome  ier,  No.  116. 


THE  ELECTION  OF  INNOCENT  IV        195 

ceived  the  bold  plan  of  capturing  them,  and  he  forthwith 
dispatched  his  son  Enzio,  with  some  Pisan  galleys,  to  in- 
tercept the  vessels  upon  which  they  had  taken  passage. 
This  was  done  successfully,  and  having  defeated  the  Ge- 
noese ships,  Enzio  took^all  the  prelates  who  had  not  al- 
ready perished  in  the  sunken  ships,  to  Naples,  where  he 
held  them  in  custody.  In  all,  the  emperor  claimed  to  have 
in  this  way  captured  more  than  a  hundred  prelates  with 
their  attendants. 

Meanwhile  the  two  collectors,  Peter  Rosso  and  de  Su- 
pine, who  had  been  left  behind  in  England  by  the  legate 
Otho,  were  busy  at  their  profession.  The  former  was  ac- 
counted the  chief,  and  in  his  citations  to  the  people  to 
bring  in  money  due  to  the  Roman  Curia,  he  signed  himself 
"  familiaris  et  consanguineus  "  of  the  lord  pope.  Pietro  de 
Supino,  with  the  king's  authority  and  by  his  help,  went 
over  to  Ireland,  taking  with  him  the  pope's  commission  to 
collect:  there,  "  aided  by  the  secular  power,"  he  gathered  in 
large  sums  from  the  Irish  Church.  On  his  return  to  Lon- 
don in  the  autumn  of  1241,  he  was  dispatched  to  Rome 
carrying  in  his  saddle  bags  fifteen  hundred  marks.1 

Whilst  Supino  was  occupied  in  Ireland,  Rosso  was  en- 
gaged in  gathering  his  harvest  of  dues  in  the  northern 
parts  of  England  and  in  Scotland.  In  the  midst  of  his  la- 
bours, messengers  from  Rome  brought  tidings  of  the  hope- 
less condition  of  the  pope  and  of  his  expected  death. 
Without  delay  he  hastened  to  join  Supino,  and  together 
they  crossed  over  the  sea,  fearing  lest  the  king  might  hear 
of  Gregory's  illness  or  death,  and  try  to  seize  the  money 
they  had  been  so  diligently  gathering  for  the  Holy  See. 
They  had  hardly  reached  France,  however,  before  the  em- 
peror sent  Henry  news  as  to  the  pope's  condition,  and 

1  Matthew  Paris,  iv.  137. 


I96  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

added  as  his  advice  that  the  English  king  should  seize  the 
persons  of  the  collectors.  On  finding  they  had  already  es- 
caped, Frederick  himself  dispatched  people  to  track  them 
down  and  follow  them,  and  ultimately  they  were  captured 
in  Italy,  and  their  money  was  confiscated  by  the  emperor.1 
At  this  time  Bishop  Grosseteste  had  a  serious  quarrel 
with  the  king,  which  he  pursued  to  the  end  with  his  char- 
acteristic vigour  and  fearlessness.  It  appears  that  the 
king  had  applied  to  the  pope  to  "  provide "  one  of  his 
clerks,  John  Mansel,  with  the  prebend  of  Thame,  in  the 
cathedral  of  Lincoln.  This  request  was  acceded  to,  and 
letters  were  issued,  granting,  by  the  pope's  supreme  author- 
ity, this  benefice  to  Henry's  nominee,  who  was  indeed  the 
royal  chancellor,  and  one  of  the  most  wealthy  ecclesiastics 
of  the  time.  It  is  not  unimportant  to  remark  that  a  very 
large  proportion  of  papal  "  provisions  " — or  the  appoint- 
ments to  benefices  in  England  made  by  the  pope  at  this 
period,  and  indeed  at  all  times — were  granted  at  the  direct 
request  of  kings,  bishops,  and  nobles.  It  was  an  easy  way 
to  reward  services  done,  or  to  enrich  favourites.  The  same 
may  be  said  of  the  licences  to  hold  more  than  one  benefice 
with  the  cure  of  souls  attached,  which  were  unfortunately 
only  too  common  at  this  period.  To  put  a  stop  to  what 
was  obviously  a  grave  abuse,  the  General  Council  of  the 
Lateran  had  legislated  with  great  strictness  on  this  matter, 
and  had  prohibited  any  clerk  from  holding  a  plurality  of 
benefices,  requiring  a  special  leave  of  the  Apostolic  See 
for  any  individual  case  in  which  circumstances  might  seem 
to  make  it  desirable  that  the  law  should  be  relaxed.  It 
was  in  practice  found,  as  has  already  been  pointed  out  in 
the  case  of  the  legate  Otho's  attempt  in  England,  that 
.vhen  the  decrees  of  the  Lateran  came  to  be  enforced, 

1  Matthew  Paris,  iv.  161. 


THE  ELECTION  OF  INNOCENT  IV        197 

strong  protests  were  uttered  by  or  in  behalf  of  the  bishops 
and  of  others  interested,  to  prevent  what  they  considered 
unwise  curtailment  of  their  accustomed  privileges.  It  was 
only  with  the  greatest  difficulty  and  very  gradually  that 
the  prohibition  of  the  Council  was  insisted  upon.  That  the 
popes  did  reward  services  to  themselves,  and  to  what  they 
considered  the  interests  of  the  universal  Church,  by  the  be- 
stowal of  benefices  in  other  countries  upon  Italians  and 
other  foreigners,  is  as  certain  as  that  the  practice  was  a 
grave  and  obvious  abuse,  which  no  one  could  do  otherwise 
than  condemn.  But  it  has  been  the  custom  to  write  of 
"  papal  provisions  "  as  if  every  act  of  the  pope,  in  bestow- 
ing a  benefice  upon  some  individual  cleric,  was  done  upon 
his  own  initiative,  and  was  an  encroachment  upon  the 
rights  of  individuals  and  nations.  It  requires,  however, 
only  a  very  slight  acquaintance  with  the  papal  registers  to 
see  that  in  the  majority  of  cases  the  request  came  from 
this  country,  and  that  the  pope  was  only  endeavouring  to 
carry  out  the  wishes  of  those  who  for  some  reason  or  other 
had  a  right  to  urge  their  petitions  upon  him.  Moreover, 
just  at  this  period,  there  may  be  seen  numerous  letters 
from  the  popes  to  bishops  who  had  complained  of  these 
"  provisions  "  as  hurtful  to  the  best  interests  of  their  dio- 
ceses, allowing  them  to  refuse  to  institute  to  any  benefice 
thus  bestowed  by  papal  power,  unless  there  was  a  mention 
in  the  letters  granting  it,  that  in  the  appointment  this  had 
been  specially  considered  and  set  aside.  In  other  cases,  if 
the  bishop  thought  proper  to  refuse  to  institute,  the  whole 
matter  had  to  be  raised  and  the  bishop's  objections  heard 
upon  an  appeal  of  the  aggrieved  party. 

This  subject  is  illustrated  in  the  present  case  of  the 
Thame  prebend.  King  Henry,  wishing  to  reward  John 
Mansel  for  services  done  to  him  as  chancellor,  applied  to 


198  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

Pope  Gregory  IX  to  bestow  upon  him  the  benefice  then 
(at  the  time  of  the  application)  vacant.  The  pope  acceded 
to  the  request,  as  has  been  said,  and  Mansel  applied  to  the 
bishop  of  Lincoln  for  institution.  Bishop  Grosseteste  had 
already  filled  the  vacancy  by  the  appointment  of  one  Si- 
mon of  London.  Moreover,  when  the  king's  nominee,  John 
Mansel,  produced  his  letters  of  "provision,"  Grosseteste 
found  that  there  was  no  special  mention  of  the  letter  of 
protection,  granted  to  him  on  26th  January,  1239,  by  Pope 
Gregory  IX.  By  this  letter,  which  was  issued  as  an  an- 
swer to  his  complaint  that  owing  to  the  number  of  papal 
provisions  which  had  been  made  in  the  Lincoln  diocese, 
the  work  of  the  See  had  been  much  hampered,  he  was  per- 
mitted to  refuse  to  put  any  one  in  possession  of  a  benefice 
unless  a  special  mention  of  the  consideration  of  this  privi- 
lege was  named.1 

Grosseteste  consequently  sent  to  the  king  to  point  out 
that  this  letter  of  protection  made  the  "provision"  ob- 
tained by  the  royal  agents  in  Rome  of  no  value.  He  pro- 
tested against  the  idea  that  any  one  could  force  an  ap- 
pointment to  a  benefice  in  any  diocese  without  the  know- 
ledge and  consent  of  the  bishop,  even  when  papal  authority 
was  relied  upon,  "  since  the  lord  pope  must  desire  every- 
thing to  be  done  in  an  orderly  manner."  His  messengers 
added  that  the  bishop  was  by  no  means  unwilling,  on  ac- 
count of  the  worth  of  John  Mansel  himself,  and  because  he 
would  desire  to  do  what  the  king  wished,  if  possible,  to  find 
some  other  benefice  for  him ;  but  that  he  could  not  consent 
to  this  way  of  acting,  and  was  prepared  to  issue  his  ex- 
communication against  all  invaders  of  the  rights  of  his 
diocese  should  this  matter  be  persisted  in  by  the  king  and 
Mansel.  Seeing  the  firm  attitude  of  Grosseteste,  John 

1  Brit.  Mus.  Add.  MS.,  15,354,  f.  184. 


THE  ELECTION  OF  INNOCENT  IV        199 

Mansel  resigned  all  claim  to  the  prebend  in  dispute,  and 
the  king,  fearing  that  the  bishop  would  keep  his  word,  gave 
way,  and  accepted  his  defeat  graciously.1 

On  22nd  August,  1241,  Pope  Gregory  IX  died  at  the 
age  of  nearly  a  hundred  years.  At  the  time  of  his  death 
there  were  ten  cardinals  present  in  Rome,  and  two  more 
were  held  as  prisoners  in  Naples  by  the  emperor.  At  a 
meeting  of  the  ten  then  in  Rome,  it  became  evident  that 
no  agreement  on  any  candidate  was  possible,  and  the 
meeting  sent  to  the  emperor  to  beg  that  he  would  release 
the  two  cardinals,  Otho  and  James  Pecoraria,  and  allow 
them  to  take  part  in  the  election  of  a  succesor  to  Pope 
Gregory.  To  this  he  consented,  on  condition  that  when 
the  choice  had  been  made,  they  should  return  to  their 
prison.  The  second  meeting  of  the  cardinals,  like  the  first, 
came  to  nothing.  Two  parties  in  the  conclave  chose  two 
different  cardinals,  and  for  a  time  no  agreement  seemed 
possible.  Upon  this,  Cardinal  Otho,  acting  upon  his  pledge, 
returned  to  his  prison  in  Naples,  where  the  emperor  kept 
him  strictly,  chiefly  because  he  had  excommunicated  him 
whilst  legate  in  England,2  and  had  collected  money  to 
enable  the  pope  to  make  war  upon  him.  Later  on,  the  dis- 
sensions among  the  cardinals  were  sufficiently  healed  to 
enable  them  to  unite  in  electing  Geoffrey  of  Milan,  who 
took  the  name  of  Celestine  IV.  He  was,  however,  a  man 
already  weighed  down  with  years,  and  stricken  with  in- 
firmities, and  so,  within  seventeen  days  of  his  election,  he 
died. 

Towards  the  end  of  November  of  this  year,  1241,  some 
of  the  bishops  of  England  met  at  Oxford  to  discuss  the 
state  of  the  Church.  The  archbishop  of  York  presided, 
and  there  were  present  Bishop  Grosseteste,  Bishop  William 

1  Matthew  Paris,  iv.  152-154.  a  Ibid.,  164;  ibid.,  170. 


200  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

de  Raleigh,  the  bishop  of  Carlisle,  and  many  other  prelates, 
religious  and  ecclesiastics.  The  king,  suspecting  that  the 
assembly  might  pass  some  regulations  affecting  his  in- 
terests, appointed  a  procurator  to  attend  the  meeting,  and 
by  his  letters  patent  he  prohibited  discussion  or  legislation 
upon  anything  "  against  his  Crown  and  dignity."1  The  pur- 
pose of  the  meeting,  however,  was  to  consult  upon  the 
grave  state  of  the  Church  in  being  left  so  long  without  a 
supreme  pastor,  and  to  urge  upon  the  English  people  the 
need  of  public  prayer  and  penances  to  implore  that  the 
Lord  might  deign  to  assist  and  restore  the  Roman  Church 
then  destitute  of  pastoral  and  papal  government.  Taking 
as  their  precedent  the  fact  that  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles 
it  is  related  that  when  Peter  was  in  prison  the  Church 
prayed  without  ceasing  for  him,  the  faithful  were  urged  to 
unite  in  public  supplications  that  God  would  assist  those 
upon  whom  the  choice  depended. 

The  meeting  was  also  unanimous  in  determining  to  send 
to  the  emperor  to  beg  "  with  prayers  and  tears,"  that  for 
his  soul's  sake  he  would  put  aside  all  angry  feeling  or  any 
desire  to  act  the  tyrant,  and  not  interfere  with  the  Roman 
election.  They  were  to  remind  him  that  those  who  had 
stirred  him  up  to  anger  were  dead,  and  that  it  would  be 
unreasonable,  and  would  be  looked  upon  as  vindictive,  to 
continue  his  hostile  attitude  to  the  innocent.  When  it  be- 
came, however,  a  question  of  who  should  undertake  the 
office  of  not  only  going  to  the  emperor,  but  of  trying  to 
stir  up  among  the  prelates  of  France  sentiments  similar  to 
those  animating  their  English  brethren  at  this  juncture,  one 
after  another  of  the  prelates  excused  themselves  from  so 
arduous  and  difficult  a  labour  "  for  Christ  and  his  Church." 
Finally,  however,  on  the  principle  explained  by  Juvenal  in 

1  Wilkins,  i.  682. 


THE  ELECTION  OF  INNOCENT  IV        201 

the  line  "Cantabit  vacuus  coram  latrone  viator,"  the  Domin- 
icans and  Franciscans,  who  were  used  to  travelling,  and 
knew  the  countries,  were  deputed  to  the  work.  The 
mission,  however,  did  little  good,  for  upon  the  messengers 
conveying  the  suggestions  of  the  English  bishops  to  the 
emperor  Frederick,  he  indignantly  denied  that  he  had  in 
any  way  interfered  with  the  papal  election,  though,  he 
added,  that  no  one  need  be  astonished  if  he  had  done  so, 
least  of  all  the  English,  who  had  excommunicated  him.1 

The  continued  vacancy  in  the  papal  Chair  was  soon  felt 
in  the  relations  between  France  and  England.  Since  the 
accession  of  Henry  III  to  the  throne,  it  was  mainly,  if  not 
entirely,  due  to  the  efforts  of  the  popes  that  peace  had  been 
preserved  between  the  two  kingdoms.  Truce  after  truce 
had  been  made  and  renewed  by  the  diplomatic  dealing  of 
Honorius  and  Gregory  and  their  agents  in  the  two  count- 
ries. When  the  kings  of  either  peoples  seemed  inclined  to 
cast  prudence  to  the  winds,  or  to  disregard  the  fatherly 
admonitions  of  the  successor  of  St.  Peter,  a  judicious  threat 
of  compulsion  by  means  of  the  spiritual  sword  had  the  de- 
sired effect,  and  a  breach  of  the  peace,  which  had  con- 
stantly appeared  imminent,  was  happily  averted.  Hardly 
six  months  had  elapsed  from  the  death  of  Gregory  IX,  how- 
ever, before  the  peace  of  more  than  a  quarter  of  a  century 
was  seriously  threatened.  Early  in  1242  Henry  felt  com- 
pelled to  call  a  parliament  to  consider  how  best  to  meet 
certain  difficulties  which  had  arisen  with  the  French.  It 
assembled  in  London  on  28th  January;  but  rumours  con- 
cerning the  business  having  transpired,  the  nobles  and  pre- 
lates bound  themselves  not  to  grant  any  subsidy  to  the 
king  for  the  purpose  of  attacking  France,  to  which  the 
count  de  la  Marche  was  urging  him.  When  Henry  had 

1  Matthew  Paris,  iv.  173-174. 


202  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

laid  his  design  of  crossing  the  sea  before  them,  they  refused 
to  sanction  a  project  about  which  they  had  never  been 
consulted.  Even  his  attempt  to  gain  their  consent  to  a 
subsidy  by  adopting  the  tactics  he  had  seen  succeed  when 
used  by  the  legate  Otho,  namely,  the  ruse  of  taking  the 
nobles  individually,  failed,  and  Henry  dismissed  the  as- 
sembly. Both  nobles  and  prelates  refused  even  to  say  what 
they  would  do  in  the  event  of  the  French  king  breaking 
the  truce  which  had  so  long  bound  the  two  nations  to 
peace.  It  would  be  sufficient,  they  declared,  to  consider 
that,  when  the  event  occurred.  They  did  not  feel  disposed 
to  entrust  the  king  with  any  more  money  after  the  great 
sums  they  had  already  given  and  the  large  amounts 
he  had  obtained  through  vacant  archbishoprics  like  Can- 
terbury.1 

Pressing  appeals  continuing  to  come  from  de  la  Marche, 
the  king  determined  to  cross  over  into  Poitou,  trusting 
that  once  he  had  embarked  on  the  war  his  nobles  would 
rally  to  his  assistance.  He  left  the  archbishop  of  York 
in  charge  of  the  kingdom,  and  taking  ship  at  Portsmouth 
on  1 5th  May,  1242,  landed  at  Royan,  in  Brittany,  three 
days  later.  On  8th  June  he  sent  letters  to  the  bishops 
and  abbots  of  England  to  order  special  prayers  for  the 
success  of  the  English  arms,  as  it  was  obvious  that  the 
threatened  breach  with  France  could  not  now  be  long  de- 
layed.2 The  same  day  he  wrote  to  the  archbishop  of  York 
to  forward  knights  and  soldiers  at  once  to  his  assistance, 
and  he  was  to  let  it  be  known  that  if  the  royal  position 
was  to  be  saved  in  France,  the  king  must  immediately 
have  money.  Finally,  the  king  directs  the  archbishop  as 
guardian  of  the  kingdom,  to  see  that  "  of  the  five  hundred 
poor  people  whom  the  king  had  been  wont  to  feed  daily," 

1  Matthew  Paris,  iv.  181  seqq.  a  Rymer  i.  245. 


THE  ELECTION  OF  INNOCENT  IV       203 

his  "  almoner,  Brother  John,  continue  to  feed  out  of  the 
king's  alms  "  the  greater  part  of  that  number,  namely,  three 
hundred  and  fifty  "  daily  from  the  ninth  of  May,  when  " 
he  embarked  at  Portsmouth,  "  to  the  day  he  should  return 
prosperously  to  England."1 

The  war  did  not  last  very  long.  At  first  Louis  IX 
seemed  to  have  all  the  fortune  on  his  side,  and  the  English 
allies  were  found  to  be  uncertain  and  treacherous;  but  by 
September,  1242,  a  distressing  sickness  broke  out  in  the 
ranks  of  the  French,  and  the  king  himself  became  seriously 
ill.  This  induced  him,  by  the  advice  of  his  nobles,  to  ask 
for  a  truce  for  five  years,  to  which,  under  the  circumstances, 
the  English  were  only  too  well  pleased  to  agree. 

Meanwhile,  whilst  Henry  was  in  foreign  parts,  an  at- 
tempt was  made  to  obtain  contributions  from  the  Cister- 
cians towards  the  expenses  of  the  war.  In  the  time  of  the 
legate  Otho,  by  an  appeal  to  Rome,  they  had  successfully 
resisted  his  claim  to  make  them  liable  to  taxation,  like  the 
rest  of  the  religious  and  clergy.  Now,  at  the  suggestion  of 
the  king,  the  archbishop  called  a  meeting  of  all  the  Eng- 
lish abbots  of  the  Order,  and  asked  them  to  help  the  king. 
They  asked  in  what  they  could  do  so,  and  the  archbishop 
rejoined,  "  in  a  small  way."  In  reply  to  a  further  question 
as  to  what  was  meant  by  "  in  a  small  way,"  he  answered, 
"  by  giving  him  as  much  money  as  you  get  for  your  wool 
for  one  year."  The  request,  says  the  chronicler,  was  "  much 
like  that  of  one  who  would  say,  '  give  me  your  life  and 
take  the  rest  with  you,'"  as  this  was  their  chief  support. 
The  request  urged  by  the  archbishop  in  the  name  of  the 
king  was  difficult  to  meet;  but  the  Cistercians  fell  back 
upon  the  fact  that  they  were  members  of  a  cosmopolitan 
Order,  and  could  make  no  promise  without  the  leave  of 

1  Rymer  i.  246. 


204  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

their  general  Chapter,  which  could  never  they  feared,  sanc- 
tion money  being  contributed  for  the  purpose  of  making 
war.  They,  however,  promised  to  help  their  king  in  what 
they  considered  a  better  way,  by  their  prayers,  and  by 
giving  him  a  share  in  their  good  works ;  and  in  this  attitude 
they  remained  firm,  although  the  archbishop  showed  that 
he  was  not  best  pleased,  and  told  them  that  the  king  would 
hardly  hear  of  their  refusal  to  him  in  his  needs  with  plea- 
sure.1 This  year,  it  may  be  noted,  none  of  the  Cistercian 
abbots  were  permited  to  attend  the  Chapter  at  Citeaux. 
Apparently,  however,  Henry  sent  his  agents  to  the  Chapter, 
and,  unlike  the  king  of  France,  who  required  their  prayers, 
he  demanded  that  the  authority  of  general  Chapter  should 
be  given  for  the  payment  by  the  English  houses  of  the  tax 
he  had  demanded.  This  they  refused. 

The  next  year,  1243,  saw  Henry  still  abroad.  The 
abbot  of  Evesham,  who  on  the  death  of  Hugh  de  Patteshull, 
bishop  of  Coventry,  in  1241,  had  been  elected  to  succeed 
him  by  the  canons  of  Lichfield,  died  at  La  Reole  in  Gas- 
cony.  He  had  been  for  many  years  the  keeper  of  the 
king's  seal,  and  had  surrendered  it  only  to  accompany  his 
royal  master  abroad.  He  had  not,  however,  been  conse- 
crated bishop  owing  to  the  unfortunate  dispute  between 
the  canons  of  Lichfield  and  the  monks  of  Coventry,  who 
had  elected  some  other  candidate,  a  difficulty  which  had 
not  been  settled,  owing  to  the  continued  vacancy  of  the 
papal  throne.  Neither  did  the  death  of  one  of  the  candi- 
dates bring  the  quarrel  to  a  conclusion.  On  learning  for 
certain  that  the  abbot  of  Evesham  was  dead,  the  Coventry 
monks  induced  many  of  the  canons  of  Lichfield  to  agree 
upon  the  election  of  William  de  Montpelier,  the  precentor. 
The  king,  however,  refused  to  accept  him,  being  urged  to 

1  Matthew  Paris,  iv.  234. 


THE  ELECTION  OF  INNOCENT  IV        205 

this  course  by  some  of  the  canons,  and  so  the  deadlock 
continued. 

As  the  year  1243  progressed,  the  emperor  Frederick 
became  impatient  at  the  dissensions  of  the  cardinals,  which 
had  so  far  prevented  the  election  of  a  successor  to  Gre- 
gory IX.  To  facilitate  matters  he  released  the  cardinals, 
whom  he  had  now  for  so  long  held  captive;  but  even  this 
measure  did  not  seem  to  enable  them  to  come  to  an  agree- 
ment on  a  candidate.  Frederick,  becoming  impatient,  or- 
dered his  army  to  lay  waste  the  possessions  of  the  cardi- 
nals, attacked  Rome,  and  allowed  the  Saracens  to  pillage 
Albano.  At  length,  upon  St.  John  the  Baptist's  day, 
24th  June,  1243,  the  choice  of  the  electors  fell  upon  Car- 
dinal Sinebald,  who  was  enthroned  upon  the  feast  of 
SS.  Peter  and  Paul  as  Pope  Innocent  IV,  after  the  pontifi- 
cal throne  had  been  vacant  for  a  year  and  nine  months. 

In  the  time  of  this  vacancy  a  serious  difficulty  arose 
between  Bishop  Grosseteste  and  the  convent  of  Christ 
Church,  Canterbury,  on  a  matter  of  jurisdiction.  The  bishop 
had  had  a  dispute  with  the  abbey  of  Bardney,  and,  after 
excommunicating  the  abbot  for  refusing  to  appear  before 
the  court  of  his  archdeacon,  he  sent  visitors  in  his  name  to 
hold  a  visitation  of  the  abbey.  On  the  ground  that  these 
were  seculars,  and  consequently  could  not  be  acquainted 
with  the  monastic  life,  the  monks  of  Bardney  refused  to 
admit  them.  Bishop  Grosseteste  upon  this  placed  the 
house  under  an  interdict,  and  the  abbot  appealed  from  this 
sentence  to  the  prior  and  convent  of  Canterbury,  which  was 
supposed  to  possess  the  power  of  the  metropolitan  when 
the  See  of  Canterbury  was  vacant,  as  it  then  was,  and  con- 
sequently, amongst  other  powers,  that  of  receiving  appeals. 
Thereupon  the  bishop  declared  the  abbot  deposed  from 
his  office,  and  the  convent  of  Canterbury  responded  by 


206  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

solemnly  excommunicating  the  bishop,  and  serving  him 
with  a  notice  to  that  effect.  Grosseteste  was  astonished, 
and  not  a  little  angry,  and  he  paid  no  attention  to  the 
sentence,  continuing  publicly  to  exercise  his  episcopal 
functions.1 

Here  the  matter  rested  for  a  time,  awaiting  the  election 
of  the  new  pope,  except  for  a  strong  protest  made  by  the 
bishop  to  the  king  on  the  abbot  of  Bardney  being  allowed 
the  use  of  the  abbey  revenues  after  he  had  declared  him 
deposed.2  Grosseteste's  agents  were  instructed  to  press 
the  question  on  the  consideration  of  the  pontiff  imme- 
diately he  should  be  chosen.  This  they  did  so  well,  that 
within  a  month  of  Innocent  IV's  coronation,  he  issued  his 
letters  directing  the  prior  of  Canterbury  to  remove  the 
sentence  of  excommunication  from  the  bishop  within  eight 
days  of  the  reception  of  the  letters,  but  without  prejudice 
to  any  rights  they  might  claim.3  This  was  not  sufficient 
for  the  bishop ;  he  wrote  immediately  to  Cardinal  Otho,  the 
former  legate  in  England,  to  point  out  how  the  papal 
letters,  although  obliging  the  monks  to  remove  the  sen- 
tence uttered  against  him,  were  not  unnaturally  interpreted 
as  a  confirmation  of  their  right  to  act  as  they  had  done 
and  of  their  possession  of  metropolitical  powers  when  the 
See  of  Canterbury  was  vacant.  Against  this  position 
Grosseteste  energetically  protested.  He  declared  that  the 
bishops  of  the  province  had  never  admitted  this  power  in 
fact,  and  as  a  proof  against  the  right  of  the  monks  to 
possess  such  powers,  he  pointed  to  the  fact  that  "  when  the 
Chair  of  Canterbury  was  vacant,  elected  suffragans  had 
always  been  confirmed  by  the  pope."  To  admit  that  these 
bishops  ought  to  have  received  confirmation  from  the 

1  Matthew  Paris,  iv.  245-248.  2  Grosseteste,  Ep.  308. 

3  Ibid.,  258. 


THE  ELECTION  OF  INNOCENT  IV       207 

monks  would  be  lowering  the  episcopal  dignity,  "  which  in 
so  far  was  the  same  as  that  of  the  pope,  "though  the 
papacy  has  the  position  of  highest  dignity  and  plenitude 
of  power,  from  which  plenitude  the  other  bishops  receive 
whatever  power  they  have." 1 

1  Grosseteste,  Ep.  324-328. 


CHAPTER  XII 

THE  FIRST  YEARS  OF  POPE  INNOCENT  IV 

DURING  the  first  few  months  of  his  occupying  the  Chair  of 
St.  Peter,  Pope  Innocent  IV  did  much  to  clear  off  the 
heavy  arrears  of  business  which  had  accumulated  during 
the  long  interregnum.  From  some  of  the  early  letters  of 
this  pontiff,  it  is  clear  that,  in  this  country,  advantage  had 
been  taken  of  the  vacancy  to  withdraw  the  payments  of 
the  fruits  of  benefices  held  by  Roman  ecclesiastics  in 
England.  This  is  quite  what  was  to  be  expected ;  and  the 
pope,  in  endeavouring  to  set  this  matter  right  and  insure 
punctual  payment  for  the  future,  speaks  in  these  documents 
of  the  contempt  with  which  the  agents  of  the  foreign 
beneficed  clergy  had  been  treated  in  their  endeavour  to 
obtain  the  revenues  for  the  alien  ecclesiastics.  At  the  same 
time,  within  a  few  weeks  of  his  election  to  the  papacy, 
Innocent  IV  severely  condemns  the  action  of  papal  col- 
lectors in  demanding  fees  and  excessive  presents  for  them- 
selves. Although  legates  who  are  sent  from  the  Holy  See 
ought  to  be  treated  honourably,  he  says,  as  messengers  of 
the  pope,  still  he  does  not  approve  "  of  the  minor  officials, 
and  in  particular,  mere  humble  messengers,"  not  being 
content  with  receiving  their  necessary  expenses,  and  so 
bearing  themselves  rather  as  thieves  and  extortioners  than 
as  "papal  nuncios."1 

In  the  midst  of  more  important  business  in  the  govern- 

1  Les  Registres  d' 'Innocent  IV,  i.  No.  43. 
208 


THE  FIRST  YEARS  OF  INNOCENT  IV    209 

ment  of  the  Church,  the  new  pope  found  time  to  consider 
such  small  matters  as  the  approval  of  the  impropriation  of 
churches  to  Rievaulx;  the  bestowal  of  privileges  on  St. 
Augustine's,  Canterbury,  and  on  the  monks  of  Winchester, 
allowing  the  communities  henceforth  to  say  their  office 
with  heads  covered,  except  during  the  reading  of  the 
Gospel  and  the  elevation  of  the  most  Holy  Sacrament, 
although  immemorial  custom  had  been  that  during  Divine 
Service  all  heads  were  uncovered;  and  the  conceding  of 
other  similar  personal  but  otherwise  unimportant  benefits. 
The  first  matters  of  moment  to  which  his  attention  was 
turned  was  the  settlement  of  the  two  vacant  Sees  of  Canter- 
bury and  Winchester.  In  his  letter  confirming  the  election 
made  by  the  monks  to  the  former  See,  the  pope  relates  that 
the  proctors  of  election  were  amongst  those  who  had  been 
captured  by  the  emperor  Frederick  in  the  Genoese  ships 
which  were  carrying  the  three  cardinals  to  Rome.  They 
were  three  of  the  community,  one  of  whom  was  the  sub- 
prior.  Of  these  three,  one  died  of  the  hardships  conse- 
quent upon  the  capture  and  captivity,  one  returned  to 
England,  and  the  sub-prior  alone  proceeded  to  Rome,  where 
he  waited  with  steadfast  determination  until  the  election 
of  a  successor  to  Gregory  IX.  Having  considered  the  facts 
of  the  election,  Pope  Innocent  confirms  Boniface  of  Savoy 
as  archbishop  of  Canterbury,  and  gives  him  "  full  power  of 
administration  of  the  See  in  both  spirituals  and  temporals." l 
The  same  day,  I7th  September,  1243,  the  translation 
of  the  bishop  of  Norwich,  William  de  Raleigh,  to  Win- 
chester, was  decreed  by  the  pope,  and  the  usual  letters 
were  addressed  to  the  king,  to  the  monks,  and  to  the  clergy 
and  people  of  the  diocese  announcing  the  papal  decision. 
This  unfortunately  did  not  settle  the  long-continued  dis- 
1  Gervase  of  Canterbury,  ii.  200. 
P 


210  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

pute.  Henry  was  greatly  incensed  at  de  Raleigh  for  acting 
as  bishop  and  being  accepted  as  bishop  by  all  save  a  few 
of  the  monks  of  Winchester,  although  he  had  refused  his 
royal  consent.  He  detained  the  episcopal  manors  in  his 
hands  and  placed  his  own  servants  in  them  to  prevent  the 
bishop  taking  possession,  and  when,  after  the  pope's  de- 
cision, William  de  Raleigh  came  to  be  enthroned  in  his 
cathedral,  Henry  had  the  gates  of  the  city  shut  against 
him.  The  head  of  the  opposition  was  the  foreign  prior, 
Andrew,  whom  the  king  had  intruded  upon  the  monastery ; 
but  Henry  himself  took  an  active  part  in  trying  to  prevent 
the  new  bishop  from  taking  up  the  rule  of  his  diocese.  He 
forbade  any  one  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Winchester  to 
shelter  him,  and  he  wrote  to  the  University  of  Oxford  and 
to  Rome  itself,  charging  de  Raleigh  with  having  procured 
the  papal  confirmation  by  unworthy  means.  After  mani- 
festing great  patience,  the  new  bishop,  on  being  formally 
refused  entrance  to  his  cathedral  city,  placed  it  under  an 
interdict.1 

Bishop  Grosseteste  took  up  the  defence  of  the  bishop 
with  vigour.  He  wrote  to  the  newly  appointed  archbishop 
of  Canterbury  urging  that  "  since  the  lord  pope  had  ad- 
mitted and  confirmed  the  postulation  "  of  the  bishop  of 
Norwich  to  Winchester,  and  had  written  to  the  English 
king  in  behalf  of  the  bishop,  Henry  had  no  ground  for 
opposition.  If  he  persisted,  it  might  be  very  bad  for  him- 
self and  his  kingdom,  "  since  in  thus  acting  he  clearly  was 
going  against  the  action  of  the  lord  pope,"  to  whom  over 
and  above  the  duty  owing  by  all  princes  as  sons  of  the 
Church,  he  (the  king)  was  specially  bound  to  fealty  under 
the  greatest  penalties  by  the  Charter  and  oath  of  King  John, 
his  father  of  illustrious  memory,  "  which  we  do  not  (of 

1  Matthew  Paris,  iv.  263-266. 


THE  FIRST  YEARS  OF  INNOCENT  IV    211 

course  suppose)  is  unknown  to  you.  As  it  belongs  to  you 
above  others  to  protect  ecclesiastical  liberty,  and  to  see 
that  the  determination  of  the  lord  pope  is  rightly  carried 
out " ;  he  requests  him  to  do  all  he  can  to  get  the  king  to 
withdraw  his  opposition,  and  even  to  write  to  the  queen, 
his  niece,  to  influence  her  husband.1 

Besides  this,  conjointly  with  the  bishops  of  Worcester 
and  Hereford,  the  bishop  of  Lincoln  went  to  Reading  to 
confront  the  king,  and  to  endeavour  to  put  a  stop  to  the 
scandal.  Henry  would  not  wait  for  their  arrival,  and 
hurried  off  his  messengers  to  Rome,  authorising  them  to 
make  great  promises  in  his  name,  and  furnishing  them  with 
much  money,  to  procure  the  bishop's  deprivation  from  the 
Holy  See.  These  proposals,  however,  were  never  made,  for 
one  of  his  agents,  considering  that  it  would  be  unjust  and 
scandalous  to  have  any  part  in  such  arrangements,  returned 
to  England,  upon  which  his  companion  disappeared  with 
the  king's  money.2  Meanwhile,  the  bishops  followed  Henry 
from  Reading  to  Westminster,  and  there,  upbraiding  him 
for  his  tyranny  and  injustice,  threatened  to  place  his  royal 
chapels  under  an  interdict.  The  king  did  not  seek  to  de- 
fend his  action,  but  merely  pleaded  delay  until  the  envoys 
he  had  dispatched  to  Rome  could  return  with  some  reply. 
To  this  they  were  obliged  to  agree;  the  bishop  of  Win- 
chester being  then  compelled  to  seek  safety  by  flight  across 
the  seas. 

Matters  could  not  long  be  allowed  to  remain  in  this 
state.  On  2Oth  February,  1244,  after  many  previous  sug- 
gestions by  the  pope  for  a  settlement  had  proved  useless, 
Innocent  IV  addressed  a  grave  letter  of  remonstrance  to 
Henry.  When  with  the  advice  of  the  cardinals  he  had  deter- 
mined, he  says,  to  translate  William  de  Raleigh  from  Nor- 

1  Grosseteste,  Epist.,  271-272.  *  Matthew  Paris,  iv.  286. 


212  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

wich  to  Winchester,  he  had  written  to  beg  that  Henry  would 
receive  the  appointment  cordially.    "  On  the  contrary,"  he 
continues,  "as  we   are  grieved  to  hear,  you  have  been 
pleased  not  only  to  pay  no  attention  to  our  requests,  but 
what  is  more  grave,  you  have  given  expression  to  words  in 
no  way  showing  fitting  modesty  or  filial  reverence.    You 
have  asserted  that,  if  you  were  unwilling,  no  postulation  in 
the  kingdom  of  England  either  ought  or  indeed  could  be 
made  by  the  Apostolic  See.    You  have  declared  that  you 
had  the  same  power  in  temporals  as  we  had  in  spirituals 
(so  that)  no  one,  appointed  to  a  See  (postulatus)  without 
your  consent,  could  obtain  possession  of  his  temporalities. 
Further,  you  added  that  you  would  hold  the  translation  of 
this  bishop  (from  Norwich  to  Winchester)  as  invalid,  as  if 
obtained  from  us  by  false  information.    Certainly,  beloved 
son,  such  expressions   as   these   do  not  redound  to  the 
honour  of  God,  the  Church,  or  your  Highness ;  they  are  not 
suggestive  of  justice  nor  manifest  equity,  especially  when 
the  received  belief  of  all  the  faithful  is  that  the  Apostolic 
See  by  God's  providence  possesses   full   power  and  au- 
thority in  all  Churches,  and  is  not  so  bound  to  the  will  of 
princes  as  to  be  obliged  to  ask  their  assent  to  their  elec- 
tions and  postulations."    The  new  pontiff  concludes  by  ex- 
horting the  king  to  return  to  a  better  mind,  and  beseeches 
him  to  endeavour  to  protect  the  interests  of  the  Church, 
and  not  to  hinder  its  work  by  interfering  with  the  bishops 
in  the  full  enjoyment  of  the  spirituals  and  temporals  be- 
longing to  their  Sees.1    At  the  same  time  the  pope  wrote 
to  the  queen,  to  the  archbishop-elect  of  Canterbury,  and  to 
some  of  the  bishops,  exhorting  them  to  do  their  best  to 
bring  about  a  reconciliation  between  the  king  and  Bishop 
William  de  Raleigh.     He  further  ordered  the  bishops  of 
1  Matthew  Paris,  iv.  347-348. 


THE  FIRST  YEARS  OF  INNOCENT  IV    213 

Worcester  and  Hereford  to  send  him  at  once  the  names  of 
all  who  had  aided  the  king  by  their  advice  or  otherwise  in 
this  business.  This  information  the  bishops  at  once  for- 
warded to  Rome ;  and  the  knowledge  of  this,  coupled  with 
the  threat  of  further  action  with  which  the  papal  letter  to 
Henry  had  ended,  brought  the  king  to  a  more  reasonable 
frame  of  mind. 

In  the  spring  of  1244,  the  bishop  of  Winchester,  still 
in  exile  in  France,  sent  messengers  to  England.  These 
brought  back  certain  articles  as  to  matters  in  which  the 
king  desired  satisfaction  before  he  would  consent  to  receive 
the  bishop  to  his  peace.  Most  of  the  points  upon  which 
Henry  asked  for  assurance  had  relation  to  the  interdict  of 
Winchester,  and  to  the  protection  he  could  secure  for  those 
who  had  assisted  him  in  his  resistance  to  the  papal  au- 
thority. These  Bishop  de  Raleigh  promised  to  consider 
favourably  when  he  was  allowed  to  take  possession  of  his 
See,  but  refused  in  any  way  to  pledge  himself  to  any  course 
beforehand.  One  matter  raised  by  the  king,  namely,  that 
the  bishop,  contrary  to  the  custom  of  the  country,  and 
against  the  rights  of  the  Crown,  had  not  sworn  fealty  to 
him  on  his  translation,  de  Raleigh  answered  by  asserting 
that  this  was  entirely  the  king's  fault,  as  he  had  done  his 
best  to  obtain  leave  to  take  the  required  oath.  The  last 
item  of  the  king's  objection  related  to  the  arrears,  etc.,  of 
the  episcopal  revenues,  which  Henry  had  kept  all  this  time 
in  his  own  hands.  He  hoped  that  the  bishop  would  not  be 
too  particular  in  his  enquiries  as  to  the  past,  or  too  exact- 
ing in  requiring  their  repayment ;  to  this,  for  the  sake  of 
peace,  the  bishop  agreed.1 

Nothing  now  stood  in  the  way  of  the  bishop  of  Win- 
chester's return  to  his  diocese.    He  left  France,  and  having 

1  Matthew  Paris,  iv.  350-351. 


214  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

removed  the  interdict  from  the  city,  he  entered  it  and  his 
cathedral  church  on  2pth  August,  1244,  thus  practically 
ending  the  long  dispute  between  him  and  the  Crown. 

Early  in  the  year  1244  Innocent  IV,  who  found  himself 
on  his  election  in  great  pecuniary  difficulties,  sent  one  of 
his  clerks,  named  Martin,  over  into  England  to  obtain 
money.  Though  not  even  a  nuncio  he  was  given  great 
powers  of  suspension  and  excommunication,  which  he  is 
said  to  have  used  liberally  against  those  who  did  not  come 
into  his  views.  He  forbade  various  prelates  who  were  un- 
willing at  once  to  satisfy  all  his  demands,  to  collate  to  any 
benefice  in  their  gift  until  they  should  prove  themselves 
more  reasonable,  and  besides  the  rich  presents  he  expected 
to  receive  for  himself  and  his  retinue,  he  fixed  thirty  marks 
as  the  minimum  he  would  accept  as  a  contribution  to  the 
papal  exchequer.  He  kept  a  sharp  look-out  for  vacant 
benefices  suitable  for  his  followers,  and  on  the  precentor  of 
Salisbury  being  elected  to  the  See  of  Bath,  he  suggested 
the  appointment  to  the  prebend  of  the  pope's  nephew, 
then  a  boy,  "  to  the  disgust  and  astonishment  of  many." 1 

This  and  numerous  instances  of  such  "  provisions  "  at 
this  time  caused  widespread  discontent,  and  a  document 
setting  forth  the  arguments  usually  put  forward  against 
this  attitude  of  the  Roman  Curia  towards  England  was 
drawn  up  for  the  king's  consideration.  It  pointed  out  that 
from  the  earliest  foundation  of  the  Church  in  England  by 
King  Ethelbert,  the  endowments  of  cathedrals  and  mon- 
asteries were  intended  for  the  support  of  religion  and  for 
the  relief  of  the  poor.  These  ends  were  gravely  compro- 
mised by  the  various  exactions  now  made  upon  ecclesi- 
astics, and  what  was  worse  for  the  country  at  the  time  was, 
that  the  money  so  taken  from  England  went  to  aid  the 

1  Matthew  Paris,  iv.  385. 


THE  FIRST  YEARS  OF  INNOCENT  IV    215 

pope  against  the  emperor,  "who  by  the  will,  order,  and 
advice  "  of  the  Church,  had  married  the  king's  own  sister.1 

The  action  of  the  papal  clerk,  Martin,  met  with  serious 
opposition.  In  some  cases  his  messengers  were  ill-treated 
when  they  were  sent  to  induct  his  nominees  into  livings, 
or  take  possession  of  them  in  their  behalf.  In  one  such 
case,  that  of  the  vicarage  of  Pinchbeck,  in  the  Lincoln 
diocese,  Martin  consulted  Grosseteste  as  to  how  he  should 
deal  with  the  offenders.  The  bishop  gave  a  cautious  reply, 
in  which  he  said  that  knowing  the  holiness  of  the  pope,  he 
was  bound  to  assume  that  he  would  pay  full  regard  to  the 
care  of  souls,  and  would  not  be  unreasonable.  If,  then,  the 
nuncio's  commands  were  reasonable  and  did  not  need  ex- 
cuse, and  they  were  not  obeyed,  it  would  be  best  to  try  and 
reason  the  disobedient  into  compliance,  and  only  after  that 
to  proceed  to  extreme  measures.  This  being  the  general 
advice,  in  the  particular  instance  where  the  messengers  of 
the  papal  clerk  had  been  seized  and  ill-treated,  the  bishop 
advises  that  they  should  be  excommunicated,  and  that 
as  the  benefice  belonged  to  Spalding  priory,  the  papal 
clerk  should  summon  the  prior  and  question  him.  He 
would,  however,  beg  the  nuncio  to  understand  that  the 
vicar  had  many  souls  to  deal  with,  and  that  it  was  abso- 
lutely requisite  that  there  should  be  a  resident  priest.2 

King  Henry  at  this  same  time  addressed  Pope  Inno- 
cent IV  on  the  subject  of  papal  "  provisions,"  as  he  had 
previously  done  Gregory  IX.  At  all  times  of  his  reign,  he 
said,  he  and  his  kingdom  had  ever  been  prompt  in  obeying 
papal  commands  and  wishes.  He  had  experienced  the 
pope's  paternal  care  on  many  occasions,  but  in  the  case  of 
"  certain  provisions,  made  in  favour  of  clerks  foreign  as 
well  as  English,  we  and  our  kingdom  consider  that  we  are 

1  Matthew  Paris,  iv.  312-313.  2  Grosseteste,  EHst.,  315. 


216          HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

much  burdened  and  oppressed."  He  consequently  begs 
that  the  pope  will  desist  from  the  practice,  and  will  protect 
the  rights  of  the  English  Church,  remembering  that  the 
benefices  in  question  belong  to  England,  not  to  foreign 
countries.1 

The  archbishop-elect  of  Canterbury,  Boniface  of  Savoy, 
reached  England  early  in  I244.2  Very  shortly  afterwards 
the  king  summoned  the  barons  and  prelates  to  meet  him 
in  the  refectory  at  Westminster,  where  personally  he  asked 
from  them  a  subsidy.  The  assembly  required  time  for 
consideration,  and  a  small  number  of  nobles  and  bishops 
were  chosen  to  answer  the  king,  to  the  effect  that  only  if 
he  would  keep  more  strictly  to  the  terms  of  his  Charter 
would  they  grant  what  he  required.  Henry  was  unwilling 
to  give  way,  and  after  an  adjournment  for  some  weeks,  he 
kept  them  in  constant  session,  hoping  by  this  to  weary 
them  into  concession.  Meanwhile  his  agents  had  procured 
letters  from  Pope  Innocent  IV,  dated  from  Genoa  on  29th 
July,  1244,  urging  the  clergy  to  help  the  king  as  he  de- 
sired. "  Above  all  other  kings  of  the  earth,"  he  says,  "  we 
embrace  our  beloved  son  the  illustrious  king  of  England 
with  arms  of  special  affection.  He,  as  a  Catholic  and  de- 
voted prince,  has  ever  studied  to  venerate  the  Roman 
Church,  his  mother,  with  filial  obedience,"  etc.  Conse- 
quently, when  he  asked  us  to  urge  you  to  be  liberal  to  him 
in  his  necessities,  "we  beseech,  advise,  and  earnestly  ex- 
hort all  of  you,  ordering  you  also  by  these  Apostolic  let- 
ters," willingly  to  grant  him  a  "  proper  subsidy  from  your 
revenues." 3 

After  six  days  the  meeting  came  to  an  end ;  the  king, 
although,  as  the  chronicler  expresses  it,  urging  his  neces- 

1  Matthew  Paris,  iv.  315.  2  Gervase  of  Canterbury,  ii.  2OI. 

3  Matthew  Paris,  iv.  364. 


THE  FIRST  YEARS  OF  INNOCENT  IV    217 

shies  upon  the  assembly,  "  till  night-fall,"  did  not  succeed 
in  obtaining  what  he  wanted.  The  prelates  were  required 
to  meet  on  the  day  after  the  dissolution  of  the  General 
Council,  and  the  king's  officials  pressed  them  to  obey  the 
pope's  request,  even  if  they  refused  to  consider  that  of  the 
king.  They  asked  to  see  a  copy  of  the  papal  letter  that 
they  might  consider  its  tenor,  whereupon  the  king  himself 
entered  the  place  of  meeting  and  again  and  again  besought 
them  to  help  him.  But  they  refusing  to  give  an  immediate 
answer,  and  demanding  time  for  consideration,  Henry  was 
obliged  to  leave  them  in  some  confusion.  On  the  propo- 
sition of  Bishop  Grosseteste  they  finally  came  to  the 
conclusion  to  stand  together  with  the  laity  in  their  reply 
to  the  king. 

Before  the  council  at  London  broke  up,  the  papal 
collector  Martin  appeared  on  the  scene  to  claim  help  from 
the  clergy  for  the  pope.  He  was  so  constantly  producing 
new  papal  documents  that  many  considered,  says  Matthew 
Paris,  that  he  had  brought  blank  forms  already  sealed  and 
signed  by  Innocent  IV  to  be  filled  in  as  circumstances 
might  require.1  This  time  he  wished  to  secure  a  pledge 
from  the  clergy  that  they  would  pay  ten  thousand  marks, 
as  quickly  as  possible,  as  an  aid  to  the  papal  exchequer. 
He  produced  two  documents  from  the  pope,  one  addressed 
to  the  episcopate,  the  other  to  the  abbots  of  England,  and 
dated  on  7th  January,  1244.  The  pope,  "knowing  the 
sincerity  of. their  affections  as  often  as  necessity  afflicts 
their  mother  the  Apostolic  See,"  turns,  he  says,  to  them 
naturally,  "  as  to  beloved  and  devoted  sons."  The  collec- 
tions made  by  Gregory  IX  in  England  and  other  Christian 
countries,  to  help  to  pay  the  expenses  he  had  incurred  in 
his  defence  of  the  liberty  and  the  patrimony  of  the  Church, 

1  Matthew  Paris,  iv.  368. 


218  HENRY.  Ill  AND  THE  CHURCH 

have  not  been  sufficient  to  free  the  Roman  Church  from 
debt.  Innocent  IV  consequently  urges  all  to  come  to  his 
assistance,  by  contributing  whatsoever  "our  beloved  son 
Martin  shall  consider  proper  to  ask  of  you  on  our  behalf, 
and  by  paying  it  to  him  or  his  agents  by  the  date  he  shall 
fix."  He  concludes  by  hoping  they  will  show  their  devotion 
to  him  by  making  no  difficulty,  and  not  "  compel  him  to 
proceed  in  some  other  way  to  obtain  "  what  is  necessary.1 

When  this  letter  had  been  considered  by  the  bishops 
and  abbots,  they  refused  to  give  any  reply  until  they  had 
been  able  to  consult  together.  "  We  are  in  a  difficult 
situation,"  they  said ;  "  the  lord  king,  our  patron  and  the 
founder  and  restorer  of  many  churches,  is  without  money. 
He  asks  our  help  to  protect  and  defend  the  kingdom,  that 
is,  the  State,  and  the  lord  pope  urgently  demands  that  we 
should  do  this  for  the  king.  In  this  there  is  a  request, 
doubly  valid  and  doubly  efficacious.  But  now  we  have 
here  a  second  and  unexpected  papal  demand.  The  first, 
consequently,  which  is  double,  is  of  greater  weight  and 
the  more  worthy  of  our  favour,  for  we  may  look  for  some 
return  for  our  liberality  to  the  king,  but  not  from  the  pope. 
On  the  one  side  we  are  attacked,  on  the  other  oppressed  ; 
here  we  are  grasped  by  force,  there  we  are  constrained 
we  are  beaten  as  between  a  hammer  and  an  anvil,  and 
ground  as  between  two  mill  stones."2 

Whilst  this  new  and  difficult  situation  was  still  in 
debate,  a  messenger  arrived  from  the  emperor  Frederick 
with  letters  to  be  read  at  the  council.  These  were  listened 
to,  in  spite  of  the  protests  of  Martin  the  papal  clerk.  In 
them  the  emperor  defended  himself  for  his  attitude  to 
Pope  Innocent  IV,  declared  that  he  had  no  wish  or  in- 
tention not  to  be  at  peace  with  the  Church,  and  asserted 

1  Matthew  Paris,  iv.  369-380.  a  Ibid.,  371. 


THE  FIRST  YEARS  OF  INNOCENT  IV    219 

that  the  pope  desired  to  get  possession  of  cities  and  villages 
which  clearly  did  not  belong  to  the  Church.  He  ended  by 
begging  that  the  English  would  not  act  in  a  way  hostile  to 
him,  by  contributing  to  the  papal  treasury,  and  he  even 
urged  the  English  king  not  to  contribute  the  annual 
tribute  which  Innocent  III  had  exacted  from  the  English 
Crown, 

When  the  adjourned  meeting  came  together  again  and 
the  application  of  the  king  was  renewed,  first  Henry  in 
person  and  then  his  officials  solemnly  promised  to  guard 
all  the  liberties  he  had  promised  in  his  coronation  oath. 
As  a  guarantee  he  asked  that  each  bishop  in  his  diocese 
should  publish  a  sentence  of  excommunication  against 
him  or  any  other  who  might  in  any  way  infringe  these 
liberties.  Upon  this,  all,  both  ecclesiastics  as  well  as  lay 
people,  promised  an  aid  of  twenty  shillings  for  the  marriage 
of  his  eldest  daughter. 

The  papal  clerk,  Martin,  was  not  altogether  pleased 
when  he  heard  that  the  king's  requests  had  been  complied 
with,  foreseeing  that  this  might  make  the  papal  business 
somewhat  more  difficult.  Having  called  together  the  pre- 
lates, he  tried  by  fair  words  to  induce  them  to  do  as  he 
had  asked.  "  Brethren  and  most  beloved  sons  of  the  Roman 
Church,"  he  said,  "  on  you  rests  every  hope  of  the  papacy. 
What  reply  are  you  going  to  give  to  your  spiritual  father 
on  the  affairs  of  your  mother,  the  Roman  Church,  so 
oppressed,  as  you  have  been  informed  by  the  papal  letter? 
You  have  obediently  submitted  to  the  wishes  of  your 
temporal  master,  the  lord  king ;  let  it  not  be  said  that  you 
have  not  also  stretched  forth  a  saving  hand  to  your 
spiritual  father,  the  lord  pope,  who  trusts  you,  and  who  is 
fighting  the  cause  of  the  universal  Church  against  rebels." 
The  dean  of  St.  Paul's  replied,  in  behalf  of  the  assembled 


22O 

clergy,  that,  as  the  contribution  demanded  by  the  pope 
and  the  proposed  tax  on  all  benefices  affected  the  king 
and  other  founders,  they  could  not  give  him  any  promise 
without  their  permission.  Upon  this,  John  Mansel,  on 
behalf  of  the  sovereign,  strictly  prohibited  the  clergy  from 
making  any  charge  upon  the  temporalities  they  held  of 
him  for  the  Holy  See.  As  nothing  was  to  be  got  from  the 
assembly,  Martin, the  papal  clerk,  summoned  another;  but 
at  this  again  the  prelates  refused  to  comply  with  his  de- 
mands. England  was  poor,  they  said,  and  many  churches 
and  monasteries  were  already  overburdened  with  debt. 
Further,  when  the  last  contribution  was  made  at  the 
demand  of  the  legate  to  free  the  Roman  Church  from  debt, 
the  money  had  not  been  used  for  that  purpose.  Then  to 
give  a  second  time  would  be  to  create  a  precedent,  which 
they  had  no  wish  to  do.  And  generally  they  replied,  that 
as  a  General  Council  was  soon  to  be  held,  it  would  be  for 
the  universal  body  of  the  faithful  to  see  that  "  their  mother, 
the  Roman  Church,"  was  freed  from  the  burden  of  debts. 
This  was  their  final  answer  to  the  demands,  and,  in  spite  of 
the  threats  of  the  disappointed  collector,  they  returned  to 
their  homes.1  Martin,  however,  contrived  to  make  many 
and  heavy  demands  upon  individual  prelates  and  monas- 
teries, chiefly  for  his  own  expenses. 

At  this  time  Alexander  II  of  Scotland  renewed  the 
terms  of  peace  he  had  previously  made  with  King  Henry 
in  the  presence  of  the  legate  Otho.  The  fresh  treaty  was 
necessitated  by  the  contemplated  marriage  of  the  Scotch 
king's  son  with  Henry's  eldest  daughter.2  The  charter 
was  forwarded  to  Pope  Innocent  IV  for  his  confirmation, 
and,  as  in  the  case  of  the  previous  treaty,  Alexander  II 
declares  that  he  and  his  heirs  are  subject  to  the  papal 

1  Matthew  Paris,  iv.  372-376.  a  Rymer,  i.  257. 


THE  FIRST  YEARS  OF  INNOCENT  IV    221 

jurisdiction,  so  that  the  pope  may  oblige  them  to  keep  its 
terms  "  by  an  ecclesiastical  censure."  In  this  case  he  "  begs 
your  Paternity  to  order  some  suffragan  of  the  province  of 
Canterbury  to  compel "  him  to  observe  the  promises  now 
made.1 

In  the  spring  of  this  year,  1244,  the  papal  confirmation 
was  asked  for,  and  accorded  to  several  matters  of  some  im- 
portance. In  the  January,  King  Henry  had  entered  into  a 
treaty  with  the  count  of  Provence,  by  which  he  agreed  to 
lend  him  four  thousand  marks  and  to  take  over  five  of  his 
castles  as  security  for  the  loan.2  Henry  forthwith  applied 
to  Pope  Innocent  to  confirm  this  treaty  "by  Apostolic 
authority,"  which  he  did  on  25th  April.3  On  the  same 
occasion  the  pope  issued  his  "  Apostolic  letters "  to  con- 
firm, at  the  request  of  the  English  king,  the  dower  he  had 
settled  upon  his  queen,4  and  he  directed  the  archbishop  of 
Canterbury  and  the  bishop  of  London  not  to  allow  any  one 
to  call  in  question  what  he  had  thus  confirmed.  A  few 
days  later,  on  3Oth  April,  the  pope, "  at  the  humble  request 
of"  the  English  king,  confirmed  the  will  which  he  had 
made;  and,  strengthening  it  by  his  Apostolic  authority,  for- 
bade any  one  to  call  in  question  its  terms.5 

At  the  close  of  the  summer  the  pope  fled  from  Italy  to 
Lyons,  having  successfully  evaded  the  Imperial  guards, 
which  had  been  set  at  many  points  of  the  journey  to 
prevent  him.  Whilst  on  his  way  from  Rome  the  pope  was 
met  at  Genoa  by  envoys  from  David,  prince  of  Wales,  who 
offered  to  surrender  his  country  to  the  pope ;  he  and  his 
heirs  henceforth  to  hold  it  from  him,  on  an  annual  pay- 
ment to  the  Holy  See.  In  return,  he  obtained  letters  to 
bar  the  English  king's  further  action  in  the  quarrel  be- 

1  Matthew  Paris,  iv.  384.  *  Rymer,  i.  254. 

3  Reg.  d*  Innocent  IV,  i.  No.  368.      *  Ibid.,  No.  639.     5  Ibid.,  No.  644. 


222  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

tween  Wales  and  England.  The  letters  of  protection  were 
directed  to  the  abbots  of  Aberconwayj  and  Cumhyre,  and 
they  were  ordered  to  consider  whether  the  original  oaths, 
etc.,  made  by  the  prince  of  Wales  to  the  English  king, 
were  not  extorted  by  force,  and  if  so,  were  not  in  fact  void. 
They  were  also  to  inquire  into  the  truth  of  the  matter, 
and,  if  they  found  this  was  so,  they  were  to  absolve  the 
prince.  On  receipt  of  this  communication,  the  two  abbot- 
commissioners  summoned  the  king  to  appear  before  him. 
This  naturally  Henry  refused  to  do,  and  the  pope  did  not 
further  insist l  on  this  matter. 

About  this  same  time  the  canons  of  Chichester  elected 
Robert  Passelew,  the  treasurer,  to  the  vacant  See,  regard- 
ing him  as  a  prudent  and  fitting  person,  and  thereby 
hoping  to  secure  the  good-will  of  the  king  and  to  obtain 
a  useful  and  good  bishop.  On  presenting  him  for  con- 
firmation, however,  many  objections  were  raised  against 
him.  The  elect  of  Canterbury  and  his  suffragans  examined 
him,  by  Grosseteste,  the  bishop  of  Lincoln,  who  asked, 
what  the  chronicler  characterises  as,  "  altogether  too  diffi- 
cult questions  in  theology."  In  the  result  they  rejected 
him,  and  declaring  the  election  void,  at  once,  and  without 
awaiting  even  the  royal  assent,  appointed  one  Richard  de 
Wiz  in  his  place.  The  whole  matter  was  complicated  by 
the  papal  clerk,  Martin,  who  forthwith  took  possession  of 
the  benefices,  previously  held  by  de  Wiz ;  upon  which  the 
king  declared  that  any  bishop  elected  for  the  future,  with- 
out his  consent  being  asked,  should  not  receive  the  barony 
attached  to  the  See.2 

In  the  November  of  this  year,  1244,  Bishop  Grosseteste 
left  England  to  visit  the  pope  at  Lyons.  His  principal 
object  was  to  endeavour  to  bring  to  a  conclusion  the  long 

1  Matthew  Paris,  iv.  399.  a  lbid.t  iv.  402. 


THE  FIRST  YEARS  OF   INNOCENT  IV    223 

dispute  which  he  had  had  with  the  dean  and  canons  of 
his  Chapter.  From  Lyons  he  wrote  to  express  his  great 
gratification  at  the  way  he  had  been  received  by  the  pope 
and  the  cardinals.1  He  was  accompanied  on  his  journey 
by  his  great  friend  and  constant  adviser  the  Franciscan, 
Adam  Marsh,  who  gives  the  same  account  of  the  bishop's 
reception  on  7th  January,  1245.  The  pope  promised 
Grosseteste  that  he  would  attend  to  his  business  immedi- 
ately, and  the  sanguine  Friar  Adam  Marsh  hoped  that 
the  decision  about  the  Chapter  rights  would  be  obtained 
"very  shortly."  However,  as  the  pope  desired  Bishop 
Grosseteste  to  be  present  at  the  Council  in  June,  he  and 
his  companion  had  been  ordered  to  remain  at  Lyons  for 
that  meeting ;  consequently  Friar  Adam  asks  that  some 
books  may  be  sent  on  to  him  ;  the  Morals  of  St.  Gregory, 
which  had  been  left  at  Reading,  and  Rabanus  de  Natura 
Rerum,  which  Friar  Thomas  of  York  had  in  his  keeping.2 
Very  shortly  after  Grosseteste's  departure  from  England  he 
was  followed  to  Lyons  by  the  archbishop-elect  of  Canter- 
bury and  the  bishops  of  Worcester  and  Hereford,  and  these 
four  bishops  remained  for  the  celebration  of  the  Council  of 
Lyons,  which  Innocent  IV  summoned  to  meet  on  the  feast 
of  St.  John  the  Baptist,  24th  June  of  this  year,  I245.3 

It  had  been  suggested  at  this  time  to  King  Henry  by 
some  of  the  cardinals  that  he  should  ask  the  pope  to  pay  a 
visit  to  England.  "  It  would  be  a  great  honour  and  immortal 
glory,"  they  wrote,  "  if  the  lord  pope,  who  is  the  lather  of 
fathers,  should  personally  visit  your  country,  which  no 
pope  has  ever  done.  We  remember,  indeed,  that  he  himself 
said,  and  we  were  very  glad  to  hear  it,  that  he  would 
rejoice  to  see  the  delights  of  Westminster  and  the  riches 

1  Grosseteste,  Epist.,  333.  2  Man.  Franciscana,  i.  376. 

3  Matthew  Paris,  iv.  410. 


224          HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

of  London."  The  king  at  first  appeared  to  welcome  the 
suggestion,  but  there  were  others  who  looked  upon  the 
proposal  with  suspicion,  especially  when  they  reflected 
that  in  his  train  would  come  the  Florentine  money  lenders 
and  usurers,  and  the  crowd  of  Italians  and  Romans,  who 
would  certainly  expect  to  grow  rich  upon  the  spoils  of 
the  English  Church.  And  so  the  proposal  was  allowed  to 
drop.1 

Meanwhile  a  few  only  of  the  English  prelates  journeyed 
to  Lyons  to  the  Council.  The  king  sent  his  clerk,  Laurence 
of  St.  Martin,  to  be  his  proctor,  not  only  in  the  meeting 
of  the  Council,  but  to  represent  several  other  matters  on 
which  he  wished  for  the  direction  and  guidance  of  the 
papal  Curia.  One  of  these  related  to  the  election  of  Robert 
Passelew  to  the  See  of  Chichester,  which  Boniface,  the 
elect  of  Canterbury,  had  quashed  in  spite  of  the  king's 
protests.  Laurence  of  St.  Martin  reached  Lyons  a  month 
before  the  date  of  the  Council;  for,  on  2Oth  May,  Innocent 
IV  wrote  to  the  king  to  say  that  he  accepted  the  excuses 
made  for  the  non-appearance  of  certain  bishops  and 
abbots ;  but  requiring  the  presence  of  the  archbishop  of 
York.  At  the  suggestion  of  Laurence  of  St.  Martin,  the 
pope  also  confirmed  to  the  king  all  rights  in  the  presenta- 
tion to  churches,  etc.,  which  he  claimed  as  belonging  to  his 
royal  dignity,  and  the  following  day  he  reversed  his  policy 
in  regard  to  David  of  Wales,  at  the  suggestion  of  the 
king's  envoy.  He  had  found  out  from  him,  he  says,  that 
"  from  time  immemorial "  the  prince  of  that  country  had 
been  a  vassal  of  the  English  king,  and  that  he  had  been 
induced  to  act  as  he  had  done  in  the  matter  on  the  repre- 
sentation of  Prince  David  that  he  had  only  been  compelled 
by  fear  to  swear  allegiance  to  King  Henry.  He  conse- 

1  Matthew  Paris,  iv.  410. 


THE  FIRST  YEARS  OF  INNOCENT  IV    225 

quently  recalls  his  previous  letters  taking  the  prince  under 
his  protection.1 

On  the  eve  of  the  opening  of  the  Council  a  fire  occurred 
in  the  papal  apartments  at  Lyons,  in  which  many  docu- 
ments perished.  Amongst  others  of  importance,  it  is  said 
that  the  Great  Charter  of  King  John,  by  which  he  under- 
took to  pay  the  annual  tribute  to  the  pope  for  the  kingdom 
of  England,  was  wholly  destroyed.  In  preparation  for  the 
work  of  the  Council,  Henry  had  caused  agents  in  the 
various  counties  of  England  to  make  inquiries  as  to  the 
entire  amount  of  yearly  revenue  which  Romans  and 
Italians  had  at  that  time  in  their  hands.  To  the  king's 
astonishment  the  total  came  to  some  sixty  thousand  marks 
— more  than  the  annual  revenue  of  the  Crown  at  that 
time.2  Henry  determined  to  make  representations  to  the 
Curia  about  these  manifest  exactions.  A  letter  was  con- 
sequently composed,  protesting,  on  behalf  of  the  nation, 
against  the  tribute  of  King  John,  and  against  the  extra- 
ordinary powers  that  had  been  given  to  papal  collectors 
and  their  extravagant  demands  upon  the  English.  This 
letter  was  dispatched  to  Lyons  by  certain  nobles  and 
others  to  be  discussed  in  the  Council. 

Rumours  of  difficulties  and  discontent  had  already 
reached  the  ears  of  the  pope.  On  loth  April,  1245,  con- 
sequently, he  sent  a  letter,  partly  of  expostulation,  partly 
of  explanation  to  the  king.  "  The  Apostolic  See,  your 
mother,  loving  your  person  above  other  Catholic  kings 
and  Christian  princes,"  only  desires  to  preserve  inviolate 
all  those  rights  and  privileges  upon  which  the  greatness 
and  safety  of  a  kingdom  depends.  For  this  reason  it 
is  only  proper  "  that  you  as  a  son,  blessed  in  the  Lord, 
should  have  a  filial  reverence  for  the  Roman  Church,  and 

1  Rymer,  i.  255.  2  Matthew  Paris,  iv.  419. 

Q 


226  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

show  yourself  favourable  and  kind  to  it,  in  carrying  out 
its  desires."  But  it  has  been  lately  told  us  that  "your 
Majesty  at  the  suggestion  of  some,  and  in  particular  the 
nobles  of  your  kingdom,  has  prohibited  Martin,  our 
nuncio,  from  proceeding  to  make  certain  provisions  in 
your  kingdom  by  our  authority,  until  we  should  write  to 
you  as  to  our  pleasure."  Further,  you  have  directed  him 
to  remove  certain  sentences  of  excommunication  and  sus- 
pension, which  by  our  authority  he  had  issued  in  regard 
to  these  provisions  against  religious  and  others.  Though 
willing  to  do  what  the  king  desired,  as  far  as  possible,  the 
pope  declares  that  he  feels  bound  to  do  something  for 
those  who  have  helped  him  in  his  difficulties,  and  he  begs 
that  the  king  will  not  stand  in  the  way  of  his  recompensing 
their  faithful  services  with  benefices.  He  asks  him,  how- 
ever, to  understand  that  he  does  not  intend  to  present 
to  any  benefices  to  which  lay  people  have  the  right  of 
presentation.1 

Meanwhile,  within  a  few  days  after  the  assembly  of 
the  fathers  at  Lyons,  the  nobles  in  England  determined 
to  get  rid  of  the  papal  clerk  from  England,  as  his  presence 
was  causing  great  discontent.  On  3<Dth  June,  1245,  they 
sent  to  warn  him  to  leave  the  country  within  three  days. 
Martin  appealed  to  the  king,  who  professed  not  to  be  able 
to  restrain  the  angry  nobles,  and  advised  him  to  depart  as 
they  had  ordered  him.  The  papal  agent  had  no  choice ; 
and  in  his  fright  fled  under  the  care  of  one  of  the  king's 
officers  to  Dover,  where  he  embarked  on  I5th  July,  1245, 
and  coming  to  the  pope  at  Lyons,  stirred  the  papal  anger 
at  the  recital  of  the  way  he  had  been  compelled  to  retire 
from  England. 

On  I5th  January,  shortly  after  his  arrival  at  Lyons, 

1  Rymer,  i.  256. 


THE  FIRST  YEARS  OF  INNOCENT  IV    227 

Innocent  IV  had  consecrated  Boniface  the  archbishop, 
who  had  now  for  more  than  two  years  been  merely  elect 
of  Canterbury.1  About  the  same  time  the  bishops  of 
Chichester  and  Lichfield  also  received  the  episcopal  con- 
secration, in  spite  of  the  protestations  of  the  proctor  of  the 
English  king.  He  was  told  that  for  such  promotion  "  the 
royal  assent  was  not  required,"  that  it  was  merely  a 
privilege  the  king  had  been  allowed,  and  one  which  could 
be  ignored,  unless  it  was  used  properly.  When  this 
reached  the  ears  of  Henry,  he  directed  the  property  ol 
the  two  dioceses  to  be  confiscated.  Innocent  addressed 
a  letter  to  the  king  explaining  his  attitude  in  regard  to 
the  appointment  to  Chichester.  Henry  had  complained 
that  Passelew  had  been  rejected  by  the  archbishop,  and 
that  another  bishop  had  been  appointed  by  the  archi- 
episcopal  authority  without  either  election  or  royal  assent. 
The  pope  declares  that,  upon  examination,  he  approves 
of  the  action  of  the  archbishop-elect  in  quashing  the 
choice  of  Passelew :  but  that  whilst  approving  of  the 
choice  made  by  the  elect  of  Canterbury  and  confirming 
it,  declares  that  he  does  not  do  so  because  the  archbishop 
has  any  powers  to  "  provide "  for  a  See  in  this  way,  but 
"by  the  plenitude  of  his  Apostolic  powers."  For  this 
reason  the  fact  that  he  has  appointed  the  same  individual 
that  Archbishop  Boniface  had  chosen  is  not  to  be  con- 
sidered any  prejudice  to  Henry's  royal  rights.2 

1  Gervase  of  Cant.,  ii.  202.  *  Rymer,  L  261. 


CHAPTER  XIII 
THE  ENGLISH  AT  THE  COUNCIL  OF  LYONS 

ON  2nd  December,  1244,  Innocent  IV  arrived  at  Lyons. 
He  had  apparently  already  determined  to  convoke  a 
Council  to  discuss  the  action  of  the  emperor  Frederick  in 
his  regard,  and  to  give  its  general  sanction  to  the  extreme 
ecclesiastical  measures  it  was  proposed  to  take  against  him. 
On  22nd  December,  the  feast  of  St.  John,  therefore,  the 
pope  having  said  mass  in  the  cathedral,  ascended  the 
pulpit  and  publicly  announced  the  convocation  of  the 
Council  for  the  24th  of  June  following.  A  week  later,  some 
of  the  letters  summoning  the  prelates  were  already  on  their 
way.  Some  at  least  of  the  pontifical  letters,  besides  directing 
that  the  assembly  of  a  general  Council  should  be  made 
known  to  the  faithful,  order  that  the  papal  excommunica- 
tion of  the  emperor  should  be  proclaimed.  That  this  latter 
command  was  not  always  popular,  or  obeyed  with  a  good 
grace,  appears  from  a  story  of  a  French  priest,  which 
Matthew  Paris  relates.  This  cleric,  feeling  bound  to  carry 
out  the  mandate,  did  so  in  the  following  manner:  "Listen 
all  of  you.  I  have  been  ordered  to  publish  a  solemn  sent- 
ence of  excommunication  against  the  emperor  Frederick, 
with  bell  and  candle.  I  do  not  know  why,  but  there  has 
been  a  grave  quarrel  and  lasting  hatred  between  them.  I 
know,  too,  that  one  has  injured  the  other;  which,  I  do  not 
know.  But,  as  far  as  my  powers  go,  I  excommunicate,  and 
declare  excommunicated,  one  of  them;  that  is,  he  that  has 

228 


ENGLISH  AT  THE  COUNCIL  OF  LYONS  229 

done  the  injury,  whichever  it  is,  and  I  absolve  the  other 
who  has  suffered  the  wrong,  for  the  matter  is  most  hurtful 
to  the  whole  of  Christendom." l 

Authorities  differ  as  to  the  number  of  bishops  attend- 
ing the  Council.  The  partisans  of  Frederick  II  desired  to 
maintain  that  it  was  by  no  means  an  assembly  represent- 
ative of  the  whole  even  of  western  Christendom.  They 
declared  that  it  was  for  the  most  part  a  reunion  of  French 
and  transalpine  bishops,  and  the  numbers  vary  from  362 
archbishops,  bishops  and  other  prelates,  as  stated  in  the 
chronicle  of  Mantua,2  to  144,  the  number  given  by  Matthew 
Paris  as  having  been  present  at  the  first  session  on  26th 
June,  1245. 

The  number  of  English  dignitaries  was  certainly  small. 
They  had  been  summoned  en  masse,  and  the  records  show 
that  the  archbishop  of  Canterbury,  with  the  bishops  of 
Lincoln  and  Worcester,  represented  the  English  hierarchy, 
and  the  archbishops  of  Armagh  and  St.  Andrews,  those  of 
Ireland  and  Scotland.  The  dean  of  Lincoln  was  amongst 
the  lesser  dignitaries,  and  during  the  sitting  of  the  Council 
he  was  consecrated  bishop  of  Coventry  and  Lichfield  by 
the  pope.  For  one  reason  or  another,  many  English  bishops 
and  abbots  excused  themselves.  The  king  said  that  he 
could  not  spare  the  bishop  of  Carlisle  nor  the  abbot  of 
Westminster,  as  he  intended  to  leave  to  them  the  custody 
of  the  kingdom  during  his  absence  abroad.  The  bishop  of 
Ely  and  the  abbot  of  St.  Alban's  pleaded  sickness;  the 
bishop  of  Llandaff,  poverty;  the  abbot  of  Edmundsbury 
was  laid  up  with  the  gout ;  and  the  abbot  of  Waltham  was 
too  old  and  infirm  to  travel.  Pope  Innocent  seems  to  have 
accepted  the  excuses  readily  enough,  except  in  the  case  of 

1  Matthew  Paris,  iv.  407. 

a  Elie  Berger,  Saint  Louis  et  Innocent  IV,  121. 


230  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

the  archbishop  of  York,  who  was  told  to  make  an  effort  to 
be  present,  because  the  dignity  of  his  archiepiscopal  office 
made  it  proper  that  he  should  appear. 

The  king  of  France  sent  his  ambassadors  to  the  Council, 
and  Henry  III  was  represented  by  Roger  Bigod  and  the 
earl  of  Norfolk,  with  William  de  Powick  as  their  "  orator,"  or 
official  spokesman.  The  king  thought  it  necessary  to  warn 
all  prelates  and  others  going  to  the  Council,  to  watch  over 
the  interests  of  England  during  the  proceedings.  He  re- 
minded them  of  their  oath  of  fealty,  and  prohibited  them 
from  permitting,  or  allowing  others  to  permit  or  to  promise, 
anything  prejudicial  to  the  interests  of  the  kingdom,  or 
that  could  compromise  any  rights  possessed  by  the  Crown 
from  inheritance  or  custom.  Should  they  do  so,  he  threatens 
to  confiscate  the  temporalities  annexed  to  their  offices.1 

One  of  the  first  acts  of  the  assembled  fathers  was  to 
ask  for  the  canonisation  of  St.  Edmund,  the  late  archbishop 
of  Canterbury.  The  petition  for  this  was  made  by  eight 
archbishops  and  more  than  twenty  bishops,  and  they 
urgently  desired  that  he  should  be  declared  a  Saint  at  once, 
and  that  the  feast  of  his  canonisation  should  be  held  during 
the  sessions  of  the  Council.  The  pope,  however,  deprecated 
haste,  but  promised  to  consider  the  matter  at  the  earliest 
moment.  The  chief  business  before  the  Council  so  far  as 
the  pope  was  concerned,  was  the  consideration  of  the  great 
quarrel  between  himself  and  the  emperor.  Innocent  IV 
brought  many  charges  against  Frederick,  which  were  dis- 
cussed fully,  and  by  none  more  carefully  answered  than  by 
the  proctor,  who  was  there  in  behalf  of  the  emperor  him- 
self. 

English  interests  were  represented,  and  the  complaints 
of  the  English  nation  were  voiced  on  Monday,  I7th  July, 

1  Rymer,  i   260. 


ENGLISH  AT  THE  COUNCIL  OF  LYONS  231 

1245,  by  the  proctors,  who  had  come  to  present  the  letter 
already  referred  to  as  drawn  up  by  the  nobles  of  England. 
The  chief  spokesman  of  the  English  was  one  Master 
William  de  Powick.  His  intervention  was  called  for  early 
in  the  meeting,  by  the  request  of  the  pope  that  all  present 
should  sign  a  statement  or  declaration  of  the  privileges 
which  had  been  granted  to  the  Holy  See  at  various  times 
by  kings  and  princes.1  In  objecting  to  this,  de  Powick  first 
complained  in  behalf  of  the  English  nation  of  the  existence 
of  the  annual  tribute  of  a  thousand  marks  promised  to  the 
Holy  See  by  King  John.  This  payment  he  characterised  as 
"injurious"  to  the  kingdom.  "It  had  never,"  he  said,  "been 
agreed  to,  either  by  the  fathers  of  the  present  nobles,  or  by 
them,  nor  would  they  consent  to  pay  the  tribute  in  the 
future."  To  this  declaration  the  pope  made  no  reply,  and 
after  a  pause,  de  Powick  proceeded  to  read  the  letter  sent 
by  the  English  people  generally,  complaining  of  the  con- 
stant demands  and  exactions  of  the  Roman  officials  in 
England.  "We  love  and  esteem  our  mother,  the  Roman 
Church,  with  all  our  hearts,"  it  said,  "  as  our  duty  is,  and 
with  all  affection  possible  we  desire  to  increase  and  extend 
its  honour.  .  .  .  To  it  we  turn  for  solace  in  our  troubles,  so 
that  any  crushing  sorrow  of  her  sons  may  be  soothed  by 
a  mother's  care — that  mother  indeed  cannot  but  remember 
the  gratitude  which  the  realm  of  England  has  shown  her 
from  ages  long  past"  It  has  given  her  a  fitting  and  suffi- 
cient assistance  to  exalt  her  position  and  to  maintain  it. 
By  this,  indeed,  a  bond  of  affection  has  been  firmly  estab- 
lished between  that  Church  and  the  said  kingdom.  In 
process  of  time,  this  subsidy  became  known  as  "  Sain 
Peter's  penny."  But  the  (Roman)  Church,  not  content  with 
a  subsidy  of  this  kind,  now  by  legates,  now  by  nuncios 

1  Labbe,  Concilia,  torn.  xiv.  col.  44. 


232  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

without  number,  has  sought  to  obtain  help  of  various  kinds 
from  the  said  kingdom.  This  assistance  was  ever  liberally 
and  freely  granted  to  her  by  her  children,  as  sons  devoted 
to  their  mother,  and  ready  to  embrace  her  with  loving  arms. 

"We  (English)  do  not  believe  that  your  Paternity  is 
ignorant  that  our  predecessors,  like  true  Catholics,  loving 
and  fearing  their  Creator  and  wishful  to  save  their  own 
souls,  and  help  in  the  salvation  of  those  of  their  forefathers 
and  descendants,  founded  monasteries  and  enriched  them 
with  property,  with  lands  and  with  the  patronage  of 
churches.  It  is  consequently  intolerable  to  us  to  see  the 
said  religious  at  times  deprived  of  this  patronage  and 
collation  to  their  churches." 

The  document  then  goes  on  to  say  that  in  this  matter 
the  popes  have  not  shown  consideration.  On  the  con- 
trary they  have  bestowed  many  of  these  churches  upon 
Italians,  who  in  immense  numbers  have  obtained  appoint- 
ments to  English  benefices.  Foreigners,  thus  appointed, 
have  claimed  to  be  the  rectors  of  the  parishes,  and  have 
ignored  the  rights  of  the  religious  patrons.  They  have, 
moreover,  lived  away  altogether  from  their  cures,  or  in 
such  a  way  that  "they  know  not  their  sheep  and  their 
sheep  know  not  them."  They  have  not  dispensed  alms, 
"as  is  ordered  in  the  Church,"  but  have  carried  off  the 
fruits  of  their  benefices  over  the  sea.  And  in  order  that 
the  full  truth  may  be  known  at  the  present,  it  must  be 
stated  that  Italians  are  receiving  more  than  sixty  thousand 
marks  yearly  from  English  benefices — a  sum  greater  than 
the  annual  revenue  the  king,  "  who  is  the  guardian  of  the 
Church,"  has  to  spend  on  the  government  of  his  kingdom. 

The  writers  of  the  English  petition  then  speak  specially 
of  the  way  the  papal  clerk,  Martin,  had  acted  since  he  came 
into  the  kingdom.  He  claimed,  they  say,  to  have  more 


ENGLISH  AT  THE  COUNCIL  OF  LYONS  233 

ample  powers  than  any  legate  had  ever  exercised.  He  had 
been  occupied  in  giving  away  benefices,  reserving  the  next 
presentation  of  others  to  the  Holy  See,  extorting  im- 
moderate pensions  from  religious  houses,  and  distributing 
broadcast  his  sentences  of  excommunication  and  interdict. 
They  could  not,  they  declared,  believe  for  a  moment,  that  the 
pope  knew  what  his  agent  was  doing  in  his  name.  That 
he  should  have  been  allowed  to  come  at  all,  with  such 
powers,  is  distinctly  against  the  Apostolic  privilege  granted 
to  the  kings  of  England,  namely,  that  without  their  con- 
sent and  request  no  one  should  exercise  the  office  of  legate 
in  the  country.  They  consequently  beg  the  pope  to  find 
some  means  to  put  a  stop  to  the  oppression  under  which 
they  were  then  suffering.  The  king  "who  is  a  Catholic 
prince,"  they  say  in  conclusion,  bearing  the  yoke  of  divine 
obedience,  "  and  not  considering  his  own  self,"  as  part  of 
his  obedience  to  Jesus  Christ,  reverences  the  Apostolic  See 
and  the  Roman  Church.  And  as  its  most  loving  son  he 
desires  to  see  it  grow  and  to  witness  the  increase  of  its 
power  and  its  honour,  "  as  far  as  is  consistent  with  the  pre- 
servation of  his  kingdom  and  royal  dignity."  With  con- 
fidence, then,  they  look  to  the  pope,  to  put  a  stop  to  "  the 
oppressions  "  and  "  grievances,"  which  now  are  "  intolerable 
to  us,  which  we  cannot  continue  to  bear  with  equanimity, 
and  which  by  God's  grace  we  do  not  intend  to  bear  any 
longer."  * 

When  this  document  had  been  read  in  the  full  Council 
in  behalf  of  the  English  nation  by  William  de  Powick,  the 
pope  asked  for  time  to  consider  so  serious  a  matter.  He 
promised  to  make  some  reply  to  the  various  complaints 
later,  and  also  to  consider  another  point  raised  against  the 
abuse  of  the  clause  non  obstante  in  papal  letters.  Many 
1  Matthew  Paris,  iv.  441-444. 


234  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

grants  of  benefices  and  privileges  had  issued  from  the 
Roman  Chancery,  which  were  to  hold  good  "in  spite  of 
previous  "  letters  to  the  contrary.  As  many  letters  of  pro- 
tection had  been  given  to  individuals,  which  exempted 
them  from  obeying  any  future  papal  letter,  unless  express 
mention  was  made  of  that  specific  privilege,  and  of  the  in- 
tention of  the  pope  to  act  against  its  tenor,  difficulties 
and  disputes  constantly  arose  from  the  introduction  of  the 
mere  general  formula  non  obstante.  This  difficulty  was  of 
course  not  new  in  the  days  of  Pope  Innocent  IV.,  but 
"  provisions  "  to  livings,  exemptions  from  general  burdens, 
and  what  was  perhaps  objected  to  more  strongly  than  any- 
thing else,  reservations  of  benefices,  the  occupants  of  which 
were  still  living,  assumed  greater  proportions  in  this  pon- 
tificate both  in  France  and  in  England.  At  the  same  time, 
the  multiplication  of  dispensations  for  plurality  of  livings 
aggravated  the  existing  feeling  against  the  papal  officials, 
and  this  prompted  the  strong  remonstrance  presented  to 
the  pope  in  the  Council  of  Lyons. 

The  complaints  thus  voiced  by  the  English  in  1245 
found  an  echo  two  years  later  in  similar  French  grievances 
which  were  brought  to  the  pope's  notice  by  St.  Louis.1 
The  gravamina  of  the  French  nation  were  presented  to 
Innocent  IV,  on  2nd  May,  1247,  by  an  embassy  sent  to 
Lyons  by  the  king  for  the  purpose  of  urging  the  pope  to 
put  some  stop  to  abuses,  which  were  giving  cause  for  grave 
dissatisfaction.  An  injury  done  to  the  Church  was  an 
injury  done  to  the  State ;  and  for  this  reason,  the  French 
king  declared  that  he  felt  bound  to  ask  that  his  complaints 
should  be  attended  to  at  once.  He  had  long  held  his  tongue, 

1  Matthew  Paris  (Additamenta,  131-133)  prints  this  document  as  having 
been  drawn  up  and  presented  at  the  Council  of  Lyons.  M.  Elie  Berger,  Saint 
Louis  et  Innocent  IV,  268  note,  shows  that  the  real  date  is  1247. 


ENGLISH  AT  THE  COUNCIL  OF  LYONS  235 

for  fear  that  he  might  scandalise  others,  who  had  not  the 
good  of  the  Church  at  heart,  as  he  was  known  to  have, 
since  everyone  recognised  him  as  the  "most  Christian 
prince  and  a  devoted  son  of  the  Church."  Since,  however, 
these  grievances,  so  far  from  diminishing,  seemed  rather  to 
increase,  he  felt  that  he  ought  no  longer  to  keep  silence. 
He  consequently  sent  his  representatives  to  the  Holy  Father 
in  order  to  call  his  serious  personal  attention  to  them.  The 
French  people,  he  declared,  were  all  agreed  on  the  matter; 
and  not  only  were  the  nobles  and  others  astonished  that 
he,  as  king,  had  endured  the  matter  so  long  ;  but  it  was 
abundantly  clear  that  the  nation  as  a  whole  was  fast  losing 
"that  devotion,  which  it  had  been  wont  to  have  for  the 
Roman  Church."  In  fact,  he  might  say  that  "  already  it 
was  well-nigh  extinct,  and  not  merely  extinct,  but  turned 
into  real  hatred  and  rancour." 

This  state  of  things  was  obviously  sufficiently  serious. 
But  when  the  extent  to  which  people  were  scandalised 
was  considered,  and  when  what  they  both  thought  and  said 
on  the  matter  was  taken  into  account,  there  was  great  fear 
that  matters  would  not  stop  there.  "  What,"  asks  the  king, 
"  is  likely  to  happen  in  other  countries,  if  in  the  kingdom  of 
the  Franks,  where  men  have  been  always  most  devoted 
(sons  of  Holy  Church),  at  heart  have  already  become  almost 
schismatics?  "  The  laity  are  kept  to  their  obedience  to  the 
Church  merely  by  the  power  of  the  Crown.  "  And  as  for 
the  clergy,"  Saint  Louis  says,  "  God  knows,  and  indeed 
men  know,  with  what  bitter  feelings  they  bear  their  yoke." 

The  document  then  proceeds  to  analyse  the  causes  of 
this  discontent.  The  first  cause  the  king  considers  to  be 
the  subsidy,  which  the  Roman  Church  has  of  late  con- 
stantly demanded  from  the  French  in  any  necessity.  Until 
lately  it  had  never  been  heard  of,  and  no  tribute  from  the 


236  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

temporalities  of  the  Church  was  ever  contemplated  by  the 
canon  law.  It  was,  moreover,  without  precedent  in  history 
that  authority  should  say,  "  give  me  so  much  or  I  will 
excommunicate  you."  Never  have  the  "  high  priests  and 
successors  of  the  apostles,  the  fathers  of  the  apostolic 
order,  the  sacred  bishops  and  other  ecclesiastical  ministers 
been  taxed "  in  the  way  they  have  been  of  late  by  your 
nuncios.  They  have,  in  truth,  been  treated  "  like  slaves  and 
Jews."  In  fact,  for  purposes  of  taxation,  a  list  of  the  clergy 
with  the  amount  of  their  possessions  was  made  by  Cardinal 
Giacomo  Pecorari,  bishop  of  Palestrina,  when  he  came  as 
legate  into  France,  and  under  the  name  of  "  procurations," 
took  tithe  of  all  the  Church  property.  This  official  of  the 
Curia  also  had  scattered  abroad  threatened  excommunica- 
tions, in  the  event  of  bishops,  abbots,  or  other  ecclesiastical 
persons  neglecting  to  pay  what  he  pleased  to  demand  of 
them,  for  what  he  stated  to  be  papal  purposes. 

Again,  churches  were  constantly  and  continually  bur- 
dened, beyond  what  anyone  would  believe,  by  papal 
emissaries.  Though  these  nuncios  were  often  men  who 
might  be  supposed  not  likely  to  prove  a  burden  to  the 
places  they  stayed  at — such  as  Friars  Minor  and  others  of 
this  kind — still,  as  a  fact,  those  bound  to  the  practice  of 
poverty  were  as  bad  as  any  others.  Another  grievance, 
about  which  the  French  king  thought  it  right  to  complain, 
was  the  bestowal  of  numerous  benefices  and  prebends  by 
papal  authority  upon  strangers;  which,  he  declared,  had 
never  been  done  until  recent  times.  Even  benefices  which 
were  not  vacant  had  now  frequently  been  given  away  in 
anticipation  of  the  vacancy,  whilst,  at  the  same  time,  it 
was  still  held  to  be  distinctly  against  the  laws  of  the 
Church  to  promise  the  next  presentation  of  any  living.  It 
was  not  an  edifying  spectacle  to  anyone,  at  least  so  thought 


ENGLISH  AT  THE  COUNCIL  OF  LYONS     237 

the  French  monarch,  that  "  canons,  whilst  alive,  should 
daily  see  people  waiting  for  their  deaths,  like  crows  watch- 
ing for  their  prey."  Until  the  time  of  Pope  Innocent  III, 
moreover,  no  pope  had  ever  claimed,  or  at  any  rate  ex- 
ercised, the  power  of  giving  away  the  benefices  of  the 
Church  at  will.  That  pope,  indeed,  bestowed  many  livings 
at  his  pleasure,  and  so  did  both  Pope  Honorius  and  Pope 
Gregory;  but,  continues  this  protest  of  St.  Louis,  "all 
your  predecessors  put  together — at  least  so  it  is  publicly 
said — have  not  given  away  so  many  benefices  as  you  alone 
have  done,  in  the  short  time  you  have  ruled  the  Church." 

Moreover  St.  Louis  declares  it  to  be  certain,  that  by 
the  appointment  of  foreigners,  the  real  work  of  the  Church 
was  not  properly  carried  out.  Such  pastors  did  not  as  a 
rule  reside  in  the  cures  given  them,  and,  even  if  they  did, 
being  ignorant  of  the  language  of  their  flocks  they  could 
not  serve  them.  Their  people  knew  them,  only  or  mainly, 
by  the  money  they  took  away  from  the  locality  and  king- 
dom. Those  who  had  bestowed  the  temporalities  upon  the 
various  churches  had  done  so  to  benefit  the  people,  and 
especially  the  poor,  and  not  for  the  purpose  of  enriching 
strangers.  You  may  be  certain,  the  king  continues,  "  that 
by  such  donations  the  Roman  Church  and  you  yourself 
only  reap  scandal  and  dislike,  and  such  things  draw  off 
from  you  the  devotion  of  your  subjects." 

In  conclusion  this  French  memorandum  declined  to 
discuss  the  abstract  question,  whether  the  popes  really 
possessed  the  rights  they  claimed  of  disposing  of  benefices 
and  taking  the  temporalities  of  the  Church  in  foreign 
countries.  It  was  sufficient  for  the  purpose  of  St.  Louis 
that  it  should  be  pointed  out  that,  in  practice,  no  such 
claims  had  ever  been  advanced  in  previous  ages,  and  that 
the  then  action  of  the  authorities,  in  pushing  such  claims, 


238  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

was  causing  wide-spread  discontent.  "  For  these  reasons, 
then,  and  others  which  we  are  unwilling  to  set  down,  the 
lord  king  affectionately  begs  you,  as  his  most  beloved 
Father  in  Christ,  and  for  the  honour  of  God,  for  your  own 
honour,  and  for  that  of  the  Roman  Church,  earnestly 
requests,  if  you  would  remove  scandal  from  the  hearts  of 
many  and  retain  the  devotion  of  the  French  Church  and 
kingdom,  that  you  put  an  end  to  these  grievances,  and 
cancel  what  has  been  done  lately,  since  a  great  many 
people  have  on  this  account  been  excommunicated  and 
suspended"1  by  your  officials. 

The  attitude  towards  provisions  and  other  papal  ex- 
actions, manifested  both  in  France  and  in  England,  was 
perfectly  consistent  with  absolute  loyalty  to  the  pope  as 
sole  head  of  the  Universal  Church.  It  was  also  in  fact  not 
inconsistent  with  a  full  admission  of  the  theoretic  rights  of 
the  popes  to  act  as  they  were  doing  in  regard  to  ecclesi- 
astical revenues.  At  the  moment  it  was  the  practical 
question  of  the  possibility  of  such  taxation  that  disturbed 
the  rulers  of  the  two  kingdoms.  No  suspicion  of  any  dis- 
loyalty, still  less  of  any  open  teaching  contrary  to  the  full 
acceptance  of  the  supremacy  of  the  Roman  Pontiff,  is  to 
be  found  in  the  letters  and  tracts  of  the  period.  On  the 
other  hand  the  Catholic  position  is  assumed,  and  even 
constantly  stated,  as  if  no  other  view  or  teaching  was 
possible  or  tenable. 

1  Matth.  Paris,  Additamenta,  99-112.  This  document  is  only  known  in  the 
collection  of  Matthew  Paris,  but  it  is  accepted  by  M.  Berger  (St.  Louis  et 
Innocent  IV,  270,  seqq.\  and  also  by  M.  Ch.  Langlois  (Lavisse  Hist,  de 
France  III,  ii.  65)  as  genuine.  On  2nd  May,  1247,  a  previous  memorial 
of  the  grievances  of  the  French  clergy  had  apparently  been  presented  to  the 
pope  by  the  bishops  of  Soissons  and  Troyes,  the  archdeacon  of  Tours,  and  the 
provost  of  Rouen.  The  reply  of  Innocent  IV  was  vague,  and  it  would  seem 
that  Saint  Louis,  not  being  satisfied  with  it,  addressed  the  above  second  re- 
monstrance to  him. 


ENGLISH  AT  THE  COUNCIL  OF  LYONS    239 

Some  of  the  statements  are  abundantly  clear;  and  the 
letter  or  tract  written  about  this  time,  at  the  pope's  request, 
by  Adam  Marsh,  the  friend  of  Bishop  Grosseteste,  is 
perhaps  the  best  exposition  of  the  then  belief  of  the 
western  world  as  to  the  position  of  the  papacy  in  the 
Christian  dispensation.  His  first  chapter,  or  division,  is 
intended  to  prove  that  "  by  divine  institution  there  is  only 
one  supreme  pontiff,  who  presides  over  all  nations  of  the 
world."1  He  argues  from  analogy  that  a  head  or  chief  is 
necessary.  Applying  to  the  "  high  priests,  the  successors  of 
the  apostles,"  the  words  of  the  psalmist,  Nimis  confortatus 
est  principatus  eorum,  he  says,  "Thou,  O  Holy  Father, 
hast  succeeded  them  in  the  inheritance.  You  are  their 
heir,  and  the  world  your  inheritance."2  The  pope,  like  St. 
Peter,  he  declares,  has  received  the  whole  world  to  govern ; 
the  rest  of  the  bishops  have  charge  of  one  ship  or  Church.3 
To  the  pope  is  committed  the  care  of  the  visible  Church 
throughout  the  whole  world,  as  being  the  "one  Vicar  of 
Christ,"  since  the  divine  purpose  was  to  bring  all  into  one 
fold,  and  to  make  "  one  fold  and  one  shepherd."  Of  all 
parts  and  countries  of  the  world,  none  is  bound  more 
securely  by  every  tie  of  gratitude  to  the  pope  than  Eng- 
land ;  and  none  is  more  loyal  to  him.  "  Above  all  other 
countries  it  acknowledges  itself  as  subject  to  your  holy 
government."  It  possesses  all  the  strength  of  the  Catholic 
faith ;  it  has  devotion  to  the  Apostolic  See,  and  prides 
itself  on  the  promptitude  of  its  obedience.4  Then,  after 
speaking  of  the  design  of  Henry  III  to  recover  the  Holy 
Land  by  his  sword,  Friar  Marsh  adds,  "Shall  we  there- 
fore assert  that  the  spiritual  sword  only  is  to  be  wielded 
by  the  ecclesiastic,  and  that  he  has  nothing  to  do  with  the 
material  sword?  Most  certainly  not:  he  has  the  use  of 

1  Man.  Fran.,  i.  415.         2  Ibid.,  418.         3  Ibid.,  419.         4  Ibid.,  429. 


240  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

both,  but  in  a  different  manner.  The  sword  of  the  word  is 
for  his  use,  the  iron  sword  is  to  be  wielded  at  his  com- 
mand." The  innocence  of  the  ecclesiastical  hierarchy  is 
not  helped  by  using  the  arms  of  the  world.  Eliseus,  weak, 
alone,  and  unarmed,  was  helped  by  the  heavenly  chariot 
and  horses,  and  overcame  the  strength  of  an  earthly  army. 
So,  when  Moses  lifted  his  hands,  Israel  overcame.  "  Let  the 
successors  of  the  apostles  never  forget,  I  pray,  the  words, 
'  If  God  is  for  us,  who  is  against  us?'  These  are  the  words 
(of  God)  who  said  to  the  disciples,  '  Behold  I  am  with  you 
always,  even  to  the  end  of  the  world.'"1 

It  is  not  quite  evident  what  effect  the  protests  of  the 
English  representatives  at  the  Council  of  Lyons  had  upon 
the  subsequent  deliberations  of  the  fathers.  The  pope  is 
not  known  to  have  made  any  formal  reply  to  the  paper  of 
complaints  presented  to  him.  If  Matthew  Paris  was  cor- 
rectly informed — and  most  of  the  information  we  now 
possess  about  the  Council  of  Lyons  is  derived  from  his 
chronicle — Pope  Innocent  IV  immediately  turned  the  at- 
tention of  the  meeting  from  the  unpleasant  matters  raised 
by  the  English  representatives  to  the  "  more  important 
business  "  (altiori  negotid]  of  the  emperor,  against  whom 
he  forthwith  "  in  full  Council,  and  not  without  causing 
stupor  and  horror  on  all  who  heard  him,"  fulminated  a 
sentence  of  excommunication.2 

In  the  general  constitutions  of  the  Council,  there  is, 
however,  some  slight  indication  that  the  representations 
of  the  English  nation  had  some  weight.  The  first  clauses 
of  these  constitutions  dealt  with  the  conduct  of  ecclesi- 
astical causes  and  with  the  powers  of  delegates  and 
judges,  in  compelling  the  presence  of  the  parties  in  various 
suits.  The  privileges  of  papal  legates  are  thus  determined. 

1  Mon.  Fran.,  i.  437.  2  Matthew  Paris,  iv.  445 


ENGLISH  AT  THE  COUNCIL  OF  LYONS  241 

To  relieve  the  subjects  of  the  Church  "  from  burdens  and 
to  remove  scandals,"  it  is  decreed  that  "  legates  of  the 
Roman  Church,  however  ample  their  powers, — have  no 
authority,  by  virtue  of  their  office,  to  confer  benefices."1 
In  two  articles,  the  question  of  excommunication  is  briefly 
dealt  with.  Excommunication  is  to  be  regarded  as  reme- 
dial and  medicinal,  and  not  as  intended  to  inflict  a  mortal 
blow  or  as  being  the  final  word  of  the  Church.  All  such 
sentences  must  therefore  be  in  writing,  and  a  statement 
of  the  cause  was  to  be  furnished  to  the  excommunicated 
person,  within  a  month  of  the  day  the  sentence  was 
promulgated.  A  superior  should  have  no  difficulty  in  re- 
laxing the  sentence,  if  he  thought  fit,  and  judges  were  to 
understand  that  they  have  no  right  to  fulminate  sentences 
without  due  consideration. 

The  statuta,  although  approved  of  by  all,  were,  in  form 
and  matter,  more  the  decisions  of  the  pope  than  of  the 
Council.  Some  of  the  articles  were  communicated  to  the 
meeting,  as  having  been  published  before  the  Council,  some 
during  the  session  and  some  even  afterwards.  There  was 
much  discussion  about  the  crusades,  and  many  wise  pro- 
visions were  made  for  pushing  forward  the  preparations ; 
but  a  difficulty  arose  upon  the  question  of  money  con- 
tributions. The  Fathers  objected  to  the  payment  being 
made  to  officials  appointed  for  the  purpose  by  the  Holy  See, 
as  they  declared  that  rightly  or  wrongly  the  faithful  be- 
lieved that  frequently  the  money  subscribed  for  the  Holy 
Land  had  been  used  for  other  purposes. 

This  was  apparently  the  termination  of  the  business  of 
the  Council,  and  the  English  proctors  looked  in  vain  for 
the  direct  reply  to  their  representations,  which  the  pope 
had  promised.  Innocent  IV  evidently  desired  to  pass  it  by 

1  Matthew  Paris,  iv.  467. 
R 


242  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

in  silence,  and  the  sittings  of  the  Council  terminated  with- 
out anything  more  being  said  on  the  matter.  The  English 
were  angry,  and  the  king's  agents  left  with  the  threat  that 
they  would  henceforth  never  pay  the  annual  tribute,  nor 
allow  the  revenues  of  their  churches  to  be  disposed  of 
against  their  wills.  The  pope,  upon  hearing  of  their  indig- 
nation and  of  their  resolution  as  to  the  tribute,  sent  for 
each  of  the  English  bishops  present  and  obliged  him  to 
set  his  signature  to  the  charter  made  by  King  John.  The 
bishops  taken  thus  unawares  and  singly,  did  not  dare  to 
refuse.  But  upon  hearing  of  this,  King  Henry  vowed  that 
he  would  never  again  as  long  as  he  lived  pay  any  annual 
tribute  to  the  Roman  Curia.1 

Bishop  Grosseteste  left  Lyons  shortly  after  the  con- 
clusion of  the  Council.  He  was  accompanied  by  Friar 
Adam  Marsh  and  his  socius,  Friar  John  of  Stamford. 
From  Rouen  the  bishop  wrote  to  William  of  Nottingham, 
the  minister  of  the  Minorites  in  England,  to  give  him 
some  details  of  their  journey.  At  Beaune  the  socius,  Friar 
John,  was  taken  ill  with  fever,  but  after  a  few  days  they 
were  able  to  bring  him  with  them  to  Nogent,  and  thence 
down  the  Seine  to  Paris.  Fearing,  however,  that  the  climate 
of  the  city  would  be  bad  for  the  invalid,  they  had  carried 
him  by  water  to  Rouen  and  so  to  Mantes.  At  this  latter 
place  it  became  evident  that  the  Friar  socius  was  now  too 
ill  to  be  moved,  and  as  Friar  Adam  Marsh  was  unwilling 
to  leave  him  without  the  company  of  some  of  his  brethren, 
the  bishop  suggests  that  the  minister  should  send  Friar 
Peter  of  Tewkesbury  and  others  to  take  charge  of  the  sick 
man,  and  so  enable  Friar  Marsh  to  come  on  with  him  to 
England.  Grosseteste  adds  that  it  would  not  be  safe  to 
leave  Friar  Adam  too  long  in  this  part  of  France,  since  at 

1  Matthew  Paris,  iv.  479. 


ENGLISH  AT  THE  COUNCIL  OF  LYONS  243 

Paris  there  were  many  who  wanted  to  keep  him  at  the 
University  as  a  professor,  now  that  Alexander  of  Hales 
was  dead.  This  must  be  prevented,  he  says,  as  were  he 
obliged  to  go  to  Paris  both  the  Friar  Minister  and  he 
himself  would  be  deprived  of  their  greatest  help  and  sup- 
port. The  bishop  adds  that  he  hoped  to  reach  England 
about  1 4th  October,  and  that  he  had  won  his  case  against 
the  Lincoln  Chapter.1 

Bishop  Grosseteste  appears  to  have  left  the  pope  well 
satisfied  with  what  he  had  accomplished.  In  his  letters  he 
gives  a  slight  indication  of  what  happened  at  his  farewell 
interview  with  Innocent  IV.  Writing  after  his  return  to 
one  of  the  cardinals  in  Curia,  he  begs  him  to  try  and  pro- 
cure for  the  archbishop  of  Canterbury  the  support  of  some 
Franciscan  friars  as  permanent  advisers.  He  thinks  that 
some  such  counsellors  are  absolutely  necessary  for  him ; 
and  "  on  leaving,"  he  says,  "  I  earnestly  begged  the  lord 
pope  to  do  what  I  suggested.  He  was  favourable,  and  said 
that  he  would  carry  out  my  request."  It  is  to  be  feared, 
however,  that  unless  you  bring  it  to  his  memory,  it  will 
quickly  pass  from  his  mind.2  At  this  interview,  too, 
Innocent  IV  charged  the  bishop  with  the  transaction  of 
a  piece  of  business  which  Grosseteste  did  not  much  like. 
This  was  to  urge  the  archbishop  of  York  to  carry  out  the 
pope's  requests  in  behalf  of  John  Ursarola,  bishop  of 
Cervia,  who  is  described  as  "  old,  afflicted  and  poor."  The 
bishop  of  Lincoln  on  his  return  prefaces  his  letter  to  the 
archbishop,  de  Grey,  by  saying,  that  often  "we  are  com- 
pelled by  obedience  to  do  something  that  causes  us  grief 
and  which  we  would  gladly  omit,  but  cannot  do  so  because 
it  is  enjoined  upon  us  by  a  superior."  Thus,  he  says,  he  is 
obliged  in  this  case  to  urge  the  request,  which  "at  his 

1  Grosseteste,  Epist.,  334.  a  Ibid.,  336. 


244  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

leaving,  the  pope  earnestly  and  firmly  by  word  of  mouth  or- 
dered to  be  made  on  his  behalf  and  on  that  of  the  cardinals.1 
If,  as  may  be  supposed,  the  request  of  the  pope  had  refer- 
ence to  the  bestowal  of  some  benefice  on  the  aged  bishop, 
it  is  easy  to  understand  Grosseteste's  extreme  reluct- 
ance to  forward  it  in  any  way,  or  to  urge  it  upon  the 
archbishop. 

The  bishop,  on  reaching  England,  wrote  to  the  pope 
a  letter  of  considerable  interest.  "  On  my  return  to 
England,"  he  says,  "  I  met  the  king  coming  back  from 
Wales,  and  had  some  private  conversation  with  him. 
When  amongst  other  things  I  had,  in  my  fashion,  spoken 
a  few  gentle,  persuasive  words  about  the  obedience,  fidelity 
and  devotion  to  be  shown  to  your  Holiness  and  to  the 
holy  Roman  Church,  and  about  the  need  of  supporting  it, 
firmly  and  constantly,  especially  now  that  some  are  en- 
deavouring— by  God's  help  vainly — to  disturb  its  tran- 
quillity, he  answered  me  in  this  fashion  :  '  Lord  Bishop, 
we  intend,  as  we  ought,  to  guard  untouched  all  that  be- 
longs to  our  Crown  and  royal  estate.  We  desire  that  in 
this  the  lord  oope  and  the  Church  should  assist  us.  You 
may  take  it  for  certain  that  we  shall  show  and  observe, 
entirely  and  always,  obedience,  fidelity,  and  devotion  to 
the  lord  pope  as  our  spiritual  father,  and  to  the  Roman 
Church  as  our  mother,  and  that  we  will  firmly,  constantly, 
and  truly  abide  by  them  in  prosperity  and  adversity.  The 
day  when  we  shall  not  do  all  this,  we  will  give  our  eyes 
to  be  plucked  out  and  our  head  to  be  cut  off.  God  forbid, 
that  either  life  or  death,  or  any  other  thing  that  can 
happen,  should  separate  us  from  devotion  to  our  father 
and  mother  in  spiritual  things.  Indeed,  over  and  besides 
the  ordinary  reasons  which  bind  all  Christian  princes  to 
1  Grosseteste,  Epist.,  337. 


ENGLISH  AT  THE  COUNCIL  OF  LYONS   245 

the  Church,  we,  above  all  other  princes,  are  bound  by  a 
special  reason  to  it :  for  when,  whilst  still  young  in  age,  we 
were  deprived  of  our  father,  with  our  kingdom  not  only 
turned  from  us,  but  even  fighting  against  us,  our  mother, 
the  Roman  Church,  through  the  lord  cardinal  Gualo, 
then  legate  in  England,  brought  back  the  kingdom  to 
peace  and  subjection  to  us,  and  consecrating  us  king 
crowned  us.' " 

"  This  reply  of  the  king,"  adds  the  bishop,  "  at  his  order 
I  have  written  to  you,  so  that  you  may  know  for  certain 
what  devotion  the  said  lord  has  for  you  and  the  Roman 
Church."1 

1  Grosseteste,  Epist.,  338-339. 


CHAPTER  XIV 
THE  YEAR  AFTER  THE  COUNCIL  OF  LYONS 

THE  representations  of  the  English  at  the  Council  of 
Lyons  do  not  appear  to  have  produced  any  appreciable 
change  in  regard  to  the  chief  of  their  grievances.  The 
bishops  and  the  embassy  from  the  king  had  returned  in 
the  autumn  of  1245  ;  and  although  the  papal  collector, 
Martin,  was  no  longer  present  in  the  country,  many  things 
rendered  it  apparent  that  no  great  change  of  papal  policy 
was  contemplated.  On  i8th  March,  1246,  consequently, 
the  king  assembled  a  parliament  in  London  to  discuss  the 
situation.1  The  grievances  complained  of  by  the  English  re- 
presentatives at  the  Council  were  laid  before  the  meeting, 
and  as  one  result  of  its  deliberations,  letters  were  written 
to  Pope  Innocent  to  solicit  his  serious  attention  to  their 
complaints.  The  king  in  his  communication  to  the  pope, 
called  God  to  witness  that  he  had  always  shown  love  for 
his  "  mother,  the  Roman  Church,"  for  whom  he  could  not 
have  too  great  an  affection.  To  her,  he  said,  he  turned 
with  confidence  in  his  needs,  as  a  son  "  to  the  parent  who 
has  nursed  him  at  her  breasts."  He  could  not,  however, 
be  deaf  to  the  outcry  of  his  nobles,  clergy,  and  people, 
who  invoked  his  royal  aid  to  put  a  stop  to  oppressions, 
practised  on  them  by  the  pope's  nuncios,  especially  at 

1  Ann.  Man.,  iii.,  169. 
246 


THE  YEAR  AFTER  THE  COUNCIL        247 

that  time,  and  he  prayed  the  Holy  Father  to  listen  to  the 
representations  that  are  made  to  him.1 

The  barons  write  at  somewhat  greater  length,  and 
inclose  a  schedule  of  matters  to  which  special  exception 
is  taken.  Addressing  Innocent  IV  as  their  "most  holy 
and  beloved  father  in  Christ,"  they  remind  him  that  they 
are  all  children  of  the  Church,  and  that  their  interests 
should  be  safeguarded  by  him,  who  is  their  common  father. 
"  Our  mother  the  Church,"  they  say,  "  is  bound  to  cherish 
her  sons,  gathering  them  under  the  shelter  of  her  wings  (so 
to  speak)  in  such  a  way,  that  the  children  are  not  dis- 
honoured by  their  obedience  to  their  mother,  but  are  ever 
ready  to  defend  her  from  attack  in  case  of  need."  "  A 
mother  should  remember  the  children  of  her  womb,  lest, 
if  she  act  in  such  a  way  as  to  deprive  them  of  their  milk, 
she  may  be  reputed  to  be  a  step-mother.  A  father,  with- 
drawing his  love  from  his  sons,  should  be  called  a  step- 
parent rather  than  a  father,  as  he  treats  his  own  children 
as  if  they  were  not  his."  They  then  urge  the  pope  not  to 
turn  a  deaf  ear  to  the  words  of  the  agents  they  are  sending 
to  represent  their  case.  If  he  were  to  do  so,  then  "  a 
great  scandal  must  certainly  arise;"  for  unless  the  king 
and  kingdom  are  forthwith  freed  from  the  evils  of  which 
complaint  is  made,  "  it  will  be  necessary  to  build  a  wall 
to  protect  the  house  of  God  and  the  liberties  of  this 
kingdom."  This  they  "  hitherto,  and  until  the  return  of 
their  embassy,  have  hesitated  to  do,  out  of  reverence  to 
the  Apostolic  See."  But  "  unless  the  said  evils  are  quickly 
corrected  by  you,  your  Holiness  must  clearly  understand 
what  is  really  to  be  feared,  namely,  that  the  situation 
will  become  so  dangerous  both  to  the  Roman  Church  and 
to  the  king,  that  it  will  be  difficult  to  find  any  remedy."2 
1  Rymer,  i.  265.  2  Ibid. ,  265. 


248  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

The  messengers  to  the  pope  took  with  them  also  a 
letter  from  the  abbots  and  priors  of  England,  and  another 
from  the  bishops.  In  the  first  document  the  religious  su- 
periors of  England  say  that  they  turn  with  confidence  "  to 
the  supreme  pontiff  of  the  Universal  Church."  The  provi- 
dence of  the  Divine  Majesty  "  which  has  ordered  all  things 
in  measure  and  number  and  weight,1  has  so  set  the  founda- 
tions of  His  Spouse,  the  Church,  upon  the  solid  rock, 
that  on  that  firm  foundation  rendered  strong  by  the  blood 
of  His  Son,  the  building  to  be  erected  might  the  more 
easily  and  happily  rise  up.  For  the  Universal  Church — at 
the  will  of  its  Spouse — is  ruled,  like  the  ark  at  the  deluge, 
by  one  Father  and  one  Shepherd."  The  writers  then  go  on 
to  say  that  the  English  Church  had  ever  been  renowned  as 
"a  special  member  of  the  holy  Roman  Church,  but  that 
now  it  was  rendered  not  a  little  sorrowful,  sad  and  dis- 
turbed by  exactions,  oppressions,  and  manifold  troubles." 
Therefore,  they  say,  "  to  you,  Reverend  Father,  the  Eng- 
lish Church  has  recourse,  as  to  a  column  of  strength,  which 
God,  not  man,  has  set  up,"  knowing  that  you  will  see  jus- 
tice done  and  protect  it  from  all  oppression.  "Since, 
therefore,  we  are  all  faithful  and  devoted  sons  of  the  holy 
Roman  Church,  and  since  blows  that  are  expected  are  less 
hurtful,  we  have  determined  to  make  known  our  difficulties 
to  the  Apostolic  See,"  for  it  is  to  be  feared  that  unless 
matters  are  quickly  remedied,  there  will  be  a  "popular 
tumult,  a  scandal,  and  a  schism."  The  "  people  are  stirred 
up  against  the  king  and  are  ready  to  withdraw  their  fidelity 
from  him  unless  by  his  royal  power  he  stays  the  evil.  The 
bishops  and  nobles  say  that  if  the  churches  and  other  bene- 
fices given  by  them  to  monasteries  are  bestowed  on  Italian 
clerics,  they  can  justly  take  back  these  benefices  and 

1  Wisd.  xi.  2. 


THE  YEAR  AFTER  THE  COUNCIL        249 

churches,  since  their  revenues  ought  to  be  spent  on  the 
poor  and  pilgrims,  this  being  the  intention  of  the  donors 
and  the  reason  of  the  gifts."  l 

The  bishops  were  not  less  explicit  as  to  the  danger  of 
continuing  the  present  policy  of  the  Curia.  The  archbishop 
of  Canterbury  was  not  then  in  England,  but  the  letter  was 
sent  in  the  name  of  all  the  bishops  of  the  province.  They 
had  heard,  they  say,  with  great  grief,  the  complaints  which 
had  been  made  in  the  late  Council  at  Lyons  on  behalf  of 
the  king,  nobles,  and  entire  English  people.  Their  love  for 
the  Holy  See  had  always  made  them  most  desirous  of 
keeping  the  people  and  kingdom  in  "the  unity  of  their 
mother  the  Church."  Discontent,  however,  was  rife,  and 
had  increased  since  the  Council,  as  nothing  in  the  way  of  a 
remedy  which  the  pope  had  then  been  understood  to  pro- 
mise, had  been  attempted.  They  entertained  the  gravest 
fears  as  to  the  result  of  all  this  discontent,  and  they  begged 
Pope  Innocent  to  regard  "  the  fervour  of  the  English  faith, 
and  to  remember  how  the  kingdom  was  always  most  de- 
voted to  the  holy  Roman  Church,"  and  to  find  some 
remedy  for  the  dangers  which  threaten  even  the  peace  of 
the  nation.8 

The  messengers  bearing  the  complaints  of  the  English 
nation  and  the  accompanying  letters,  set  out  for  Lyons  on 
9th  April,  1246.  At  their  head  was  the  same  William  de 
Powick  who  had  been  spokesman  at  the  Council  for  the 
king's  proctors.  Already  there  were  rumours  that  the  offi- 
cials at  the  Curia  were  inclined  to  give  way  on  some  points, 
and  it  was  apparently  quite  certain  that  the  pope  had  pro- 
mised that  henceforth  no  Italian  should  be  appointed  to 
any  English  benefice  unless  the  king  had  first  been  peti- 
tioned on  the  matter.3  On  the  other  hand  there  was  a 

1  Rymer,  i.  265.  *  Matthew  Paris,  iv.  530.  3  lbid.t  533. 


250  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

story  current,  which  found  its  way  to  the  ears  of  Matthew 
Paris,  that  Innocent  IV  had  made  demands  in  an  alto- 
gether new  way  that  opened  out  possibilities  of  further 
exactions  from  the  English.  At  the  Council  the  pope  had 
noticed  the  embroidered  and  gold-worked  orphreys  of  the 
copes  used  by  the  English  ecclesiastics.  "  Where  are  these 
made?"  he  inquired.  "In  England,"  was  the  reply: 
whereupon  he  exclaimed,  "  truly,  England  is  our  garden  of 
delights,  it  is  an  inexhaustible  mine ;  and  where  much  exists 
there  is  the  possibility  of  extracting  much  from  it ! ".  And 
so,  shortly  after,  the  English  Cistercian  abbots  received  the 
papal  commands  to  send  him  some  well-worked  orphreys 
to  ornament  the  papal  copes  and  chasubles,  "just  as  if," 
says  the  chronicler,  "  they  could  be  got  for  nothing." 1 

Almost  at  the  same  time  a  novel  claim  was  put  forward 
by  the  pope,  which  Henry  at  once  determined  to  resist. 
Rumour  at  the  Curia  had  spoken  of  the  great  wealth  of 
some  of  the  English  clerks  who  had  died  without  making 
a  will,  and  whose  property  had  thus  reverted  to  their  rela- 
tions. One,  John  of  Houghton,  archdeacon  of  Northamp- 
ton, had  died,  it  was  said,  suddenly,  and  intestate,  leaving 
an  estate  of  over  5,000  marks,  thirty  gold  and  silver  cups, 
as  well  as  jewels  innumerable.  Innocent  IV,  in  conse- 
quence of  these  rumours,  ordered  that  a  new  canon  should 
be  promulgated  in  England  by  the  Franciscans  and  Domi- 
nicans to  the  effect  that  the  property  of  every  clerk  who 
died  without  having  made  a  will  should  belong  to  the  pope. 
The  king  at  once  prohibited  the  promulgation  of  this 
"  novel  and  unheard-of  proposal,"  as  detrimental  to  the  best 
interests  of  his  kingdom. 

On  24th  March,  1246,  even  before  the  English  repre- 
sentatives had  left  the  country  on  their  way  to  Lyons,  a 

1  Matthew  Paris,  iv.  546. 


THE  YEAR  AFTER  THE  COUNCIL        251 

papal  letter  demanding  a  subsidy  was  circulated  by  the 
bishops  of  Winchester  and  Norwich,  to  whom  it  was  ad- 
dressed. In  this  letter  the  pope  reminds  the  bishops  that 
the  previous  year,  before  they  left  the  Council,  he  had 
written  to  them  and  to  the  bishops  of  Lincoln,  London, 
and  Worcester,  ordering  them  to  collect  a  sum  of  6,000 
marks  from  the  English  Church.  He  asks  them  to  let  him 
know  what  they  had  done  in  the  matter.  If  they  have 
done  nothing,  he  bids  them  under  obedience  within  twenty 
days  apportion  the  subsidy  according  to  the  means  of  the 
various  dioceses,  and  see  that  it  is  collected  and  forwarded 
at  once  to  him. 

To  the  prelates  who  had  not  been  present  at  the 
Council,  and  of  course  to  the  nobles  and  king,  this  demand 
was  entirely  new.  The  matter  was  at  once  raised  in  par- 
liament, and  fresh  protests  were  suggested.  Henry,  how- 
ever, cut  the  matter  short  by  prohibiting  altogether  the 
collection  of  the  tallage  in  behalf  of  the  pope.  He  blamed 
the  bishops  who  had  been  present  at  the  Council  of  Lyons 
for  having  given  even  a  tacit  consent  to  the  papal  de- 
mands. Before  even  seeming  to  acknowledge  such  a  power 
of  taxation,  they  should  have  referred  the  whole  question 
to  their  peers  in  England.  And  he  threatened  with  the  con- 
fiscation of  their  temporalities  all  who,  after  this  warning, 
should  persist  in  collecting  the  sum  asked  for.1  The  col- 
lection, however,  had  already  been  made  in  certain  districts, 
and  in  these  cases  the  bishops  were  directed  to  hold  the 
money,  and  not  to  let  it  pass  out  of  their  hands.  Thus,  to 
the  abbot  of  St.  Alban's  Henry  wrote  that  he  was  astonished 
to  hear  that  the  bishop  of  London  had  compelled  him  to 
pay  the  papal  tallage,  and  he  ordered  him  to  give  no  heed 
to  such  a  command.2 

1  Matthew  Paris,  iv.  558.  a  Ibid.,  534. 


252  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

Bishop  Grosseteste,  as  one  of  the  prelates  present  at 
the  Council  of  Lyons,  was  involved  in  some  difficulty.   He 
writes  to  the  king  to  justify  his  action  in  the  matter,  and 
in  view  of  his  well  recognised  opposition  to  papal  provisions 
generally,  the  ground  he  now  takes  to  defend  himself  is 
not  unimportant.    Henry  had  expressed  his  astonishment 
that  Grosseteste  had  ventured  to  demand  the  tallage  in  his 
diocese  on  his  own  initiative.   To  this  the  bishop  replies: 
"  I  have  done  nothing  in  this  matter  upon  my  own  authority, 
or  indeed  alone;  for  the  other  venerable  fathers  and  bishops 
are  doing  the  same,  or  have  already  finished  the  collection, 
in  the  way  laid  down  for  them  by  Master  Martin,  the 
pope's  nuncio,  when  he  was  still  in  the  country.    They,  like 
me,  were  obliged  to  do  this  by  the  pontiff's  authority,  for 
not  to  do  what  he  orders,  is  like  the  sin  of  witchcraft — and 
to  refuse  to  obey,  like  the  crime  of  idolatry."  l   The  wonder 
is,  "  not  that  I  and  my  fellow  bishops  have  done  what  we 
have,  but  it  would  be  more  to  be  wondered  at,  and  our 
conduct  would  be  deserving  of  the  greatest  reprobation  if, 
even  had  we  not  been  asked  and  bidden,  we  had  not  done 
something  and  even  more  than  we  have.   For  we  see  our 
spiritual  father  and  mother  (whom  we  are  incomparably 
more  bound  to  honour,  obey  and  reverence,  as  well  as  to 
assist  in  every  way  in  their  needs,  than  we  are  our  natural 
parents),  driven  into  exile,  on  every  side  attacked  by  per- 
secutions and  tribulations,  despoiled  of  all  patrimony,  and 
not  having  proper  and  fitting  means  of  support.    If,  there- 
fore, we  come  not  to  their  assistance  when  in  such  a  con- 
dition, it  is  certain  that  we  are  transgressing  the  Lord's 
command  to  honour  our   parents That  royal   cle- 
mency which  strengthens  the  kingly  throne,  will  never  pre- 
vent nor  check  children  wishful  to  honour  their  father  and 
1  I.  Reg.,  xv.  23. 


THE  YEAR  AFTER  THE  COUNCIL        253 

mother ;  but  it  will  rather,  as  behoves  royal  benevolence 
and  magnanimity,  approve  their  purpose  and  encourage 
and  assist  its  fulfilment.  Your  Majesty  may  be  assured 
that  all  who  have  counselled  you  in  this  matter  otherwise, 
have  not  regarded  your  kingly  honour." l 

By  the  beginning  of  July,  1246,  William  de  Powick  and 
Henry  de  la  Mere,  the  messengers  who  had  been  dispatched 
by  parliament  to  the  pope,  were  back  again  in  England. 
To  hear  the  account  of  their  mission,  parliament  was  sum- 
moned to  meet  the  king  at  Winchester  on  7th  July.  The 
deputation,  from  the  national  point  of  view,  was  a  complete 
failure;  Innocent  IV  showed  no  disposition  to  abate  his 
calls  upon  the  purse  of  the  English  clergy.  The  pope  had 
sent  for  them,  and  they  went  to  the  audience  expecting  to 
receive  some  encouraging  assurance  to  take  back  to  their 
countrymen ;  but  the  Holy  Father  had  merely  said :  "  The 
English  king,  who  kicks  against  the  yoke  and  '  Fredericises ' 
— or  follows  in  the  steps  of  the  emperor — has  his  opinion, 
and  I  have  mine,  which  I  intend  to  follow."  After  this, 
nothing  more  was  to  be  done,  for,  as  the  messengers  describe 
the  situation,  "  from  that  moment  scarcely  any  Englishman 
could  do  any  business  in  the  Curia;  indeed,  all  were  treated 
as  schismatics." 

In  reply  to  the  letter  of  the  English  king,  Pope  Innocent 
wrote  on  I2th  June,  begging  Henry  not  to  object  to  his 
requiring  a  twentieth  part  of  the  ecclesiastical  revenues  of 
England,  arid  hinting  that  he  would  moderate  his  practice 
of  appointing  to  benefices  in  the  English  Church.  He  was 
anxious,  he  says,  out  of  love  and  affection  for  the  sovereign, 
to  do  whatever  was  pleasing  to  him,  provided  it  was  consist- 
ent "  with  his  duty  to  God  and  the  honour  of  the  Roman 
Church."  The  royal  messengers  had  told  him  how  the 
1  Grosseteste,  Episi.,  p.  341. 


254  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

tallage,  imposed  on  English  benefices,  was  objected  to,  and 
had  asked  him  to  desist  both  from  exacting  this,  and  from 
providing  to  livings  in  the  Church  of  the  country.  The  tax, 
he  explained,  had  been  settled  after  long  deliberation  in 
the  Council  of  Lyons.  It  was  considered  that  the  danger 
in  the  Holy  Land  was  a  common  danger  to  all  Christen- 
dom, and  that  the  money  needful  should  consequently  be 
met  by  all  Christian  countries.  For  this  reason  the  pope 
pleads  that  the  king  will  allow  the  tax  to  be  levied.  As  to 
the  question  of  "  provisions,"  Innocent  IV  points  out  that 
he  is  obliged  to  reward  those  who  in  the  time  of  its  ad- 
versity had  been  faithful  to  the  Holy  See;  still,  he  promises 
to  moderate  the  demands  he  has  made,  so  as  to  satisfy  the 
royal  objections 1  to  the  practice. 

Bishop  Grosseteste's  views  of  the  limitations  of  the 
kingly  power  in  matters  ecclesiastical,  were  clearly  stated  to 
Henry  himself  during  the  course  of  the  year  1246.  The 
king  had  desired  him  to  admit  one  Robert  Passelew  to  the 
living  of  St.  Peter's,  Northampton,  which  the  bishop  con- 
scientiously could  not  do,  considering  him  unfit  to  have  the 
cure  of  souls.  In  announcing  his  refusal  and  his  reasons, 
he  draws  a  careful  distinction  between  the  royal  and  the 
sacerdotal  powers.  "  We  recognise,"  he  says,  "two  principles 
of  authority  in  the  world ;  the  authority  of  the  priesthood, 
and  that  of  the  king.  The  first  directs  all  pertaining  to 
eternal  peace ;  the  second,  all  pertaining  to  temporal  peace 
— they  mutually  help  each  other,  and  as  a  consequence, 
neither  should  be  an  impediment  to  the  other — the  sacer- 
dotal authority  certainly  does  not  interfere  with  the  regal 
in  its  government  of  the  State  by  just  laws,  in  its  protection 
of  it  by  arms,  in  its  making  it  illustrious  by  insuring  good 
morals:  so  on  the  other  hand,  the  royal  authority  does  not 

1  Rymer,  i.  266. 


THE  YEAR  AFTER  THE  COUNCIL        255 

hinder  the  sacerdotal  in  watching  over  the  safety  of  the 
flock,  in  ministering  to  it  the  bread  of  the  word  of  God,  in 
manifesting  illustrious  examples  of  holy  works,  in  insisting 
upon  vigils,  fastings  and  assiduous  prayers,  which  as  the 
Apostle  testifies,  cannot  be  done  by  him  "  who  entangleth 
himself  with  secular  business."1  Wherefore  the  secular 
power,  the  help  of  the  sacerdotal,  cannot  entangle  those 
who  are  dedicated  to  the  pastoral  charge  in  secular  affairs." 
The  bishop  then  goes  on  to  declare  that  he  wishes  to  see 
both  powers  duly  supported  in  their  own  sphere  by  those 
devoted  to  them :  "  that  is,  that  spiritual  matters  should  be 
in  the  hands  of  ecclesiastics  and  spiritual  persons,  and 
secular  matters  in  those  of  lay  people."  In  conclusion,  he 
warns  Henry  not  to  think,  as  he  apparently  was  inclined 
to  do,  that  the  anointing  of  the  sovereign  at  his  coronation 
gave  him  any  ecclesiastical  dignity.  It  was  a  sign,  no 
doubt,  of  the  sevenfold  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit  poured  out 
upon  the  newly-crowned  king, "  but  this  unction  in  no  way 
raises  the  royal  dignity  above  the  sacerdotal,  or  even  makes 
it  equal  to  it,  still  less  does  it  confer  any  sacerdotal  power."2 
The  king  was  angry  at  the  attitude  taken  by  the  bishop 
of  Lincoln,  and  made  no  attempt  to  conceal  it;  and  this 
having  been  conveyed  to  Grosseteste,  he  wrote  another 
letter  upon  the  same  subject.  In  this  he  asked  Henry's 
pardon  if  his  words  had  offended  him,  but  he  did  not  in 
any  way  retreat  from  his  position.  To  Archbishop  Boniface 
of  Canterbury,  however,  he  wrote  on  the  subject  in  the 
strongest  terms.  He  was  appointed  to  his  high  office,  he 
tells  him,  to  correct  abuses  and  to  help  people  to  do  their 
duty,  not  to  compel  any  one  to  act  wickedly.  Now  the  acts 
of  the  archiepiscopal  official  are  to  be  assumed  to  be  the 
acts  of  the  archbishop,  and  this  officer  has  ordered  him,  the 

1  2  Tim.,  ii.  4.  a  Grosseteste,  Epist.,  349. 


256  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

bishop,  to  admit  Passelew,  whom  he  has  judged  to  be 
wholly  unworthy,  to  the  living  of  Northampton.  He  has 
pointed  out  that  to  obey  against  his  conscience  is  wholly 
illicit,  and  would  be  "  like  the  guilt  of  idolatry."  He  con- 
sequently has  refused ;  and  he  begs  the  archbishop  to  pause 
before  he  inflicts  such  an  injury  on  the  Church  of  God, 
as  to  proceed  to  the  induction  of  such  a  man  into  any 
living.1 

Grosseteste  was  supported  in  his  determination  to  pre- 
vent, at  all  costs,  the  intrusion  of  unworthy  candidates  into 
any  of  his  livings,  by  the  authority  of  his  friend  and  ad- 
viser, the  Franciscan,  Adam  Marsh.  In  a  letter  written  to 
the  bishop  about  this  time,  the  friar  urges  the  great  respon- 
sibilities that  rest  upon  those  who  have  the  filling  up  of 
benefices.  He  rejoices  to  understand  that  Grosseteste  has 
resisted  all  improper  presentations,  even  at  the  risk  of 
making  himself  unpopular  with  other  bishops,  of  opposing 
the  wish  of  nobles,  and  even  of  withstanding  the  authority 
of  the  king  or  the  demands  of  the  Roman  officials.  When 
the  cure  of  souls  is  in  question,  the  greatest  care  must  be 
exercised  by  every  worthy  bishop,  and  the  help  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  should  be  sought,  that  the  person  chosen  may  prove 
to  be  a  fitting  pastor.2 

In  the  early  part  of  the  year  1246  the  king  of  England 
sought  the  pope's  intervention  to  protect  what  he  held 
to  be  his  rights  in  Provence.  Raymond  Berenger  V  had 
died  the  previous  year,  leaving  four  daughters,  the  last  of 
whom,  Beatrix,  was  married  to  Charles,  duke  of  Anjou, 
the  brother  of  St.  Louis,  king  of  France.  Assisted  by  the 
influence  and  authority  of  his  royal  brother,  Charles 
claimed  to  succeed  as  count  of  Provence  in  right  of  his 
wife.  In  1236,  Henry  III  had  married  Eleanor,  another 

1  Grosseteste,  Epist.,  355.  3  Man.  Frandscana,  i.  139. 


THE  YEAR  AFTER  THE  COUNCIL       257 

daughter  of  the  late  Count  Raymond,1  and  he  seems  to 
have  considered  that  he  also  had  interests  in  the  country, 
which  had  been  ignored  by  the  succession  of  the  French 
king's  brother.  He  consequently  sent  his  agents,  Bartholo- 
mew Pesce  and  Brother  Ralph,  a  Trinitarian,  to  beg  the 
pope  to  interfere  on  his  behalf  and  that  of  his  brother, 
Richard  of  Cornwall.  He  asked  for  three  things  :  first, 
that  by  his  papal  authority  Innocent  IV  would  protect 
their  rights  in  Provence  ;  secondly,  that  he  would  at  once 
send  a  legate  to  prohibit  Charles  of  Anjou  from  taking 
possession  of  the  cities  and  towns  of  the  country ;  and 
thirdly,  that  he  would  not  admit  any  will  or  disposition  of 
the  late  count,  until  some  reasonable  period  for  inquiry 
and  examination  had  been  allowed  to  pass.  It  was  not 
the  first  time  that  the  question  of  these  English  rights  had 
been  broached  to  the  pope,  a  former  messenger  from  Henry 
to  the  Curia  having  already  spoken  of  the  matter,  so  that 
Innocent  was  prepared  with  his  reply.  It  was  in  the  nega- 
tive :  the  pope  declared  that  he  could  not  see  his  way  to 
interfere  directly  in  the  matter  at  all,  but  he  promised  to 
write  to  the  king  of  France  and  his  brother  Charles,  to 
engage  them  to  deal  liberally  with  any  rights  which  the 
wives  of  Henry  and  his  brother  Richard  might  have  in  the 
country  of  their  origin.2 

The  king's  envoys,  though  they  failed  in  the  direct 
object  of  their  mission,  appear  to  have  induced  the  pope  to 
grant  another  favour  likely  to  prove  useful.  This  was  to 
secure  a  letter,  addressed  to  the  bishops  and  nobles  of 
England,  urging  them  to  return  to  their  sovereign  the  lands 
and  other  possessions  of  the  Crown,  which  he  had  granted 

1  The  four  daughters  of  Berenger  were  married  to  the  kings  of  France  and 
England,  to  Charles  of  Anjou,  and  Richard  of  Cornwall. 
a  Registres  (f  Innocent  IV,  i.  No.  1,967. 

S 


258  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

to  them  at  any  time  since  his  coronation.  Henry,  at  the 
time  of  receiving  the  sacred  unction,  so  the  pope  reminds 
them,  had  taken  an  oath  to  guard  and  preserve  all  the 
liberties  and  possessions  of  his  Crown,  and  for  this  reason 
all  his  subsequent  gifts,  made  under  pressure  of  circum- 
stances, were  unlawful,  and  should  be  returned  to  him.1 

Considerable  difficulty  now  arose  in  regard  to  the  arch- 
bishop of  Canterbury,  Boniface  of  Savoy.  This  prelate  had 
been  appointed  to  the  diocese  of  Belley,  near  Chambery, 
but  had  not  been  consecrated  bishop,  when,  through  his 
relationship  with  the  English  queen,  he  was  nominated  by 
King  Henry  to  succeed  St.  Edmund  at  Canterbury.  The 
monks  acquiesced  in  the  royal  nomination  ;  but  it  was  not 
until  1243  that  the  elect  received  papal  confirmation.  Even 
after  this  he  was  still  allowed  to  defer  his  consecration  for 
some  considerable  time,  and  finally  received  it  at  Lyons  on 
I5th  January,  1245,  at  the  hands  of  Pope  Innocent  IV, 
assisted  by  Bishop  Grosseteste  and  the  bishop  of  Hereford. 
The  archbishop  remained  for  the  Council,  and  commanded 
the  papal  guards  during  that  assembly,  obtaining  from  the 
pope,  as  his  reward,  a  gift  of  the  first  fruits  of  all  vacant 
benefices  in  the  province  of  Canterbury  for  seven  years. 

The  archiepiscopal  See  on  the  accession  of  Boniface  was 
much  impoverished.  Not  only  had  his  predecessors  left 
considerable  debts,  but  the  action  of  the  king  during  the 
long  vacancy  had  tended  to  diminish  the  revenues.  During 
the  year  1244,  when  Boniface  had  visited  England  prior  to 
his  consecration,  he  had  rightly  gauged  the  situation  and 
had  set  about  repairing  the  shattered  fortunes  of  his  See. 
He  demanded  that  the  whole  province  of  Canterbury 
should  aid  in  paying  off  the  debts  left  to  him  as  a  legacy, 
and  he  wished  to  secure  the  consent  of  the  suffragan 

1  Registres  cf  Innocent  IVt  i.  No  1,765. 


THE  YEAR  AFTER  THE  COUNCIL        259 

bishops  to  this  scheme  of  liquidation.  This  apparently  was 
resisted ;  and  the  grant  by  papal  authority  of  the  first  fruits 
of  all  benefices  in  the  south  province  which  he  desired,  was 
consequently  refused  to  the  new  archbishop.  On  igth  April, 
1246,  however,  Innocent  IV  addressed  two  letters  to  the 
bishop  of  Hereford,  urging  that  it  was  the  duty  of  all  ec- 
clesiastics in  the  suffragan  Sees  of  Canterbury  to  come  to 
their  archbishop's  assistance,  and  specifically  ordering  the 
bishops  to  secure  to  him  the  fruits  of  all  vacant  benefices.1 
Bishop  Grosseteste,  the  second  of  the  two  bishops  who 
had  acted  as  assistants  at  the  consecration  of  Archbishop 
Boniface,  also  received  a  copy  of  the  papal  grant  of  first 
fruits  to  Canterbury,  with  directions  to  publish  it.  Provid- 
ence, writes  the  pope,  so  disposes  the  changeable  nature  of 
things,  as  "  now  to  cause  superiors  to  need  the  help  of  in- 
feriors, now  inferiors  to  require  the  support  of  superiors — 
that,  so  bearing  each  other's  burdens  and  assisting  one  an- 
other, all  may  fulfil  the  law  of  Christ."  At  the  present 
time,  he  continued,  the  See  of  Canterbury  is  so  burdened 
by  debt  "  that  it  can  hardly  be  freed  from  its  difficulties 
without  the  intervention  of  the  Apostolic  See,"  and  "  seeing 
that  the  Church  of  Canterbury  is  held  in  honour  among  all 
the  Churches  of  the  world,  and  is  regarded  by  the  Roman 
Church  as  a  specially  beloved  daughter,  we  have  determined 
at  the  request  of  the  archbishop  to  come  to  its  assistance. 
We  have  consequently  ordered  our  venerable  brother,  the 
bishop  of  Hereford,  to  collect  for  seven  years,  the  first  fruits 
of  all  benefices  in  the  diocese  and  province  of  Canterbury, 
and  the  sum  of  two  thousand  marks  from  the  revenues  of 
the  archbishopric  to  defray  these  debts,  until  the  sum  of 
10,000  marks  has  been  collected."9 

1  Registres  cf  Innocent  IVt  i.  Nos.  1,935,  r>936. 
8  Matthew  Paris,  iv.  507. 


260  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

Archbishop  Boniface  was  not  at  this  time  in  England. 
After  having,  through  the  pope's  intervention,  made  pro- 
vision for  the  payment  of  his  most  pressing  debts  in  Eng- 
land, he  turned  his  attention  to  family  business  and  affairs, 
and  did  not  come  to  take  possession  of  his  See  till  towards 
the  close  of  1249.  Meanwhile,  on  the  publication  of  Pope 
Innocent's  letter  disposing  of  the  first  fruits  of  the  Canter- 
bury province  in  behalf  of  the  archbishop,  the  king  was 
"  first  astounded "  at  the  papal  action,  and  "  then  angry 
and  even  greatly  incensed  "  both  at  the  action  of  Boniface 
of  Savoy,  and  at  the  "  new  and  unheard-of  extortion  of 
money  "  ordered  by  the  Roman  Curia.  "  By  this  measure," 
he  declared,  "  all  my  people,  to  whom  the  patronage  of 
churches  belong,  are  defrauded,  the  country  is  despoiled  of 
revenue,  and  other  like  measures  may  be  feared."  As  a 
consequence  of  this,  Henry  sent  orders  to  the  bishops  not 
to  allow  Bulls  of  provision  to  be  received  in  their  dioceses, 
and  to  the  various  ports  to  stop  all  bearers  of  such  letters 
from  entering  the  country.1 

The  bishops  generally  proved  themselves  most  unwilling 
to  direct  the  collection  of  first  fruits  for  the  purpose  of 
liquidating  the  Canterbury  debts.  In  their  opinion  these 
had  been  contracted  by  the  rash  borrowing  of  the  arch- 
bishops at  usurious  interest  Archbishop  Boniface  brought 
this  hesitation  to  an  end  by  a  summary  suspension  of  all 
his  suffragans  who  refused  to  carry  out  the  papal  orders. 
They  gave  way,  and  received  absolution  together  with  a 
further  mandate  from  the  pope,  addressed  to  them  through 
the  bishop  of  Hereford,  on  5th  June,  1247,  excommunicating 
all  who  should  venture  to  oppose  the  order,  excepting  only 
the  king  and  queen  with  Richard  of  Cornwall.2 

1  Matthew  Paris,  iv.  510. 

2  Registres  <f  Innocent  IVt  i.  No.  2,814. 


THE  YEAR  AFTER  THE  COUNCIL       261 

In   this  year,    1247,  the   creditors  of  the   archbishop 
became  most  pressing;  and  he  had  again  to  apply  to  the 
pope  for  relief,  especially  as  the  receipts  from  the  first  fruits 
do  not  appear  to  have  been  very  considerable.     As  the 
result  of  the  new  application  of  the  English  archbishop, 
Innocent  IV  granted  him  his  discharge  from  all  debts,  for 
which  the  creditors  could  not  give  absolute  and  legal  proof 
that  the  money  had  been  borrowed  and  used  for  purposes 
of  the  See.1     At  the  same  time  further  mandatory  letters 
through  the  papal  agents  in  England  were  addressed  to  the 
bishops,  to  compel  them  to  obey  the  orders  already  given 
as  to  the  payment  of  first  fruits 2  in  liquidation  of  the  arch- 
bishop's obligations.     At  the  same  time  the  dean  of  Beau- 
vais,  then  the  chief  agent  of  the  Curia,  was  directed  to  see 
that  the  absent  archbishop  was  not  pressed  unduly  by  his 
creditors.3     A  few  days  later,  the  same  ecclesiastic  was 
ordered  to  publish  a  sentence  of  excommunication  against 
all,  who  having  been  recently  presented  to  livings,  had  not 
paid  the  amount  of  the  first  year's  revenue  to  the  collectors 
appointed  to  receive  them  in  behalf  of  the  archbishop;* 
and  on  the  same  date,  the  bishops  were  directed,  before  in- 
stituting to  any  benefice,  to  inform  the  cleric,  so  presented, 
of  the  excommunication  so  pronounced  against  him  if  he 
did  not  pay  over  his  first  fruits.5     A  month  later  the  arch- 
bishop was  complaining  again  to  the  pope  that  the  limit  of 
ten  thousand  marks,  set  by  the  papal  authority,  for  his 
claim  on  the  benefices  was  too  narrow,  and  at  his  request 
another  two  thousand  marks  was  given  him  from  the  same 
source^6  fresh  efforts  were  ordered  to  be  made  to  collect  the 
sums  as  they  became  due,7  and  the  excommunication  of 

1  Registres  <? Innocent  IV,  i.  No.  3,369.  a  Ibid.,  No.  3,371. 

8  Ibid.,  No.  3,372.  *  Ibid.,  No.  3,396.         s  Ibid.,  No.  3,397. 

6  Ibid.,  No.  3,410.  7  Ibid.,  No.  3,411. 


262  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

those  who,  in  spite  of  all  that  had  been  said  and  done,  still 
neglected  to  pay  what  was  owing. 

When  this  unhappy  affair  is  last  heard  of,  in  1248,  the 
archbishop  of  Canterbury  was  still  at  Lyons,  endeavouring 
through  his  proctor  in  England,  the  dean  of  Beauvais,  to 
gather  in  the  first  fruits  from  the  various  workmen  in  the 
portions  of  the  Lord's  vineyard  assigned  to  their  special 
care.  Additional  powers  had  even  enabled  him,  through 
his  agents,  to  keep  benefices  vacant  for  a  year.  Some  one 
was  appointed  to  take  charge  of  the  living  at  a  salary,  and 
the  collector  took  the  revenues  to  assist  in  the  liquidation 
of  the  Canterbury  debts.1  Throughout  the  province  the 
knowledge  that  excommunication  awaited  all  who  did 
not  assist  in  this  unpopular  work,  was  kept  well  before 
the  minds  of  all  by  the  strenuous  efforts  of  the  archbishop's 
proctor,  the  dean  of  Beauvais.  The  sentence  was  published 
"  in  every  church  in  the  country,"  says  Matthew  Paris, "  and 
it  caused  great  indignation  in  the  minds  of  many,"  not 
merely  because  of  the  extortion  itself ;  but  because,  since 
the  king  had  been  excepted,  he  appeared  to  tolerate  the 
injury.2 

Before  the  close  of  the  year  1246  the  pope  determined 
upon  pushing  forward  the  crusade  movement  in  England. 
He  appointed  preachers  to  urge  the  necessity  of  all  taking 
a  part  in  liberating  the  Holy  Land,  and  in  endeavouring, 
for  the  sake  of  the  security  of  Europe,  to  break  the  power 
of  the  Saracens.3  To  the  bishop  of  Hereford,  with  whom 
and  with  Bishop  Grosseteste  he  chiefly  transacted  his 
English  business  during  the  absence  of  the  archbishop  of 
Canterbury,  he  had  already  given  power  to  commute  any 
crusading  vow  for  a  money  payment,  to  be  spent  on  the 

1  Registres  d1  Innocent  IV,  i.  No.  3,471.  *  Matthew  Paris,  v.  36. 

*  Registres,  ut  sup.t  No.  2,229. 


THE  YEAR  AFTER  THE  COUNCIL       263 

purposes  of  the  expedition.  He  also  hoped  to  obtain 
money  by  giving  a  general  and  roving  commission  to 
the  Dominicans  and  Franciscans  to  collect,  in  aid  of  the 
Empire  of  Constantinople.  The  terms  of  their  authorisa- 
tion suggests  that  they  might  inquire  as  to  any  usury 
having  been  practised,  and  by  ecclesiastical  censure  might 
compel  those  who  had  grown  rich  in  this  way  to  give  up 
the  proceeds  to  them ;  they  might  offer  special  Indulgences 
to  those  who  would  take  the  cross,  or  contribute  of  their 
substance  to  the  work ;  they  might  during  three  years 
claim  the  sums  left  in  wills  under  the  general  heading  of 
good  works,  or  in  restitution  for  ill-gotten  goods;  they 
might  even  in  the  case  of  living  persons  who  possessed 
property  to  which  they  had  no  right,  if  the  real  owners 
could  not  be  found,  compel  them  to  make  restitution  to 
them.  By  these  and  other  means,  it  is  suggested  that  the 
friars  would  be  able  to  secure  considerable  sums  of  money 
to  be  used  in  the  crusading  expeditions. 

But  Pope  Innocent  was  not  content  to  leave  matters  to 
the  good-will  of  the  multitude  or  to  allow  the  success  of 
his  projected  expeditions  to  depend  on  chance  contribu- 
tions, or  on  uncertain  sums  obtainable  by  the  friars  for 
dispensations  or  as  restitution.  On  the  I2th  of  June,  1246, 
in  a  letter  to  the  king  already  quoted,1  he  makes  it  clear 
that  he  looked  for  more  than  that,  and  in  his  letter  to  the 
bishops  in  July  he  asked  for  a  twentieth  part  of  all  English 
ecclesiastical  benefices  for  three  years.2  Later  on  the  de- 
mand was  extended  to  a  third  or  even  to  a  half  of  the 
English  ecclesiastical  revenues  for  the  same  period,  and 
the  bishop  of  London  was  appointed  to  see  that  the  collec- 
tion was  made.3 

1  Rymer,  i.  266.  *  Registres,  ut  sup,,  No.  2,018. 

3  Matthew  Paris,  iv.  580. 


264  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

On  ist  December,  1246,  the  bishop  of  London  sum- 
moned some  of  the  chief  ecclesiastics  to  meet  him  at 
St.  Paul's  to  discuss  the  situation.  It  was  evident  to  all 
that  the  contribution  thus  demanded  was  wholly  out  of 
the  question,  and,  whilst  they  were  actually  debating  the 
matter,  the  king  sent  to  put  a  stop  to  it,  by  absolutely 
prohibiting  the  clergy  from  consenting  to  the  subsidy  de- 
manded of  them.  Before  separating,  a  formal  statement  as 
to  the  impossibiliy  of  doing  what  the  pope  demanded,  was 
drawn  up  by  the  clergy  and  put  into  writing.  "  Had  the 
real  state  and  condition  of  England  been  known  to  the 
pope  and  cardinals  at  the  time  of  the  Council,"  this  docu- 
ment says,  "  it  would  have  been  impossible  to  have  passed 
the  statute,"  and  still  more  impossible  to  have  endeavoured 
to  enforce  it.  To  exact  anything  like  half  the  revenues 
would  make  the  life  of  the  canons  in  the  English  cathedral 
churches  impossible,  and  the  Divine  Office  would  cease. 
Religious  houses,  also,  in  great  measure  were  supported, 
and  their  works  of  charity  maintained,  by  the  revenues  of 
impropfiated  churches.  If  half  these  were  to  be  taken  away, 
the  religious  would  be  compelled  to  beg  for  their  living, 
and  they  would  be  obliged  to  give  up  that  hospitality  and 
charity,  to  maintain  which  they  were  established.  The 
same  would  inevitably  be  the  lot  of  the  rectors  of  parish 
churches,  who  never  had  so  great  a  margin  from  their 
revenues  as  to  be  able  to  live  on  only  one  half  of  what 
they  received,  and  it  was  impossible  to  imagine  what 
would  become  of  the  poor,  who  in  such  great  number  had 
ever  been  maintained  in  England  out  of  the  patrimony  of 
the  Church. 

Lastly  a  rough  calculation  was  made  as  to  the  enormou8 
sums  of  money  that  would  be  paid  out  of  the  country 
to  the  pope,  in  the  event  of  this  half  being  exacted  by 


THE  YEAR  AFTER  THE  COUNCIL        265 

this  authority.  "  Quite  recently,"  says  the  document, "  under 
the  name  of  a  twentieth  of  the  ecclesiastical  property,  the 
pope  received  six  thousand  marks.  On  the  same  basis  the 
sum  now  asked  would  be  sixty  thousand  marks  "  at  least, 
and  there  was  reason  to  believe  that  it  would  not  fall  far 
short  of  eighty  thousand.  Such  a  payment,  the  writers 
declared,  could  not  be  furnished  by  the  whole  kingdom  of 
England,  much  less  by  the  Church  alone.  The  writer  of  the 
memorandum  concluded  by  pointing  out,  that  when  King 
Richard  had  to  be  ransomed,  to  obtain  the  sixty  thousand 
marks  required  from  the  entire  kingdom,  it  was  necessary 
to  sell  and  pledge  chalices  and  other  ecclesiastical  plate 
before  the  ransom  could  be  made  up.  Seeing,  therefore,  the 
impossibility  of  satisfying  the  papal  demands,  the  bishop 
of  London  is  asked  to  acquaint  the  proctors  of  Innocent  IV 
with  the  refusal  of  the  English  Church,  and  with  their  de- 
termination if  necessary  to  appeal  to  a  General  Council.1 

About  Christmastide  of  1247,  the  king  summoned  a 
parliament  to  meet  in  London  on  the  feast  of  the  Purifica- 
tion, 2nd  February,  to  consider  the  question  of  these  con- 
stant papal  demands,  which  affected  France  no  less  than 
it  did  England.  In  fact  the  discontent  manifested  in  the 
former  country  is  said  by  the  historian  of  the  time  to  have 
seriously  interfered  "  with  the  devotion  of  the  faithful,  and 
that  filial  affection  which  every  Christian  is  bound  to  show 
towards  their  spiritual  father  the  pope." 2  With  the  French 
laity  the  feeling  of  bitter  resentment  against  the  demands 
went  to  much  greater  lengths  than  they  did  in  this  country, 
and  found  expression  in  movements  directed  against  re- 
ligion and  against  the  clergy  generally. 

Parliament  met  in  London  on  3rd  February,  1248. 
The  bishops  elected  to  stay  away,  that  the  representatives 

1  Matthew  Paris,  iv.  581-585.  *  Ibid.,  591. 


266  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

of  the  clergy  might  have  greater  freedom  of  speech  in 
discussing  the  grievances  of  the  English  Church.  This 
liberty  they  used,  and  they  were  listened  to,  in  entire 
sympathy,  by  the  king.  It  was  agreed  that  a  joint  appeal 
from  the  clergy  and  people  of  the  province  of  Canterbury 
should  be  addressed  to  the  pope,  and  dispatched  at  once 
to  the  Curia,  with  a  second  letter  to  the  cardinals,  urging 
them  to  turn  the  pope  from  his  purpose. 

The  letter  to  Innocent  IV,  sealed  with  the  seal  of  the 
city  of  London,  was  couched  in  most  respectful  terms,  but 
left  no  doubt  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  memorialists. 
"  Since  the  English  Church  from  the  time  of  its  reception 
of  the  Catholic  faith  "  (runs  this  document),  "  has  studied 
to  satisfy  God  and  its  mother,  the  holy  Roman  Church, 
so  will  it  faithfully  and  devoutly  serve  it,  without  ever 
drawing  back  from  its  pledged  obedience,  but  rather  ever 
increase  (in  its  loyalty)  with  the  growth  of  its  moral  teach- 
ing." 1  Nevertheless,  it  is  necessary  that  the  pope  should 
understand  that  what  he  asks  is  impossible.  Kneeling 
at  his  feet,  they  beg  of  him  to  realise  that  the  amount  of 
money  now  wanted  cannot  be  obtained,  especially  as  their 
"  temporal  lord,  the  king "  urgently  requires  their  help 
against  his  enemies.  "  We  send,"  they  conclude,  "  the 
bearers  of  these  letters  to  your  Holiness  with  our  prayer, 
so  that  they  may  explain  to  you  the  inconveniences  and 
dangers  that  would  immediately  follow  what  is  proposed 
(by  you).  These  we  cannot  be  reasonably  expected  to 
face,  though  we  are  bound  to  you  by  every  bond  of  charity, 
obedience,  and  devotion.  Since  our  whole  body  (of  clergy 
and  laity)  have  no  common  seal,  we  send  this  letter  to 
your  Holiness,  authenticated  by  the  seal  of  the  Corpora- 
tion of  the  City  of  London.2  At  the  same  time  and  by 
1  per  incrementa  morum,  a  Matthew  Paris,  iv.  595. 


THE  YEAR  AFTER  THE  COUNCIL        267 

the  same  messengers,  a  joint  letter  of  clergy  and  laity 
was  dispatched  to  the  cardinals  in  Curia,  whom  the  writers 
address  as  "  columns  supporting  the  Church  of  God."  The 
document  points  out  how  much  the  English  Church  has  con- 
tributed to  the  pope  since  the  time  of  the  Lateran  Council, 
thirty  years  before:  first,  a  twentieth  part  of  ecclesiastical 
revenues  for  three  years  for  the  Holy  Land ;  then  a  tenth 
to  help  the  pope  himself;  then  many  other  contributions 
for  various  purposes  ordered  by  the  pontiff  and  paid  with 
prompt  obedience  by  the  English  Church.  Besides  this, 
"  by  command  of  the  Apostolic  See  they  have  frequently 
been  compelled  to  assist  their  king  and  temporal  lord," 
and  even  more  than  once,  at  the  request  of  the  cardinals, 
they  have  come  to  his  help.  Now,  once  more,  demands 
are  made  from  the  Church,  which  cannot  be  satisfied : 
from  some,  half  of  their  revenues ;  from  others,  a  third 
part;  and  from  the  rest  a  twentieth  of  all  they  possess. 
Part  is  intended  to  help  the  French,  who  are  our  enemies, 
and  those  of  our  nation,  to  conquer  the  Greek  empire ; 
part  is  to  be  devoted  to  assist  the  expedition  to  the  Holy 
Land,  which,  according  to  common  opinion,  can  be  re- 
covered from  the  enemy  with  less  difficulty;  part,  too,  is 
to  be  given  for  other  purposes,  which  the  Apostolic  See  is 
to  settle."  These  demands  are  so  absurd,  and  hard,  and 
impossible,  that  they  beg  the  cardinals  "  for  God  and  the 
honour  of  the  Apostolic  See,"  to  induce  the  pope  to  with- 
draw his  commands,  and  thus  "  recall  to  the  bosom  and 
obedience  of  Mother  Church  those  who  are  wandering 
forth  and  being  dispersed  abroad  ;  lest  they  who  have  been 
joined  together  in  love  and  devotion  may  be  separated  and 
become  as  strangers." l 

Before  the  messengers  could  reach  Lyons  the  pope  had 

1  Matthew  Paris,  iv.  596-597. 


268  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

been  fully  informed  of  the  difficult  situation  his  purposed 
exactions  had  created  in  England.  Apparently  he  was 
not  disturbed  by  the  news,  and  not  believing  that  there 
was  any  substantial  ground  for  the  grievance,  or  that  his 
wishes  were  in  fact  impossible  to  satisfy,  he  proposed  to 
compel  the  nation  to  obedience  by  the  extreme  measure 
of  an  interdict.  This  was  averted  by  the  expostulations  of 
the  English  cardinal,  John  Tolet,  a  member  of  the  Cis- 
tercian Order.  He  pointed  out  that  the  whole  world 
was  slipping  away  from  the  papacy.  "There  are  diffi- 
culties," he  said,  "in  the  Holy  Land;  the  Greek  Church 
has  left  us ;  Frederick,  who  is  more  powerful  than  any 
Christian  prince,  is  opposed  to  us.  You  and  we  [car- 
dinals], who  are  the  support  of  the  Church,  are  driven 
from  the  seat  of  the  papacy,  from  Rome,  and  even  from 
Italy.  Hungary,  with  its  great  territory,  awaits  its  de- 
struction at  the  hands  of  the  Turk.  Germany  is  torn 
with  civil  war.  Spain  is  raging  to  the  length  of  cutting 
out  the  tongues  of  bishops.  France  is  already  impover- 
ished by  us,  and  is  conspiring  against  us.  England, 
frequently  troubled  by  our  injuries,  now  at  length  wounded 
by  our  blows  and  injured  by  our  spurs,  like  Balaam's  ass, 
speaks  and  protests  and  complains  that  its  burden  is 
intolerable  and  that  its  injury  is  past  remedy.  We,  like 
the  Jews,  hated  by  all,  provoke  all  to  hate  us."1 

Although  no  reply  to  the  expostulations  of  the  English 
churchmen,  clerical  and  lay,  is  recorded,  the  letter  ap- 
parently had  its  effect  in  enforcing  the  expostulation  of 
Cardinal  Tolet ;  and  the  papal  demands  for  so  large  a  share 
in  the  ecclesiastical  revenues  were  not  pressed,  at  least 
directly.  Innocent  IV  had,  to  some  extent,  won  the  English 
king  from  active  opposition  by  some  shadowy  concessions 

1  Matthew  Paris,  iv.  579. 


THE  YEAR  AFTER  THE  COUNCIL        269 

as  to  "  provision,"  and  by  promises  that  an  Italian  should  not 
be  appointed  to  succeed  an  Italian  in  an  English  benefice. 
Moreover,  there  is  little  doubt  that  Henry  foresaw  that  the 
time  was  coming  when  he  would  have  to  rely  upon  the 
pope  to  obtain  a  subsidy  from  the  ecclesiastical  revenues 
sufficient  to  meet  his  most  pressing  necessities.  Both  in 
the  year  124.6 l  and  the  two  following  years2  the  pope 
pressed  Henry  to  pay  him  the  annual  tribute  of  1,000 
marks;  and  in  December,  1246,  he  ordered  his  agent  not 
to  neglect  his  duty,  but  to  collect  for  him  half  of  the 
revenues  of  every  benefice  from  which  the  holder  had 
been  absent,  even  with  permission,  for  six  months  in  the 
year.3  At  the  close  of  the  year,  also,  the  advent  of  newly- 
appointed  agents  and  collectors  seemed  to  show  that  Pope 
Innocent  had  not  in  any  way  abandoned  his  hopes  of 
obtaining  all  that  he  needed  from  the  English  Church 
in  the  way  of  pecuniary  assistance  in  his  many  necessities. 
In  regard  to  the  national  annual  payment,  a  letter  of  the 
pope,  at  the  very  close  of  1249,  makes  it  apparent  that 
at  that  date  only  500  marks  were  owing,  and  this  sum 
Innocent  IV  had  borrowed  from  Florentine  merchants  on 
the  strength  of  the  debt,  and  begs  Henry  to  be  good 
enough  to  see  that  they  are  paid.4 

1  Rymer,  i.  266. 

2  Ibid.  267  and  P.  R.  O.  Papal  Bulls,  Bundle  liii.  No.  3. 

3  Ibid.,  266.     This  document  is  wrongly  placed  in  1266. 

4  Ibid.,  271. 


CHAPTER  XV 

HENRY  III  PREPARES  FOR  THE  CRUSADE 

THE  king  had  now  reached  the  middle  of  his  long  and 
troubled  reign.  His  relations  with  his  nobles  and  his 
people  had  temporarily  somewhat  improved,  but  the  loyalty 
of  his  subjects  was  soon  again  tested  to  the  utmost  limit 
by  the  introduction  of  his  foreign  relations  by  marriage, 
and  their  friends,  into  place  and  power  in  England,  and  by 
his  further  demands  for  money  to  carry  out  his  mistaken 
policy  abroad.  Moreover,  the  feeling  of  insecurity  and 
distrust  was  increased  in  the  popular  mind  by  a  suspicion 
that  Henry  had  been  working  in  the  Curia  for  his  own  end. 
It  was  thought,  apparently  not  without  some  grounds,  that 
he  would  not  be  wholly  displeased  to  see  English  ecclesi- 
astics compelled  by  papal  authority  to  pay  the  various 
sums  demanded  of  them,  provided  that  he  could  himself 
gain  the  pope  over  to  his  side,  and  secure  the  weight  of 
his  supreme  authority  over  churchmen  when  the  time 
again  came,  as  inevitably  it  must,  for  him  to  seek  help 
from  the  Church  revenues. 

Innocent  IV  had  already,  on  loth  October,  1246,  made 
an  Englishman,  Friar  John,  minister  of  the  Franciscans  in 
Proven£e,  his  collector  in  the  two  provinces  of  Canterbury 
and  York.  To  facilitate  the  collection  of  the  sums  of 
money  claimed,  he  had  given  him  powers  to  appoint  others 
of  his  brethren  to  assist,  and  they  were  to  use  the  extreme 

270 


HENRY  III  PREPARES  FOR  THE  CRUSADE  271 

penalties  of  the  Church  to  compel  obedience.1  Friar  John, 
acting  on  the  authority  thus  given  him,  appointed  another 
English  Franciscan,  Friar  Alexander,  as  his  associate  in 
the  unpopular  duty  set  them.  From  the  outset  they  appear 
to  have  rendered  the  work  still  more  unpopular,  by  the 
large  sums  they  everywhere  exacted  under  the  head  of 
"  procurations,"  that  is,  payments  for  their  own  support  as 
papal  envoys.  As  soon  as  possible  they  made  their  way  to 
Bishop  Grosseteste,  who  had  always  in  word  and  deed 
shown  himself  a  true  friend  to  all  sons  of  St.  Francis,  and 
presenting  him  their  letters  required  the  sum  of  six  thousand 
marks  as  the  contribution  expected  from  his  diocese  for 
the  papal  collection.  The  bishop  was  astounded  at  the 
magnitude  of  the  demand.  Whilst  fully  admitting  the 
papal  right  to  require  assistance,  he  did  not  hesitate  to 
express  his  own  sentiments  :  "  This  exaction,"  he  said,  "  is 
unheard-of  and  shameful,  for  it  is  impossible  for  us  to  give 
what  is  asked  of  us;  neither  does  it  concern  me  only,  but 
it  affects  the  whole  clergy  and  people,  and  indeed  the 
entire  kingdom.  This  being  so,  it  would  be  rash  and  silly 
on  my  part  were  I  to  give  you  a  final  reply  on  so  difficult 
a  matter  of  business,  or  to  consent  to  it,  without  consulta- 
tion in  the  parliament  of  the  country."2 

Failing  to  secure  at  once  what  they  had  expected  to  get 
from  the  diocese  of  Lincoln,  the  two  Franciscan  friars  be- 
took themselves  to  St.  Alban's.  Here  they  did  not  take  up 
their  lodgings  in  the  friars'  guest-chamber,  which  had  lately 
been  established  in  the  courtyard  of  the  monastery  for  the 
Dominicans  and  Franciscans  asking  hospitality,  but  went 
to  the  great  guest-house  of  the  Abbey,  where  bishops  and 
nobles  were  wont  to  be  entertained,  and  where  they  were 
received  with  the  honour  due  to  the  pope's  representatives. 

1  Additamenta,  119.  a  Matthew  Paris,  iv.  600. 


272  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

They  at  once  proffered  their  demands  for  an  immediate 
payment  of  four  thousand  marks,  as  the  contribution  of  St. 
Alban's  to  the  papal  collection.  But,  here,  too  they  were 
disappointed ;  the  abbot  pleaded  his  inability  to  meet  the 
unexpected  burden  thus  laid  upon  his  house,  and,  in  spite 
of  their  threats  of  grave  spiritual  penalties,  he  refused  to 
satisfy  the  collectors.  So  far  as  St.  Alban's  was  concerned, 
however,  the  matter  did  not  rest  here.  The  abbot  was  sum- 
moned to  London  by  the  friars  to  show  cause  why  he  did 
not  pay  the  sum  required  of  him,  and,  although  he  had 
appealed  to  the  pope  and  the  cardinals,  he  nevertheless  put 
in  an  appearance  by  his  proctor.  Friar  John  at  this  court 
produced  a  papal  letter  dated  the  previous  year,  1246,  and 
addressed  to  the  abbot,  directly  authorising  his  collector  to 
make  these  peremptory  demands.  The  sums  of  money 
"  were  intended,"  the  letter  said,  "  to  meet  the  daily  in- 
creasing pressure  of  secular  difficulties,"  which  made  it 
necessary  for  the  Holy  See  "  to  have  recourse  to  the  help 
of  its  subjects"  generally.  The  Church,  in  resisting  the 
evil  tendencies  of  the  age,  was  really  fighting  the  battle 
"  of  all  Churches  and  of  all  ecclesiastics." 

On  the  strength  of  this  mandate,  Friar  John  ordered  the 
abbot  within  eight  days  to  pay  over  three  hundred  marks 
in  silver,  declaring  that  if  he  failed  to  do  so,  he  would  be 
excommunicated  and  his  house  placed  under  an  interdict. 
To  this  threat,  however,  the  proctor  for  St.  Alban's  replied, 
that  having  appealed  to  the  pope  personally  they  would 
await  a  personal  reply.  At  the  same  time  the  worst  was 
expected,  since  it  became  known  that  the  pope  was  urging 
his  envoy,  by  every  means  in  his  power,  to  send  on  the 
expected  subsidy,  or  at  least  some  part  of  it  Similar 
demands  upon  the  Church  of  France  had  produced  little 
or  nothing,  and  they  had  only  stirred  up  St.  Louis  to  make 


HENRY  III  PREPARES  FOR  THE  CRUSADE   273 

further  protestations  to  the  pontiff,  and  to  take  measures 
to  prevent  the  payments  being  made  by  any  of  his  subjects. 
In  England  there  were  many  who  feared  the  consequences 
of  these  constant  demands  on  the  part  of  the  Roman  Curia. 
Rumours  were  in  circulation  that  princes  and  magnates 
whose  predecessors,  or  who  themselves  had  founded  and 
endowed  the  ecclesiastical  and  religious  bodies  by  their 
charters,  were  talking  of  resuming  possession,  now  that 
the  revenues  were  being  taken  for  purposes  other  than 
those  for  which  they  had  been  intended,  or  were  being 
given  to  foreigners. 

Meanwhile  the  case  of  St.  Alban's  was  pleaded  before 
the  pope  at  Lyons  by  a  monk  possessing  the  characteristic 
name  of  John  Bull,  who  had  been  accompanied  to  the 
Curia  by  a  lawyer  named  Adam  de  Bern.  Before  these 
proctors,  however,  had  time  to  present  their  case  fully,  Friar 
John  in  England  again  peremptorily  summoned  the  abbot 
to  meet  him  at  Bedford  on  i/th  December,  1247,  an^  there 
to  pay  the  subsidy  demanded.  This  the  abbot  refused  to 
do,  sending  only  the  same  reply  as  before,  namely,  that  an 
appeal  to  the  pope  in  person  had  been  lodged  against 
these  demands.  At  the  Curia,  Friar  John  represented  that 
St.  Alban's  was  the  only  place  among  the  abbeys  of 
England  which  would  not  obey  the  pope.  Counter  repre- 
sentations were  of  course  made,  and,  after  long  delays,  the 
amount  demanded  was  reduced  to  two  hundred  marks,  but 
the  whole  business,  with  expenses,  cost  the  convent  three 
hundred  marks  sterling.1  Apparently  before  the  close  of 
the  year  1247  the  somewhat  irregular  papal  mission  of  Friar 
John  came  to  an  end  ;  and  Innocent  IV  dispatched  one  of 
his  chaplains,  named  Marinus,  with  the  powers  of  a  legate 
residing  in  England,  who  was  to  forward  to  the  Curia 

1  Matthew  Paris,  iv.  617-622. 
T 


274  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

whatever  money  he  could  secure  out  of  the  sums  declared 
to  be  due.  The  historian,  Matthew  Paris,  says  that  the 
people  nicknamed  him  "  another  Martin,"  in  recollection  of 
the  official  who  a  few  years  previously  had  won  for  himself 
such  an  unenviable  reputation,  and  who  was  forced  to  retire 
somewhat  hastily  from  the  country.  This  name  of  Marinus, 
"  the  sailor,"  suggested  also  the  popular  saying  at  the 
time,  that  he  was  "a  fisher  rather  of  men's  possessions 
than  of  their  souls."  This  delegate  was  not  called  by  the 
title  of  legate,  though  he  was  armed  with  all  the  powers  of 
one,  and  in  this  way  he  was  in  reality  able  to  effect  more 
in  the  business  for  which  he  had  come.1 

On  9th  February,  1248,  parliament  met  in  London. 
The  chief  work  before  it  was  the  consideration  of  the 
financial  condition  of  England.  The  country  was  un- 
doubtedly being  more  and  more  impoverished  by  the  con- 
stant drain  made  upon  its  resources.  The  archbishop  of 
Canterbury  was  still  away,  but  the  meeting  was  attended 
by  Walter  Gray,  the  archbishop  of  York,  and  by  eight  other 
bishops,  besides  many  abbots  and  other  prelates.  The 
straits  to  which  the  king  was  now  reduced  were  little  short 
of  desperate,  and  he  was  forced  to  apply  to  his  subjects  for 
money  to  carry  on  the  business  of  the  State.  Parliament, 
however,  was  in  no  mood  to  grant  him  any  relief  without 
some  security  for  better  government.  The  nobles  reminded 
him  that  the  last  time  he  appealed  to  them  he  had  promised 
by  charter  not  to  do  so  again ;  they  blamed  him  for  bring- 
ing over  his  foreign  relations  and  friends,  and  setting  them 
in  places  which  should  be  filled  by  Englishmen.  They 
complained  that  he  allowed  his  subjects  to  be  impoverished 
by  arbitrary  exactions  and  impositions,  and  that  he  had 
kept  Sees  and  abbacies  in  his  hands,  in  order  to  enjoy  their 

1  Matthew  Paris,  iv.  617-622 


HENRY  III  PREPARES  FOR  THE  CRUSADE  275 

revenues  during  the  vacancies.  Henry  was  repentant,  and 
once  again  he  promised  that  all  complaints  should  be  re- 
dressed ;  but  even  this  did  not  satisfy  the  meeting.  His 
counsellors  had  bitter  remembrances  of  broken  promises. 
The  past  brought  visions  of  a  similar  future,  and  so  they 
agreed  to  grant  no  pecuniary  assistance  until  the  8th  of 
July  following,  and  thus  to  allow  a  six  months'  trial  of  the 
king's  good  dispositions.  They  promised  that  if  during 
that  period  Henry  would  act  up  to  his  professions,  they 
would  then  be  disposed  to  give  him  all  he  asked  of  them.1 

When  on  8th  July,  the  day  appointed,  parliament  again 
assembled,  the  members  fully  believed  that  the  king  would 
be  prepared  to  show  himself  amenable  to  the  reasonable 
wishes  of  his  subjects.  They  were,  however,  quickly  un- 
deceived. Henry  at  once  declared  his  unwillingness  to  be 
dictated  to  by  his  subjects,  or  to  be  bound  by  any  conditions 
which  they  might  wish  to  impose  upon  him.  It  was  his 
place,  he  said,  to  rule,  theirs  to  obey :  "  the  servant  is  not 
above  his  lord  nor  the  disciple  above  his  master,"  he  said 
(quoting  St.  Matthew's  gospel),  "  and  I  should  not  be  your 
king,  but  a  mere  slave,  if  I  were  to  bow  in  this  way  to  your 
will." 

Parliament,  notwithstanding  the  royal  attitude,  was  firm 
in  its  refusal  to  grant  the  money  without  the  promised  re- 
forms, and  so  the  king  hastily  dissolved  the  assembly 
The  money  asked  for  was,  however,  now  imperatively 
necessary.  To  obtain  it,  Henry  sold  his  plate  and  jewels 
to  the  City  of  London,  but  apparently  with  the  secret  de- 
sign of  some  day  or  other  recovering  his  valuables  from  them. 
Pope  Innocent  I  Vchose  this  moment  to  remind  the  king  that 
the  annual  English  tribute  of  a  thousand  marks  to  the  Holy 
See  was  now  due,  and  to  ask  that  it  might  be  paid  over  to 

1  Matthew  Paris,  v.  6-8. 


276  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

the  Knights  Templars  at  Lyons,  from  whom  he  had 
borrowed  the  sum  in  anticipation.1  At  this  same  time,  also, 
the  pope  was  actively  stirring  up  the  bishops  of  Lincoln 
and  Worcester,  who  were  his  agents  in  the  matter  of  the 
crusade,  to  see  that  proper  collections  for  this  purpose  were 
made  in  the  country.2  Henry,  however,  had  already  come 
to  an  understanding  with  the  pope.  On  his  promise  to 
take  the  cross,  which  he  made  in  the  summer  of  1247,  he 
had  requested  the  Holy  Father  to  allow  him,  towards  the 
necessary  expenses  of  his  preparations  for  the  crusade,  the 
various  sums  collected  in  England  for  the  purpose ;  and 
Innocent  IV  had  replied  by  praising  the  king  for  his  "  true 
faith  and  devotion  towards  his  mother  the  Roman  Church, 
which  he  had  so  often  experienced,"  and  by  promising  to 
write  to  the  bishops  of  Lincoln  and  Worcester  on  the 
matter.3  This  the  pope  did  the  same  day,  announcing  that 
Henry  was  to  start  within  a  year  after  the  French  expedi- 
tion had  sailed,  and  telling  them  to  satisfy  their  king  as  to 
the  payment  to  him  of  the  collections  for  the  Holy  Land.4 
At  Henry's  request  the  pontiff  wrote  also  to  St.  Louis  of 
France  and  to  Queen  Blanche,  begging  them  to  allow  Guy, 
son  of  the  earl  of  March,  to  be  freed  from  his  promise  to  go 
with  the  French  force,  as  it  was  proposed  to  make  him 
leader  of  the  English  crusaders. 

Although  at  this  period  the  number  of  presentations  of 
foreigners  made  by  the  pope  to  English  benefices  was 
comparatively  few,  they  were  still  sufficiently  numerous  to 
keep  the  popular  attention  fixed  on  the  subject.  Arch- 
bishop Boniface,  writing  from  the  Curia  to  Bishop  Grosse- 
teste,  passed  on  to  him  a  papal  command  to  find  a  benefice 

1  P.R.O.  Papal  Bulls,  Bundle  liii.  No.  3. 

8  Registres  <f  Innocent  IV,  i.  No.  3,838.  *  Ibid.,  No.  4,054. 

*  Ibia.,  No.  4,055. 


HENRY  III  PREPARES  FOR  THE  CRUSADE  277 

or  benefices,  with  or  without  the  cure  of  souls,  to  the  value 
of  three  hundred  marks,  for  Robert,  son  of  the  duke  of 
Burgundy.  "  Though  we  are  bound,"  says  the  pope's  letter, 
"  to  desire  to  provide  for  all  who  ask  this  favour  from  us, 
we  are  more  constrained  to  have  a  special  care  for  those 
who  are  sprung  from  a  noble  stock,  when  they  have  merited 
'  our  Apostolic  gratitude  by  their  true  devotion."  Remem- 
bering therefore  the  true  and  sincere  service  shown  to  us 
and  the  Roman  Church  "  by  the  duke  of  Burgundy,  we 
desire  to  give  him  a  proof  of  the  love  we  bear  him,  by  ex- 
tending our  service  to  his  children  also."  For  this  reason 
Archbishop  Boniface  was  ordered,  under  severe  censures,  to 
find  the  youth  a  suitable  benefice  in  the  province  of  Canter- 
bury ;  and  he,  in  his  turn,  forwarded  the  order  to  the 
bishop  of  Lincoln ;  and,  under  similar  penalties,  he  pro- 
hibited him  from  conferring  any  benefice  whatsoever  in  his 
diocese  on  any  individual,  until  this  command  of  the  pope 
has  been  carried  out,1  and  the  son  of  the  duke  of  Burgundy 
had  been  comfortably  provided  for. 

An  interesting  question  on  the  subject  of  episcopal 
elections  was  raised  in  the  early  part  of  1 248.  The  previous 
year  the  bishop  of  St.  Asaph  died,  and  the  Chapter  unani- 
mously elected  their  dean  in  his  place  and  sent  representa- 
tives to  Lyons  to  obtain  the  confirmation  of  the  archbishop, 
who  was  then  in  the  Curia.  The  pope,  however,  took  the 
matter  into  his  own  hands,  probably  because  the  powers  of 
confirming  suffragans  were  given  to  the  archbishop  of 
Canterbury  only  when  in  England.  He  appointed  the 
cardinal-bishop  of  Albano  to  examine  and  confirm  the 
elect,  if  the  examination  was  satisfactory.  The  cardinal, 
however,  referred  the  matter  again  to  Archbishop  Boniface, 
before  whom  the  proctor  of  the  English  king  entered  a  pro- 

1  Additamenta,  149. 


2;3    HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

test  against  the  confirmation,  on  the  ground  that  the  royal 
assent  had  not  been  obtained  before  the  election.  On  this 
plea  the  business  was  adjourned,  to  enable  the  king's  repre- 
sentatives to  prove  this  right  before  the  officials  of  Canter- 
bury. This  was  not  done,  even  after  repeated  warnings, 
and  finally  the  pope  directed  the  archbishop  to  confirm  the 
election,  whether  the  royal  assent  should  have  been  asked 
or  not.1 

Innocent  IV  was  at  this  time  evidently  inclined  to  in- 
sist upon  his  right  to  present  foreigners  to  English  livings, 
however  unpopular  the  exercise  of  the  right  might  be.  In 
1 248  he  appointed  the  dean  of  Wells  to  act  on  his  behalf 
in  compensating  a  Roman  cleric  for  not  having  J&eived 
institution  to  a  benefice  to  which  he  had  been  provided. 
Two  years  before,  I5th  January,  1246,  John  Asten,  papal 
sub-deacon  and  chaplain,  had  been  granted  a  prebend  in 
the  diocese  of  London,  which  had  formerly  been  held  by 
another  Roman,  lately  dead,  and  the  bishop  of  London  was 
directed  to  install  him.2  This  the  bishop  had  refused  or 
neglected  to  do;  and  so,  in  July  1248,  the  dean  of  Wells 
was  ordered  to  deal  with  the  matter,  and  to  grant  to  John 
Asten  out  of  the  revenues  of  the  See  of  London  an  annuity 
equal  to  the  value  of  the  prebend  at  St.  Paul's.3 

At  Abingdon  trouble  came  from  the  same  cause.  The 
abbot  had  received  from  the  pope  an  order  to  provide  a 
Roman  ecclesiastic  with  a  suitable  benefice.  The  foreigner 
in  question,  not  wishing  to  take  any  living,  waited  patiently 
until  the  best  vicarage  at  the  disposal  of  the  monks,  that 
of  St.  Helen's,  Abingdon,  fell  vacant,  when  he  claimed  it 
by  virtue  of  the  Apostolic  grant.  The  same  day  the  abbot 
received  a  request,  that  was  virtually  an  order,  from  the 

1  Registres  <f  Innocent  IV,  i.  No.  3,669. 

3  P.  R.  O.  Papal  Bulls,  Bundle  xx.  No.  44.       3  Ibid.,  Bundle  xix.  No.  29. 


HENRY  III  PREPARES  FOR  THE  CRUSADE  279 

king,  that  the  living  should  be  given  to  his  half-brother, 
Aethelmar.  The  community,  when  consulted,  considered 
that  the  better  course  would  be  to  please  the  king,  and 
they  bestowed  the  benefice  as  he  desired.  The  Roman 
ecclesiastic,  however,  was  far  from  pleased  that  his  claim 
had  been  set  aside,  even  at  the  king's  desire,  and  he  com- 
plained to  the  pope,  who  at  once  ordered  the  abbot  to 
appear  personally  before  him  at  Lyons.  At  first  the  abbot, 
John  de  Blomerie,  hoped  to  secure  the  king's  protection 
for  himself  and  his  convent  in  this  matter,  and,  as  he  was 
a  very  old  man  in  infirm  health,  trusted  through  Henry's  in- 
fluence to  be  allowed  merely  to  send  proctors  to  represent 
him.  But  the  king,  having  got  what  he  wished,  had  no  de- 
sire to  help  the  abbot,  who  was  obliged  to  make  the  journey 
to  Lyons.  At  the  Curia, after  long  delays,  and  at  considerable 
cost  to  the  abbey,  it  was  decided  that  the  Roman  ecclesi- 
astic was  to  be  consoled  for  his  disappointment  by  receiv- 
ing an  annuity  of  fifty  marks  out  of  the  abbatial  revenue.1 
The  year  1249  was  begun  by  the  king's  exaction  of 
large  sums  of  money  from  the  London  citizens  under  the 
title  of  New  Year's  gifts.  He  suspended  their  right  of 
holding  a  market  in  favour  of  a  new  one  he  set  up  at 
Westminster,  but  offered  to  allow  them  to  purchase  a  new 
grant  by  the  payment  of  two  thousand  marks.  At  the  same 
time  he  invited  many  of  the  nobles  to  come  to  Westminster 
at  the  Epiphany  to  keep  St.  Edward's  feast,  which  this 
year  was  celebrated  with  great  pomp.  As  he  could  not  get 
them,  as  a  body,  to  consent  to  give  him  the  money  he 
needed,  he  applied  to  individuals,  representing  his  poverty, 
and  that  he  was  bound  to  meet  at  once  a  debt  of  thirty 
thousand  marks.  He  appealed  also  to  their  patriotism,  re- 
presenting the  need  of  recovering  lost  possessions  in  France. 

1  Matthew  Paris,  v.  39-40. 


280  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

As  it  was  known,  however,  that  the  pope  had  prohibited  him 
from  in  any  way  attacking  the  French  king's  possessions 
whilst  he  was  away  on  the  crusade,  this  suggested  reason 
for  requiring  money  only  raised  a  smile.  In  this  design  for 
extorting  assistance,  therefore,  Henry  did  not  succed,  al- 
though it  was  hinted  somewhat  mysteriously  that  the 
pope's  representative,  Master  Albert,  had  received  papal 
powers  to  place  England  under  an  interdict  if  the  people 
still  rebelled  against  the  royal  demands. 

Failing  with  the  nobility,  the  king  next  turned  his 
attention  to  the  religious  houses,  and  endeavoured  to  ob- 
tain the  much  needed  money  as  a  present,  or  at  any  rate 
as  a  loan,  from  various  abbots.  Early  in  1249,  whilst  on 
the  road  to  Huntingdon,  he  sent  for  Ranulf,  the  abbot  of 
Ramsey,  and  earnestly  begged  him  to  give  him  a  hundred 
pounds,  or  at  least  to  lend  him  the  sum.  "  I  am  really  in 
want,"  he  said,  "and  I  must  have  money  at  once."  The 
abbot,  taken  by  surprise,  was  forced  to  raise  the  money  at 
heavy  interest  from  the  Florentine  usurers.  In  the  same 
way  he  tried  the  abbot  of  Peterborough,  declaring  that  no 
beggar  needed  help  more  than  he,  their  king,  did.  Abbot 
William,  however,  knowing  the  pecuniary  condition  of  his 
house,  was  firm  in  his  refusal  to  burden  it  still  further  with 
debt ;  but  from  the  abbot  of  St.  Alban's,  by  similar  com- 
plaints as  to  his  poverty,  he  obtained  sixty  marks.  This 
success,  with  these  and  other  abbots  singly,  emboldened 
Henry  to  demand  a  general  contribution  from  all  the 
religious  houses  in  Essex  and  Hertford.  He  wished,  he 
wrote,  to  test  the  friendship  of  his  devoted  and  faithful 
subjects,  by  asking  their  assistance  to  enable  him  to  pro- 
tect the  rights  of  his  kingdom ;  and,  as  the  truce  between 
England  and  France  was  at  an  end,  it  was  necessary  to 
endeavour  at  once  to  recover  the  ancient  possessions  of  the 


HENRY  III  PREPARES  FOR  THE  CRUSADE  281 

Crown  beyond  the  seas.  To  do  this  would  entail  great 
expenses,  and  he  consequently  had  turned  to  them,  and 
had  sent  Simon  Passelew  with  the  sheriffs  to  explain  his 
needs  and  to  collect  what  they  would  no  doubt  "  so  abund- 
antly offer  to  him,  as  to  deserve  his  royal  thanks  and  great 
reward."  At  the  same  time  it  was  known  that  the  money 
was  not  required  for  the  purposes  he  had  named,  but  to 
pay  the  debts  he,  contrary  to  his  promises,  had  incurred  in 
Poitou  and  Gascony,1  since  the  truce  between  the  kings  of 
England  and  France  had  been  prolonged.2 

On  23rd  January,  1249,  the  pope  issued  another  Bull 
concerning  those  royal  estates  which  had  at  any  time 
during  his  reign  been  granted  away.  It  was  couched  in 
almost  identical  language  to  the  one  previously  issued  on 
the  same  subject  to  the  nobles  and  prelates,  and  authorised 
the  king  to  make  a  resumption  of  all  such  Crown  possessions, 
notwithstanding  any  previous  promise.3  At  this  time,  Arch- 
bishop Boniface  was  about  to  return  to  England  in  order 
that  his  long-delayed  enthronisation  at  Canterbury  might 
at  last  take  place.  A  letter  from  the  pope,  giving  him 
power  to  reward  some  of  his  clerks  with  benefices  in  any 
part  of  his  province  except  in  the  dioceses  of  Lincoln  and 
Salisbury,  marks  his  departure  from  the  Curia.4  A  warning 
in  the  same  year,  addressed  to  the  prebendaries  of  Chichester, 
shows  that  the  archbishop  intended  to  enforce,  to  the  full- 
est extent,  rights  which  had  been  given  him  by  the  pope, 
in  regard  to  the  first  fruits  of  all  English  canonries.  On 
the  death  of  a  prebendary,  it  had  been  the  custom,  approved 
of  by  more  than  one  pope,  that  the  first  year's  revenues 
should  be  divided,  one  part  going  to  the  prebendary  newly 
appointed,  and  the  other  to  the  cathedral  church.  On  re- 

1  Matthew  Paris,  v.  49-53.  a  Rymer,  i.  209. 

3  Registres  d' Innocent  IV.  ii.  No.  4,393.  *  Ibid.,  No.  4,496. 


282 


HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 


ceiving  notice  of  the  papal  gift  of  the  first  year's  income 
for  seven  years  to  the  archbishop,  the  canons  of  Chichester 
had  concluded  that  this  only  applied  to  the  half,  which 
under  ordinary  circumstances  would  have  gone  to  the  new 
prebendary,  as  they  considered  that  the  other  half  already 
belonged  to  the  cathedral  fabric,  with  the  sanction  of 
previous  popes.  They  were  now  undeceived;  and  they 
were  threatened  with  extreme  spiritual  penalties  unless  the 
whole  sum  was  paid  to  the  archbishop  in  order  to  ex- 
tinguish the  debts  of  his  See.1  On  All  Saints'  day,  1249, 
the  archbishop  was  enthroned  in  the  presence  of  the  king 
and  queen  and  most  of  the  English  prelates.2  He  had  been 
elected  in  1240,  confirmed  by  the  pope  in  1245,  and  now, 
after  nearly  nine  years,  and  when  already  his  predecessor, 
St.  Edmund,  had  been  canonised  for  more  than  two  years, 
at  length  took  possession  of  his  See. 


1  Wilkins,  i.  696. 


2  Matthew  Paris,  v.  So. 


CHAPTER  XVI 
ARCHBISHOP  BONIFACE 

ONE  of  the  first  acts  which  the  archbishop  of  Canterbury 
on  taking  possession  of  his  See  was  called  upon  to  do,  was 
to  circulate  a  letter  addressed  to  him  and  his  suffragans  by 
the  pope  on  24th  September,  1249.  This  document  dealt 
with  the  troubles  and  afflictions  of  the  Church,  caused  not 
only,  as  the  pope  said,  by  those  that  had  not  the  faith  and 
did  not  acknowledge  the  Church  as  a  spiritual  mother,  but 
even  by  those  who  had  been  received  into  its  bosom  by 
the  regenerating  waters  of  baptism.  It  then  pointed  out 
the  sorrow  which  the  continued  revolt  of  the  emperor 
Frederick  against  papal  authority  had  given  to  the  heart 
of  the  supreme  pastor,  and  expatiated  upon  the  serious  state 
of  affairs  in  the  Holy  Land.  For  all  these  reasons  the 
pontiff  urged  the  faithful  to  unite  in  prayer,  that  God  might 
remedy  the  ills  from  which  the  Church  was  suffering. 

Early  in  the  year  1250,  the  king  again  applied  to  the 
pope  to  force  the  ecclesiastics  of  England  to  give  him  sub- 
stantial .assistance.  On  I3th  April,  Innocent  IV  replied 
that  he  rejoiced  to  hear  that  Henry  was  getting  ready 
"  with  power  and  might,  and,  moved  with  zeal  for  the  faith 
and  devotion,"  was  preparing  to  come  to  the  help  of  the 
Holy  Land.  "  As  this  business  necessitates  great  expenses," 
he  writes,  "  previously  and  now  again,  you  have  asked  me 
to  grant  you  a  tenth  of  all  the  ecclesiastical  revenues  of 
your  kingdom  and  of  other  lands  subject  to  your  juris- 

283 


284  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

diction."  Although  most  desirous  to  do  what  you  ask  as 
far  as  possible,  it  is  to  be  remembered  that  we  did  not 
grant  this  to  the  French  king,  after  he  had  taken  the  cross, 
until  he  had  first  obtained  the  consent  of  the  prelates  of  his 
kingdom.  Wishful,  however,  that  you  should  obtain  the 
tenth,  we  have  asked  the  prelates  of  your  kingdom  to  act 
as  liberally  and  willingly  in  what  you  desire,  as  those  of 
France  have  done.  They  have  replied,  asking  us  "  to  pro- 
vide for  you  generously  out  of  the  ecclesiastical  revenues 
of  the  kingdom  for  so  important  a  business,  which  is 
pleasing  and  acceptable  to  us."  It  was  necessary,  however, 
so  as  not  to  forget  the  duties  of  the  office  which  has  set 
him  over  all  the  Lord's  flock,  he  continued,  to  point  out  to 
the  king  a  danger  which  threatened  all  Christendom.  The 
French  king  and  his  brothers  were  already  away;  and,  as  by 
the  two  nations  of  France  and  England  the  Christian  religion 
was  chiefly  sustained,  it  might  be  a  real  danger  should 
Henry  also  now  be  absent  from  his  kingdom.  It  would 
possibly  therefore  be  better  that  he  should  delay  his  ex- 
pedition. "  But,"  continues  the  pope,  "  whatever  you  shall 
determine  as  to  this,  it  has  been  necessary  for  you,  in  order 
to  carry  out  the  design,  to  incur  expenses ;  and,  as  holy 
mother  the  Church  should  encourage  and  as  far  as  possible 
assist  your  Majesty's  praiseworthy  design,  we  have  thought 
proper  to  grant  your  Highness  for  three  years  a  tenth  of  all 
the  ecclesiastical  revenues  of  your  kingdom  and  of  all  other 
lands  subject  to  your  jurisdiction,  to  assist  you  in  the  ex- 
pedition to  the  said  Holy  Land.  We  have  given  orders  to 
our  brethren,  the  archbishop  of  Canterbury  and  the  bishop 
of  Hereford,  to  hand  over  the  tenth  to  you  without  delay 
or  without  any  deductions,  when  it  is  collected  and  when 
you  wish  to  begin  your  journey  over  the  seas." 1 
1  Rymer,  i.  272. 


ARCHBISHOP  BONIFACE  285 

A  few  days  later,  on  24th  April,  Innocent  IV  addressed 
an  urgent  letter  to  some  of  the  bishops  of  England  and  to 
the  provincials  of  the  Franciscans  and  Dominicans,  urging 
them  to  exhort  the  English  people,  whom  he  calls  the  Strenui 
Angliae  pugiles,  Domini  athletae  divini,  to  take  up  the 
work  of  the  crusades  with  enthusiasm.  Great  Indulgences 
were  promised  to  those  who  would  promise  to  go  and 
would  pay  their  own  expenses,  or  would  furnish  others  in 
their  places,  or  would  devote  a  quarter  or  half  of  their 
revenue  to  this  purpose.  Other  Indulgences  are  promised 
to  such  as  contribute  a  tenth  of  their  income  to  the  ex- 
penses of  the  king,  or  are  willing  to  help  those  who  are  ap- 
pointed to  preach  the  crusade.  If  any  crusader  is  in  the 
hands  of  usurers,  the  ecclesiastical  authority  is  to  be  in- 
voked to  force  the  money  lender  to  desist  from  requiring 
the  excessive  interest,  and  if  he  has  already  been  compelled 
to  pay,  the  same  authority  is  to  force  the  usurer  to  restore 
it.  If  the  money  lender  was  a  Jew,  and  so  not  amenable 
to  spiritual  censures,  the  faithful  are  to  be  prohibited  from 
holding  any  intercourse  with  him  until  he  has  complied 
with  this  direction.  Then,  after  giving  the  bishops  named 
in  the  Apostolic  letters  to  preach  the  crusade,  ample  powers 
to  deal  with  special  cases  as  they  rose,  the  pope  directs 
them  to  pay  whatever  sums  they  collect  to  the  king,  when 
he  was  ready  to  start  on  his  expedition,  except  when  he, 
the  pope,  should  otherwise  direct.1 

A  day  or  two  later,  Innocent  IV  sent  a  further  letter  to 
the  archbishops  of  Canterbury  and  York  and  to  the  bishops 
of  Hereford,  Ely,  and  Durham,  concerning  the  payments 
to  be  made  out  of  the  ecclesiastical  revenues  to  the  king. 
With  their  consent,  he  said,  he  had  granted  Henry  a  tenth 
of  their  revenues  for  three  years.  These  bishops  were  to 

1  Rymer,  i.  273. 


286  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

collect  this  tithe  and  to  keep  it  safely,  until  the  English 
king,  having  taken  the  oath,  was  ready  to  begin  his  journey, 
when  they  were  to  pay  over  to  him  the  tenth  for  two  years 
and  all  sums  obtained  for  the  dispensation  of  crusading 
vows.1 

As  the  year  went  on,  any  doubt  that  the  pope  may 
have  entertained  as  to  the  inadvisability  of  Henry's  starting 
on  his  crusade  seems  to  have  disappeared,  and  he  wrote  to 
him  urging  him  not  to  delay  his  departure  for  the  Holy 
Land.2  The  payments  of  the  tithe  of  ecclesiastical  revenues 
to  the  French  king  hardly  seem  to  have  been  more  readily 
made  in  that  country  than  they  were  in  England.  Pope 
Innocent  IV  had  held  up  the  example  of  the  foreign  ec- 
clesiastics to  induce  those  of  this  country  to  emulate  their 
generosity  to  their  sovereign ;  but  it  was  rumoured  over 
here  that  the  French  king,  St.  Louis,  had  obtained  the 
papal  sanction  to  receive  this  subsidy  from  the  church 
revenues  of  his  country,  only  on  condition  that  after  the 
three  years,  for  which  this  grant  was  made,  the  pope  might 
be  allowed  to  take  a  similar  tithe  from  French  benefices  for 
his  war  against  the  emperor  Frederick.  Whether  this  ar- 
rangement was  made  or  no,  when  the  French  monarch  had 
received  his  portion  for  three  years  he  refused  to  allow  any 
further  sums  to  go  into  the  papal  exchequer.3  In  England, 
however,  it  was  also  with  reason  suspected  that  there  was 
some  arrangement  between  Henry's  agents  at  the  Curia 
and  Innocent  IV,  and  that  once  the  process  of  levying 
large  sums  upon  the  ecclesiastical  revenues  had  been 
initiated  with  success,  it  would  be  continued,  sometimes  for 
the  needs  of  the  pope,  sometimes  for  those  of  the  king. 

With  the  beginning  of  the  year  1250  the  strained  rela- 

1  Rymer,  i.  274.  a  P.  R.  O.  Papal  Bulls,  Bundle  xix.  No.  21. 

8  Matthew  Paris,  v.  171. 


ARCHBISHOP  BONIFACE  287 

tions  between  Bishop  Grosseteste,  of  Lincoln,  and  the 
religious  of  his  diocese  reached  the  breaking-point.  On 
1 3th  January,  1250,  the  religious  superiors  met,  by  his 
direction,  at  Leicester,  to  hear  the  tenor  of  a  papal  Bull 
regarding  them,  which  he  had  obtained  from  the  pope, 
through  his  clerk,  Master  Leonard,  who  having  often  been 
at  the  Curia,  knew  the  ways  by  which  such  instruments 
could  be  secured.1  The  document  was  short,  but  of  great 
importance  to  the  regular  orders  of  the  great  Lincoln 
diocese.  It  was  dated  on  the  i/th  of  May  previously,  and 
it  simply  declared  that  the  bishop  had  informed  the  Holy 
See  that  many  monasteries  and  other  religious  places  were 
in  possession  of  impropriated  churches  and  other  eccle- 
siastical benefices  and  tithes,  for  which  they  could  not 
show  the  consent  of  the  Lincoln  Chapter  ;  and  that  by  this 
letter  Grosseteste  was  empowered  to  take  all  these  posses- 
sions from  them.2 

An  appeal  to  the  pope  followed  as  a  matter  of  course  ; 
the  cause  being  supported  by  all  the  religious  bodies.  As 
all  the  impropriations  had  necessarily  been  made  by  the 
original  patrons  of  the  livings,  with  the  sanction  of  the 
Curial  authorities,  it  was  difficult  to  understand  how  this 
sudden  and  general  revocation  could  have  been  obtained 
from  the  pope  without  examination  into  a  matter  affecting 
the  interests  of  so  many.  It  was  evident,  however,  that 
every  effort  would  now  be  needed  on  the  bishop's  part 
to  prevent  a  revocation  of  the  document,  and  he  himself 
set  out  to  Lyons  to  support  his  own  case.  After  working 
strenuously  for  some  time  in  the  Curia,  it  was  made  clear 
to  him  that  it  was  impossible  to  uphold  the  document 
in  question,  and  that  the  appeal  of  the  religious  bodies 
against  him  would  be  successful.  In  an  interview  with 

1  Matthew  Paris,  v.  96.  *  Additamenta,  p.  152. 


288  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

Innocent  IV,  the  bishop  expressed  his  strong  disappoint- 
ment at  this  failure  in  a  matter  which  he  thought  he  had 
secured,  and  which  he  had  so  much  at  heart.1  He  fared 
no  better  in  another  cause,  in  which  the  king  had  appealed 
to  the  pope  against  his  action.  It  appears  that  Bishop 
Grosseteste  had  summoned  the  sheriff  of  Rutland  to  answer, 
before  his  ecclesiastical  court,  for  neglecting  to  capture 
the  person  of  an  incriminated  clerk.  On  the  king  being 
applied  to  on  the  matter,  he  strongly  resented  the  bishop's 
action  in  dealing  in  so  high-handed  a  way  with  the  re- 
presentative of  the  Crown  in  that  part  of  the  country.  The 
case  was  laid  before  the  papal  officials  by  the  king's  agents 
at  Lyons,  and  Pope  Innocent  forbade  the  bishop  hence- 
forth to  summon  the  royal  bailiffs  to  answer  for  a  secular 
matter  before  ecclesiastical  courts.2 

It  was  not  until  September  that  the  bishop  of  Lincoln 
returned  from  Lyons  to  his  diocese.  His  action  had  cost 
him  much  money,  but  the  defence  of  the  religious  had 
impoverished  them  also ;  and  in  view  of  the  many  dif- 
ficulties which  were  apparently  at  hand  through  the  re- 
versal of  his  policy  by  the  supreme  authority  of  Pope 
Innocent,  Grosseteste  seriously  thought  of  resigning  his 
See  and  devoting  the  remainder  of  his  life  to  study.  He 
was  turned  from  his  project,  however,  by  remembering 
that  the  king  was  wont  to  impoverish  bishoprics  which 
fell  into  his  hands,  and  by  appointing  also  unworthy 
clerks  to  benefices  falling  vacant  before  the  appointment 
of  a  successor.  The  idea  of  seeing  this  done  in  the  case 
of  Lincoln  on  his  resignation  was  altogether  too  repugnant 
to  him  to  permit  him  to  carry  out  his  purpose.  Moreover, 
as  he  says  in  a  letter  written  at  this  period  to  his  clergy, 
the  pope  intervened,  and  his  was  "  an  authority,  to  disobey 

1  Matthew  Paris,  v.  97.  2  Ibid.,  109. 


ARCHBISHOP  BONIFACE  289 

which  would  be  considered  wicked;  and  that  authority, 
which  withdrew  us  for  a  time  from  your  presence,  inter- 
posed, and  prevented  our  carrying  out  our  design."  1 

In  this  same  year,  1250,  when  the  process  of  levying 
the  tax  on  all  the  benefices  of  the  Canterbury  province 
imposed  by  the  pope  to  pay  off  the  debts  of  the  archi- 
episcopal  See  was  being  pushed  forward,  Henry  interfered 
to  protect  his  royal  chapels.  A  synod  was  gathered  at 
Oxford  in  the  April  of  this  year,  and  the  king  sent  his 
prohibition  to  the  bishops  against  attempting  to  claim  the 
sums  required.  The  royal  chapels  had  always  asserted  their 
absolute  immunity,  and  "  no  lord  pope  nor  any  archbishop  " 
had  ever  claimed  power  over  them.  They  were  not  to 
try  and  obtain  this  tax  by  any  means,  and  the  king  wound 
up  his  prohibition  with  the  following :  "  We  warn  you," 
he  says,  "  not  to  be  talebearers  or  accusers  of  us  to  the 
Apostolic  See,  or  anywhere  else,  as  to  matters  pertaining 
to  our  rights  and  liberties,  as  you  desire  to  avoid  our 
indignation  and  keep  the  fealty  you  have  sworn  by  oath." a 
The  same  day  he  wrote  a  special  letter  on  the  same  sub- 
ject to  the  bishop  of  London,  who  had  been  endeavouring 
to  secure  payment  from  the  royal  chaplains.  It  is  not 
to  be  allowed,  King  Henry  says,  and  I  will  look  upon 
any  attempt  to  enforce  the  papal  grant  to  enable  the  See 
of  Canterbury  to  get  rid  of  its  debts,  as  "  a  grave  injury 
and  insult  to  the  royal  dignity,"  and  this  is  to  apply  to  all 
the  livings  or  prebends  they  hold.3 

Archbishop  Boniface  had  not  been  many  months  in 
England  before  his  views  as  to  the  extent  of  the  archi- 
episcopal  authority  led  to  considerable  friction  with  his 
suffragan  bishops.  He  appears  to  have  claimed  universal 

1  Grosseteste,  Epist.  49.  2  Wilkins,  i.  697. 

3  Royal  and  other  Hist.  Letters,  ii.  60. 

U 


290  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

powers  of  visitation  in  any  diocese  of  his  province.  Bishops, 
abbots,  the  clergy  and  laity  were  all  declared  subject  to 
canonical  inquiry  at  his  hands.  He  began  with  his  own 
monastic  Chapter,  and  soon  caused  them  to  regret  the  rule 
of  his  predecessor,  St.  Edmund,  whom  in  his  lifetime  they 
had  regarded  as  so  stern  and  unbending.  From  Canter- 
bury he  went  to  Faversham  and  Rochester,  requiring  from 
each  place  such  considerable  sums  of  money  in  payment 
for  the  expenses  of  his  visit,  that  it  created  a  suspicion 
that  this  was  one  of  the  chief  causes  for  his  increasing 
activity.  On  I2th  May,  1250,  he  reached  London,  and 
at  once  declared  his  intention  of  making  a  formal  visita- 
tion of  the  bishop,  of  his  Chapter,  and  of  the  religious 
houses  within  that  jurisdiction.  He  took  up  his  abode 
at  the  palace  of  the  bishop  of  Chichester  as  if  he  were 
the  master,  and  his  servants  went  into  the  city  and  took 
possession  of  what  food  his  household  required  as  if  they 
were  purveyors  to  the  king  himself.  The  next  day  he 
made  his  visitation  of  Bishop  Fulk,  attended  by  a  small 
army  of  a  hundred  armed  men  besides  his  clerks,  for  all 
of  whom  the  bishop  was  called  upon  to  find  meat,  drink, 
and  lodging.  Boniface  then  proceeded  to  St.  Paul's  with 
the  intention  of  forcing  his  claims  as  to  visitation  upon 
the  Chapter  of  the  cathedral.  Here  he  encountered  serious 
opposition,  the  dean  and  canons  appealing  to  the  Holy 
See  against  his  pretensions  to  the  possession  of  rights 
which  had  never  been  exercised  before.  The  demands 
for  admission  were  met  by  absolute  refusal,  and  Boni- 
face of  Savoy  retaliated  by  excommunicating  the  entire 
Chapter. 

The  archbishop  then  turned  to  the  religious  houses  of 
the  city,  in  the  hopes  that  in  them  he  should  experience 
less  opposition  to  his  designs.  His  first  essay  was  made  at 


ARCHBISHOP  BONIFACE  291 

St.  Bartholomew's,  the  priory  of  canons  of  St.  Augustine, 
in  Smithfield.  The  prior  was  absent,  but  the  sub-prior  re- 
solved to  receive  him  with  every  honour,  and  he  with  the 
whole  community,  vested  in  copes,  led  him  to  the  church 
in  solemn  procession.  This  was  not  exactly  what  Boniface 
desired,  and  he  let  them  know  that  he  had  come  to  make 
a  formal  and  canonical  visitation.  They  at  once  declared 
their  resolution  not  to  accept  him  in  that  capacity,  which 
so  angered  him  that,  if  we  are  to  credit  the  historian,  the 
archbishop  so  far  forgot  himself  as  to  raise  his  hand  against 
the  aged  sub-prior,  calling  him  and  his  brethren  "  English 
traitors."  His  action  led  to  a  general  brawl,  in  which  many 
of  the  canons  were  illtreated  and  wounded  by  the  armed 
retainers  of  the  archbishop.  Acting  upon  the  advice  of 
the  bishop  of  London  the  canons  appealed,  but  without 
success,  to  the  king,  who  was  then  at  Westminster.  Henry, 
in  spite  of  the  angry  protests  of  the  citizens  of  London, 
and  their  threats  of  violence  against  the  archbishop  for  the 
injury  done  to  the  canons  of  St.  Bartholomew's  priory, 
without  hearing  the  aggrieved  parties,  promised  to  defend 
the  archbishop  and  his  acts,  both  against  his  own  subjects 
and  before  the  Holy  See.  Under  cover  of  this  royal  pro- 
tection and  favour,  Boniface  made  another  attempt  to  visit 
the  priory  of  Holy  Trinity,  but  was  again  unsuccessful. 
Upon  this,  recognising  that  success  was  impossible,  in  his 
chapel  of  Lambeth  he  publicly  renewed  his  sentence  of 
excommunication  against  the  dean  and  Chapter  of  St. 
Paul's,  and  included  in  it  the  canons  of  Smithfield  and  the 
bishop  of  London,  as  their  sympathiser  and  defender. 

From  London  the  archbishop  of  Canterbury  retired  to 
his  house  at  Harrow,  with  the  ultimate  intention  of  assert- 
ing his  right  of  visitation  in  the  case  of  St.  Alban's,  seven 
miles  from  this  manor  house.  On  the  advice  of  friends, 


292  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

however,  he  desisted,  and  at  once  made  preparations  for  a 
journey  to  the  Roman  Curia,  which  was  necessitated  by 
the  appeals  which  had  been  laid  before  the  pope  against 
his  actions.  The  dean  of  St.  Paul's,  accompanied  by  other 
proctors  of  the  bishops  and  of  the  canons  of  Smithfield, 
started  almost  immediately  for  Lyons,  where  the  papal 
court  was  still  located.1 

Archbishop  Boniface  desired  to  take  the  Franciscan, 
Adam  Marsh,  to  the  Roman  Curia  as  his  companion  and 
adviser.  Friar  Adam  was  apparently  not  only  an  admirer 
and  friend  of  the  archbishop,  but  a  firm  believer  in  the 
good  work  likely  to  be  done  by  the  general  visitation  of 
the  province  of  Canterbury,  thus  unhappily  begun  at 
Rochester  and  in  London.  He  would  gladly  have  ac- 
companied Boniface  to  the  Holy  See,  to  assist  him  in  the 
appeals  which  had  been  lodged  against  him,  but  he  was 
unable  to  leave  England  at  the  time;  and  in  writing  his 
regrets  to  Bishop  Grosseteste,  who  was  then  at  the  papal 
court,  he  .expresses  his  hope  that  at  any  rate  at  Lincoln 
the  archbishop  may  experience  no  sort  of  opposition.2  In 
another  letter  on  the  same  subject  Friar  Marsh  seems  to 
suggest  that  Grosseteste  might  himself  proceed  to  the 
Curia  in  his  place  and  help  to  defend  the  archiepiscopal 
rights.3  Grosseteste,  however,  did  not  quite  take  his  friend 
Adam  Marsh's  views,  and  he  wrote  to  the  archbishop 
begging  that  the  suspension  and  excommunication  pro- 
nounced at  Lambeth  against  the  bishop  of  London  might 
not  take  effect  until  after  the  bishops  of  the  Canterbury 
province  had  met  to  consider  the  situation.* 

Meanwhile  the  bishop  of  London  had  taken  counsel 
with  the  abbot  of  St.  Alban's.  In  a  letter  written  at  this 

1  Matthew  Paris,  v.  119-125.  2  Monumenta  Franciscana,  i.  131. 

3  Ibid.,  163.  *  Ibid,,  166. 


ARCHBISHOP  BONIFACE  293 

time  he  tells  the  abbot  that  the  rights  and  privileges  of  all 
in  the  province  of  Canterbury  are  in  jeopardy,  if  the  action 
of  the  archbishop  should  be  upheld  by  the  Roman  author- 
ities. He  forwards  a  copy  of  the  decretal,  upon  which  the 
archbishop  had  relied  for  his  authority,  and  requests  the 
abbot's  opinion  upon  the  matter.1  The  document  in  ques- 
tion emanated  from  the  then  pope,  Innocent  IV,  and 
certainly  gave  ample  powers  of  visitation :  nor  was  the 
right  confined  to  an  examination  of  the  greater  churches 
and  monasteries ;  but  at  the  will  of  the  archbishop  he  could 
extend  his  visitation  to  parochial  churches,  and  examine 
not  merely  clerics  but  the  laity  also.  Some  of  the  pro- 
visions of  this  papal  grant  are  curious:  the  archbishop  was 
not  to  begin  any  visitation  of  the  diocese  of  a  suffragan 
until  he  had  visited  his  own  Chapter  and  diocese,  and  he 
was  not  to  make  a  second  visitation  until  he  had  visited 
every  other  diocese  of  the  province.  Though  allowed  by 
this  decree  to  receive  support  for  his  attendants,  no  fees 
were  to  be  exacted;  and  all  presents,  even  if  voluntarily 
offered,  were  to  be  refused.2 

The  bishop  of  London,  acting  it  may  be  supposed  upon 
the  advice  he  received  from  St.  Alban's,  since  the  answers 
are  entered  in  the  register  of  that  monastery,  asked  for  an 
authenticated  copy  of  the  papal  decree,  which  was  refused. 
He  then  applied  for  an  appointment  of  a  joint  commission 
to  adjudicate  on  the  matters  at  issue  between  the  arch- 
bishop and  himself,  pledging  himself  to  abide  by  their 
decision ;  and,  in  case  of  disagreement,  to  lay  the  whole 
matter  before  the  pope  and  "  await  his  settlement."  As  an 
alternative  course,  it  was  suggested  that  the  bishop  should 
ask  the  archbishop  to  withdraw  his  sentences  and  sus- 
pensions, in  view  of  the  appeal  made  to  the  Roman  Curia, 

1  Matthew  Paris,  v.  125-126.  a  Additamenta,  188. 


294  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

and  pending  any  authoritative  declaration  to  desist  from 
any  attempt  to  visit  churches  and  religious  houses  in  other 
dioceses  but  his  own.  Meanwhile  the  archbishop  was  urged 
to  summon  all  his  suffragans,  including  the  bishop  of 
London  himself,  in  order  to  discuss  the  whole  question 
with  them.  If  this  were  done,  the  bishop  pledged  himself 
to  abide  by  the  view  of  the  majority.  Finally,  as  a  third 
course,  the  bishop  might  reasonably  ask  that  all  sentences 
be  removed  until  the  pope  had  finally  determined  the 
cause,  and  that  in  the  meantime  the  archbishop  might,  if 
he  chose,  proceed  to  visit  the  other  bishops  and  dioceses 
within  his  province.1 

Archbishop  Boniface  left  England  for  the  Roman  court 
in  May,  1250,  to  support  his  cause  against  Henry  of  Corn- 
hill,  dean  of  St.  Paul's,  and  others.2  About  Michaelmas 
Bishop  Grosseteste  returned  to  England  from  the  Curia, 
having  failed  to  secure  his  own  wishes  in  regard  to  the 
matters  which  had  taken  him  thither.  He  warned  his 
brother  bishops  of  the  efforts  being  made  by  the  arch- 
bishop of  Canterbury  to  secure  powers  over  them,  which 
would  seriously  militate  against  their  privileges  and  inter- 
fere with  their  proper  jurisdiction.  This  report  being  con- 
firmed by  their  own  proctors  at  the  Roman  court,  the 
suffragans  of  Canterbury  agreed  to  collect  money  to  fight 
their  common  cause.  As  the  archbishop  claimed  to  visit 
the  whole  province,  and  required  "  a  procuration  from  all 
the  clergy  of  every  diocese,"  it  was  the  business  of  all  to 
resist  such  a  pretension,  and  so  every  benefice  was  taxed 
to  furnish  the  funds  necessary  to  support  efficaciously  their 
objections  before  the  Curial  judges.3  Meanwhile,  the  case 
was  being  considered.  The  archbishop  was,  fortunately  for 
himself,  able  to  eliminate  the  very  unpleasant  incident  of 

1  Additamenta,  190.  a  Matthew  Paris,  v.  138.  3  Ibid.,  186. 


ARCHBISHOP  BONIFACE  295 

his  attempted  visitation  at  St.  Bartholomew's.  He  per- 
suaded the  canons,  who  were  poor,  to  withdraw  their 
complaints,  promising  them  his  favour  and  protection  if 
they  would  leave  their  cause  "to  God  and  St.  Bartholo- 
mew."1 The  general  case  dragged  on  until  Advent,  when, 
on  27th  November,  the  pope  decided  against  the  arch- 
bishop. On  that  date  Innocent  IV  issued  a  Bull,  addressed 
to  the  dean  of  London  and  others,  in  which,  after  reciting 
the  circumstances  of  their  refusal  to  admit  the  right  of  the 
archbishop  to  visit  the  cathedral  church  and  Chapter  of 
London,  and  their  consequent  excommunication  by  him, 
the  pope  declared  the  sentence  null  and  void ;  adding,  that 
he  could  not  accept  the  version  given  before  the  Curia  by 
Boniface,  that  he  had  not  excommunicated  the  Chapter 
for  refusing  to  admit  his  right  of  visitation.  In  proof  of 
this,  the  Bull  quotes  the  words  of  the  original  letter  of 
excommunication.2  This  document  was  accompanied  by 
papal  letters  addressed  to  the  abbots  of  St.  Alban's  and 
Waltham  and  others  to  promulgate  this  decision  in  Eng- 
land.3 

A  few  days  later,  on  nth  October,  a  similar  decision 
was  given  in  the  case  of  the  Augustinian  canons  of  Holy 
Trinity  priory,  and  the  same  commission  of  abbots  was 
charged  with  the  duty  of  making  known  the  fact  that  the 
archbishop  had  no  power  to  excommunicate  them,  and 
that  from  the  first  the  sentence  had  been  null.4  A  few 
weeks  later  again,  the  case  of  the  bishop  of  London  was 
settled  in  the  same  manner,  and  on  8th  November  the 
prior  of  the  Dominicans  was  ordered  to  declare  all  the 
censures  pronounced  publicly  against  him  null  and  void.5 

1  Matthew  Paris,  v.  188. 

a  Registres  tf Innocent  IV,  ii.  No.  4,864;  cf.  Additamenta,  197,  seqq. 

3  Ibid.,  No.  4,865.  *  Ibid.,  No.  4,887-4,888;  cf.  Rymer,  i.  275. 

4  Ibid.,  No.  4,910.    Matthew  Paris  (v.  206),  seems  to  write  as  if  the  bishop 


296  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

In  these  cases,  however,  the  pope  expressly  dealt  only 
with  the  question  of  the  archbishop's  rights  to  excom- 
municate and  censure.  No  decision  was  arrived  at  in  re- 
gard to  his  powers  of  visitation  :  in  fact  this  point  was 
specially  reserved  for  future  argument.1  So  Archbishop 
Boniface  remained  on  at  Lyons,  hoping  at  least  to  secure  this 
right,  as  Bishop  Grosseteste  had  obtained  from  the  same 
pope  a  similar  victory  over  his  canons  at  Lincoln,  who  had 
refused  to  admit  his  powers  of  visiting  them.  He  brought 
every  influence  to  bear  upon  the  Curial  authorities  and 
induced  King  Henry  to  write  to  the  pope  on  his  behalf, 
expressing  his  royal  wishes  that  Innocent  would  favour 
the  archbishop  in  his  great  struggle  with  the  bishops  of 
England  generally,  and  with  the  bishop  of  London  and 
his  canons  in  particular.2 

The  dean  and  Chapter  of  St.  Paul's,  in  virtue  of  the 
papal  decision,  had  been  formally  declared  free  of  all  ex- 
communication and  censure  by  the  appointed  commis- 
saries. In  a  short  time,  however,  on  different  grounds, 
they  were  again  excommunicated  by  the  archbishop's 
official  and  cited  to  appear  once  more  before  the  Roman 
courts.  The  scandal  of  such  a  proceeding  was  so  appa- 
rent, that  the  canons  appealed  at  once  to  the  bishops 
generally  to  protect  them,  and  to  make  common  cause 
with  them,  as  their  own  privileges  might  at  any  moment  be 
attacked  in  a  similar  way.  The  king,  however,  continued 
to  support  the  archbishop,  whose  election  he  had  of  course 
secured,  and  who  was  his  queen's  uncle ; 9  but  still,  in 

was  absolved  only  on  his  submission  to  the  archbishop ;  but  the  papal 
register  shows  that  he  was  absolved  by  the  pope  in  the  same  way  as  the 
canons,  etc. 

1  Matthew  Paris,  v.  275.  2  lbid.y  iv.  205. 

3  Ibid.,  207. 


ARCHBISHOP  BONIFACE  297 

spite  of  this,  the  bishops  determined  to  embrace  the 
quarrel  of  the  London  Chapter.  On  24th  February,  1251, 
in  the  absence  of  the  archbishop,  who  was  still  working  in 
the  Curia  for  his  cause  "  with  all  his  might  and  more,"  as 
the  chronicler  puts  it,  the  bishops,  with  Grosseteste  amongst 
them,  met  at  Dunstable  to  consider  the  acute  situation 
and  to  devise  some  immediate  remedy.  After  careful  de- 
liberation they  chose  a  proctor  to  go  at  once  to  the  Curia 
to  oppose  the  archbishop,  and  gave  him  power  to  draw 
upon  them  to  the  amount  of  four  thousand  marks  for  his 
expenses.  The  advent  of  this  agent  soon  changed  the 
situation  in  the  papal  court.  It  was  hinted  to  the  pope 
that  the  archbishop  really  wanted  money,  and  that  he  had 
already  taken  from  the  English  church  revenues  more  than 
the  eleven  thousand  marks  which  had  been  granted  to 
him  by  papal  authority.  Pope  Innocent  thereupon  put  a 
stop  to  all  proceedings,  until  such  time  as  further  inquiries 
had  been  made,  and  he  promised  to  do  justice  to  both 
parties.  Moreover,  as  he  was  now  at  Perugia,  far  away 
from  Lyons  and  all  the  Savoy  influences,  he  made  no 
secret  of  his  having  in  the  past  been  compelled  by  the 
archbishop  of  Canterbury  and  his  brother  Philip,  the 
archbishop-elect  of  Lyons,  to  grant  many  things  of  which 
he  had  not  really  approved.1 

Nothing  more,  apparently,  was  done  in  this  matter  for 
more  than  a  year,  and  the  principle  remained  undecided. 
Although  Boniface  did  not  continue  at  once  to  press  his 
right  of  visitation  in  any  suffragan  diocese,  he  still  worked 
in  the  Curia  to  gain  his  cause.  The  debts  of  the  archi- 
episcopal  see  were  still  a  heavy  burden  upon  him,  and  in 
1251  the  pope  appointed  Cardinal  Hugo  to  investigate  the 
claims  of  his  creditors  and  to  consider  what  could  now  be 

1  Matthew  Paris,  v.  225-226. 


298  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

done,  whilst  bearing  in  mind  what  had  already  been  at- 
tempted by  the  Holy  See  to  relieve  the  archbishop,  and 
how  unpopular  had  been  the  levying  of  taxes  for  this  pur- 
pose upon  ecclesiastical  benefices  generally.  As  a  result, 
on  ist  August  Pope  Innocent  IV  issued  a  commission  to 
the  deans  of  Wells,  Chichester  and  Hereford,  ordering  them 
to  raise  another  12,000  marks  in  the  same  way  as  before 
from  the  clergy.1  Archbishop  Boniface  still  continued  to 
remain  absent  from  his  See ;  and  in  fact  he  did  not  return 
to  England  until  the  end  of  1252.  By  this  time  he  had 
succeeded  in  obtaining  a  decision  in  his  favour  on  the 
question  of  the  metropolitan  right  of  visitation,  for  on 
22nd  April,  1252,  Innocent  IV  decided  that  the  archbishop 
possessed  powers  to  visit  the  cathedral  Chapters  and  re- 
ligious houses  of  dioceses  other  than  his  own ;  and  he  at 
once  communicated  this  judgement  to  the  canons  of  St. 
Paul's  and  to  the  London  Augustinian  house  of  Holy 
Trinity.2 

Meanwhile  the  pope  was  looking  for  some  result  from 
the  crusading  movement  in  England.  The  ill-success  of 
the  Christian  forces  in  the  Holy  Land  at  this  time  made 
him  anxious  that  King  Henry  should  redeem  his  promise 
of  personally  heading  the  English  forces.  Throughout  the 
year  1250  Innocent  IV  was  writing  on  the  subject;  he 
granted  him  a  tithe  of  all  ecclesiastical  benefices  for  three 
years  towards  his  expenses ;  and  he  authorised  the  bishops, 
for  two  years  from  the  time  he  began  his  expedition, 
to  pay  over  to  him  all  sums  of  money,  for  which  those 
who  had  taken  the  cross  compounded  for  absolution  from 
the  crusading  vow ;  as  well  as  other  sums  of  money, 
such  as  the  residue  of  all  intestate  estates,  etc.,  which 

1  Registres  d*  Innocent  IV,  iii.  No.  5,447. 
8  Ibid.,  5,670-5,679. 


ARCHBISHOP  BONIFACE  299 

by  papal   order  were  to  be  devoted  to  the  purposes   of 
the  crusades.1 

Henry  understood  that  this  grant  was  not  to  be  inter- 
preted as  referring  merely  to  England,  and  he  wrote  to  the 
archbishop  of  Dublin  to  let  it  be  known  far  and  wide  in 
Ireland.  "  The  supreme  pontiff,  the  Vicar  of  Jesus  Christ 
and  successor  of  the  blessed  Apostles  Peter  and  Paul,"  he 
says, "  has  done  not  only  what  was  necessary,  but  what  was 
proper  in  regard  to  the  business  of  the  holy  cross,  the  sign 
of  which  we  bear  upon  our  shoulder."  And  that  the  Irish 
bishops  might  understand  what  the  "  special  favour " 
granted  by  the  supreme  authority  is,  he  forwards  the 
papal  letters  by  the  hands  of  the  prior  of  Holy  Trinity, 
Dublin.2 

In  the  same  way  the  king  endeavoured  to  secure 
similar  contributions  from  the  Church  of  Scotland.  He  so 
far  succeeded  with  the  Roman  authorities  as  to  obtain  a 
letter  addressed  by  the  pope  to  the  bishop  of  St.  Andrew's, 
ordering  that  legacies,  gifts  and  monies  paid  for  the  re- 
demption of  the  crusading  vows  should  be  delivered  to 
the  king  of  England  to  help  him  to  set  out  with  a  force 
worthy  of  his  dignity,  if  and  when  the  expedition  should 
start.3  The  last  clause  sounds  the  first  note  of  suspicion  as 
to  the  genuine  nature  of  the  undertaking,  which  afterwards 
found  an  echo  in  subsequent  documents,  and  it  will  be 
noted  also,  that  the  pope  does  not  suggest  the  payment  of 
any  tithe  on  Scottish  benefices  to  the  English  king.  As 
might  be  expected,  the  king  of  Scotland  was  not  slow  to 
protest  against  this  grant  of  crusading  money,  collected 
from  the  Scotch  people,  being  handed  over  to  the  English 
king ;  and  his  protest  was  so  far  successful  that  Innocent  IV, 

1  Rymer,  i.  274.  2  Ibid.,  274. 

3  Registres  tf  Innocent  IV,  ii.  No.  1,250. 


300  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

whilst  maintaining  his  right  to  make  the  disposition  com- 
plained of,  declared  he  had  no  wish  that  the  crusaders  in 
that  country  should  not  also  receive  grants  from  those 
sums.1 

In  England  and  Ireland  rumour  had  it,  apparently, 
that  the  king  intended  to  exact  from  all  who  sought  to 
free  themselves  from  the  obligation  of  the  crusade  much 
greater  sums  of  money  than  they  had  agreed  to  when 
assuming  the  cross.  "They  were  filled  with  fear  where 
there  was  nothing  to  fear,"  he  said  in  a  letter  intended  to 
allay  the  alarm  ;  and,  consequently,  to  put  a  stop  to  these 
reports,  which  seemed  likely  to  prevent  men  seeking  abso- 
lution and  thus  pay  the  money,  which  he  chiefly  looked  to, 
he  sent  these  letters  to  all  parts,  declaring  that  he  had  no 
such  intention.2  As  time  went  on,  and  Henry  showed  no 
greater  desire  to  prepare  for  the  expedition  than  was 
manifested  by  his  wish  to  secure  the  money  granted  him 
for  the  purpose  by  the  Holy  See  from  the  ecclesiastical 
revenues  of  his  kingdom,  the  pope  issued  another  general 
letter  of  exhortation.  The  situation  in  the  Holy  Land 
was  grave,  and  he  urges  all  prelates  to  exhort  those  who 
had  taken  the  crusading  vow  to  redeem  their  promises 
quickly.  He  reminds  clerics  of  the  duty  imposed  upon 
them  by  the  General  Council  of  contributing  the  twentieth 
part  of  all  their  benefices,  during  three  years,  to  the  ex- 
penses of  the  expedition  against  the  infidels.  He  invokes 
the  spiritual  power  of  excommunication  and  anathema 
against  all  who  assist  the  Saracens  with  arms,  ships, 
engines  of  war,  or  money;  and  he  concludes  by  granting 
the  highest  spiritual  privileges  to  all  who  take  part  in  the 
holy  war.  This  he  does,  he  adds,  "  relying  on  the  mercy 
of  the  Almighty  God,  and  upon  the  authority  of  the 

1  Rymer,  i.  278.  2  Ibid.,  i.  278. 


ARCHBISHOP  BONIFACE  301 

blessed  Apostles  Peter  and  Paul,  and  the  power  of  binding 
and  loosing  which  God  has  bestowed  upon  us,  though 
unworthy."1 

In  March,  1252,  the  pope  sent  further  letters  to  his 
collectors  in  England,  again  warning  them  to  pay  over 
to  the  king  monies  received  for  the  redemption  of  crusad- 
ing vows,  as  Henry  had  complained  that  he  had  not 
received  what  he  ought  to  have  done.  At  the  same  time, 
being  pressed  to  assign  a  period  when  the  English  ex- 
pedition would  set  out  without  fail,  the  king  met  his 
council  at  Eastertide  and  fixed  the  end  of  another  four 
years  as  the  limit ;  but  he  added,  that  "  if  the  illustrious 
king  of  France  would  restore  the  lands  taken  from  our 
ancestors  and  now  held  by  him,"  he  "  would  undoubtedly 
set  out  earlier,"  *  a  condition  which,  of  course,  he  had  no 
expectation  of  seeing  realised. 

1  Rymer,  i.  279.  a  Ibid.,  282. 


CHAPTER  XVII 

AYLMER  DE  VALENCE,  BISHOP  OF  WINCHESTER 

THE  long  absences  of  Archbishop  Boniface  from  Canter- 
bury and  his  continued  differences  with  his  suffragans  and 
others  on  the  vital  question  of  his  metropolitical  rights, 
did  not,  of  course,  tend  to  the  peace  and  quiet  of  the 
Church  in  England.  Other  causes  of  ecclesiastical  dis- 
quiet were  moreover  present  about  this  time — the  middle 
of  the  thirteenth  century.  Difficulties  in  regard  to  some 
of  the  episcopal  elections  in  the  Canterbury  province, 
complicated  no  doubt  by  the  abnormal  position  of  the 
archbishop,  caused  much  friction  and  many  unnecessary 
delays  in  filling  up  the  vacant  offices.  The  case  of  Win- 
chester will  serve  to  illustrate  this  unfortunate  state  of 
affairs.  The  bishop,  William  de  Raleigh,  had  been  at 
war  with  King  Henry  for  some  years,  and  had  been  nearly 
a  twelvemonth  living  in  comparative  obscurity  at  Tours 
when  he  died  on  2ist  September,  I25O.1  When  the  news 
reached  England  the  king  resolved,  if  possible,  to  secure 
the  election  of  his  half-brother,  Aethelmar,  or  Aylmer  de 
Valence,2  to  the  vacant  See,  although  he  possessed  none 
of  the  necessary  qualifications  of  age  and  learning.  He 

1  Matthew  Paris,  v.  179. 

2  Aylmer  or  Aymer  was  the  youngest  son  of  Isabella,  King  John's  widow, 
who  married,  as  her  second  husband,  the  count  de  La  Marche.  After  Isabella's 
death  in  1246,  Guy  de  Lusigna,  William,  bishop-elect  of  Valence,  and  this 
Aylmer  came  over  to  England  to  enrich  themselves,  their  father  having  failed 
in  his  rebellion  against  the  king  of  France. 

302 


DE  VALENCE,  BISHOP  OF  WINCHESTER  303 

was  not  even  in  sacred  orders,  although  he  was  already 
in  possession  of  various  ecclesiastical  benefices,  from  which 
he  derived  revenues  which  equalled  if  they  did  not  surpass 
those  of  the  archbishop  of  Canterbury  himself.  The  choice 
belonged,  of  course,  to  the  monks  of  the  cathedral  mon- 
astery, and  Henry's  first  care  was  to  try,  by  trusty  friends, 
to  induce  them  by  promises  of  his  favour,  backed  by 
judicious  threats  of  possible  consequences  should  they 
fail  to  oblige  him  in  this,  to  choose  Aylmer  as  their  bishop. 
The  arguments  of  the  royal  agents  so  far  prevailed  with 
many,  and  their  reports  were  so  favourable,  that  within 
a  fortnight  Henry  considered  the  ground  sufficiently  pre- 
pared for  him  to  make  a  personal  appeal.  He  went,  con- 
sequently, to  Winchester,  and  summoning  the  monks  to 
meet  him  in  Chapter,  took  the  bishop's  place  and  ad- 
dressed them  at  length  on  the  matter  he  had  so  much  at 
heart.  Whilst  princes  and  the  judges  of  the  land,  he 
said,  were  bound  by  the  principles  of  strict  justice  and 
judgement,  monks  should  be  men  of  peace  and  quiet,  and 
these  qualities  of  religious  men  they  had  shown  in  listen- 
ing to  his  request  about  Aethelmar.  In  choosing  and 
supporting  their  late  bishop,  William  de  Raleigh,  whom 
he  would  not  accept,  they  had  been  in  opposition  to  him 
and  they  could  find  no  better  way  of  purging  their  faults 
and  obtaining  his  friendship  than  by  now  meeting  his 
wishes  in  regard  to  a  successor.  They  had  once  refused 
to  choose  as  their  bishop  William,  the  elect  of  Valence,  the 
queen's  uncle,  when  he  had  begged  them  to  do  so;  let 
them  now  remember  his  own  connection  with  Winchester, 
how  he  was  born  in  the  city  and  baptised  in  the  cathedral, 
and  not  act  again  against  his  known  wishes. 

This  royal  speech,  or  sermon,  to  the  Winchester  monks 
in  their  Chapter-house,  ended  with  vague  threats  of  what 


304  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

would  follow,  in  case  they  did  not  do  what  was  thus  so 
forcibly  brought  to  their  notice.  The  electors  were  in 
serious  difficulties.  The  memory  of  their  recent  troubles 
and  persecutions  for  refusing  to  have  William,  the  elect  of 
Valence,  as  their  bishop,  was  only  too  fresh,  and  their 
loyalty  to  their  first  choice  had  only  caused  him  to  die  in 
exile  as  the  result  of  their  conscientious  support  of  him. 
"  The  requests  of  our  lord  king,"  they  said,  "  are  backed  up 
by  the  royal  power.  To  resist  them  is  a  very  grave  and 
formidable  thing,  and  one  fraught  with  danger  to  our 
Church."  The  pope,  who  is  in  a  very  difficult  position, 
gives  way  to  the  king  in  everything,  and  so  in  this  matter 
he  will  take  the  king's  side.  If  we  refuse  to  elect  as  is 
suggested  to  us,  we  shall  only  in  the  end  find  ourselves 
crushed  between  the  two  mill  stones  of  the  papal  and  the 
royal  power.  Under  these  circumstances,  and  trusting  that 
Aylmer  would  content  himself  with  remaining  merely  elect 
bishop,  by  which  were  secured  to  him  all  the  revenues  of 
the  See,  and  not  proceed  to  episcopal  consecration,  the 
monks  of  Winchester  chose  him  conditionally  upon  the 
pope  being  willing  to  dispense  with  the  canonical  objec- 
tions against  him. 

Matthew  Paris  loudly  and  at  length  condemns  the  cir- 
cumstances which  could  bring  about  an  election  such  as 
that  of  Aylmer:  "  Alas  !  alas  ! "  he  says,  "  men  born  in  this 
country,  who  are  good,  learned,  and  religious  men,  are  now 
set  aside,  and  foreigners  are  thrust  into  (these  positions), 
who  are  unworthy  of  such  honours,  and  who,  wholly  ignor- 
ant of  letters  and  of  English,  are  useless  so  far  as  hearing 
confessions  and  preaching  are  concerned — O  !  Pope,  Father 
of  Fathers,  why  do  you  suffer  Christian  lands  to  be  polluted 
by  such  abuses? — Above  other  countries  and  peoples,  Eng- 
land, where,  as  all  the  world  knows,  the  Christian  faith 


DE  VALENCE,  BISHOP  OF  WINCHESTER  305 

flourishes  most,  is  worse  treated,  and  by  papal  action  is 
despoiled  of  its  possessions  and  (the  fruits  of  its  labours). 
She  gets  nothing,  whilst  she  herself  is  the  prey  of  every 
plunderer.  When  did  anyone  ever  hear  that  an  English- 
man had  any  revenue  given  him  in  Rome,  Italy,  Genoa,  or 
other  kingdom,  whilst  those  from  such  places  take  every- 
thing in  England." 1 

The  infatuation  of  the  king  for  foreigners  generally, 
and  for  his  uterine  brother  Aylmer  de  Lusigna  in  particular, 
was  fast  alienating  from  the  Crown  the  remnant  of  loyalty 
left  to  it  in  his  kingdom.  Before  securing  this  election  at 
Winchester  for  Aylmer,  Henry  had,  the  previous  year, 
1249,  made  similar  demands,  but  happily  without  effect, 
upon  the  monks  of  Durham.  They  had  refused  courteously 
but  firmly  to  be  parties  to  a  transaction  so  detrimental  to 
the  interests  of  the  Church.  "  Lord  King  and  most  Christian 
of  kings," — they  said  in  their  dignified  remonstrance  at  his 
action  in  this  matter — "  Lord  King,  remember  the  first  and 
chief  oath  you  swore  at  your  coronation.  Allow  holy  Church 
sometimes  to  enjoy  its  liberty,  so  that  we  may  choose  for 
ourselves,  according  to  our  duty  to  God,  the  Father  and 
Shepherd  of  our  souls.  You  know,  and  all  the  world  knows, 
that  your  said  brother  (Aylmer2),  is  not  old  enough,  and 
has  not  sufficient  learning,  to  bear  the  yoke  of  so  serious  a 
spiritual  office." 3 

As  already  noted,  large  ecclesiastical  revenues  had  been 
secured  to  Aylmer  by  the  king's  influence,  in  addition  to 
the  income  granted  him  on  his  first  arrival  in  England. 
For  example,  the  cure  of  St.  Mary's,  Abingdon,  was  granted 
to  him  by  the  abbot  and  convent,  at  Henry's  demand,  and 

1  Matthew  Paris,  v.  185. 

2  He  is  said  in  a  Bull  of  Alexander  IV,  on  3Oth  July,  1255,  then  not  to 
have  reached  the  age  of  thirty  (Reg.  d'Alex.  IV,  i.  No.  686). 

3  Matthew  Paris,  v.  5. 

X 


306  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

the  king  threatened  the  bishop  of  Norwich  with  his  grave 
displeasure,  because  he  had  not  given  to  his  protege  the 
living  of  Dereham.  He  succeeded  better  in  Durham,  where, 
though  he  failed  in  regard  to  the  election  to  the  vacant  See, 
he  secured  the  revenues  of  the  church  of  Wearmouth,  to 
add  to  the  already  large  ecclesiastical  property  held  by  this 
favoured  foreigner. 

The  Christmas  festivities  of  1250-1251  were  passed  by 
Henry  at  Winchester.  On  account  of  the  vacancy  of  the 
See,  the  temporalities  of  the  See  were  then  in  the  king's 
hands.  To  assert  his  royal  rights  he  had  many  of  the  woods 
belonging  to  the  bishopric  cut  down  and  sold ;  but,  as  the 
chronicler  remarks,  because  Aylmer  had  been  elected  to 
the  office  of  bishop,  he  held  his  hand  somewhat,  and  did 
not  impoverish  the  See  so  much  as  he  was  wont  to  do  in 
similar  vacancies.1  About  the  beginning  of  the  year  1251, 
Henry  seems  to  have  contemplated  a  journey  to  Lyons, 
with  the  view  of  seeing  the  pope  personally  about  many 
matters  pertaining  to  the  good  of  the  Church,  of  which,  we 
cannot  doubt,  the  appointment  of  Aylmer  was  not  the 
least  important,  at  the  time,  in  his  eyes.  Pope  Innocent, 
however,  wrote  from  Lyons  on  2nd  April,  1251,  to  say  that 
for  the  present  at  least  this  would  seem  to  be  hardly  pos- 
sible, and  owing  to  the  difficult  circumstances  of  the  times, 
certainly  unwise  to  attempt.2  The  importunity  of  the  royal 
agents  at  the  Curia,  however,  quickly  obtained  confirmation 
for  Aylmer  to  the  See,  in  spite  of  his  youth  and  want  of 
learning,  and  in  spite,  too,  of  his  ignorance  of  the  language 
of  the  country,  which,  it  might  be  supposed,  would  alone 
have  suggested  sufficient  grounds  for  his  rejection.  It  is 
hinted  by  Matthew  Paris  that  the  pope  was  assisted  in 
settling  this  grave  question  according  to  Henry's  wishes 

1  Matthew  Paris,  v.  198.  2  Registres  d' Innocent  IV,  ii.  No.  5,337 


DE  VALENCE,  BISHOP  OF  WINCHESTER  307 

by  the  king's  promise  of  an  annuity  to  Robert,  son  of  the 
duke  of  Burgundy,  to  whom  Innocent  IV  was  under  some 
obligations,  which  he  saw  his  way  to  satisfy  in  this  manner.1 
By  the  middle  of  the  year  1251,  Aylmer  returned  to 
England  from  the  Curia  with  the  documents  necessary  for 
his  confirmation  to  the  See  of  Winchester.  He  was  accom- 
panied by  a  large  retinue  of  foreigners,  who  were  raptur- 
ously received  by  the  Poitevins  already  established  in  the 
country  in  considerable  force.  On  2$rd  July,  a  Sunday, 
the  new  bishop-elect  had  reached  Winchester;  for  on  that 
day  he  gave  to  all  his  foreign  followers  a  great  banquet  in 
celebration  of  his  appointment  by  the  pope,  who  had  also 
allowed  him  to  keep  whatever  other  ecclesiastical  revenues 
he  had  previously  obtained  through  the  king's  good  offices, 
to  the  amount  of  1,000  marks  yearly.  Even  those  which 
he  could  not  keep,  Aylmer  seems  to  have  passed  on,  by 
the  royal  authority  and  influence,  to  some  of  his  followers. 
Thus  the  annuity,  which  Henry  some  years  before  had 
forced  the  abbot  of  St.  Alban's  to  pay  to  the  bishop-elect, 
was  now  transferred  to  one  of  his  Poitevin  clerks,  whom  he 
wished  to  reward  for  his  services,2  in  spite  of  the  strong 
objections  and  protests  of  those  chiefly  concerned.  The 
appointment  to  the  See  of  Winchester  naturally  gave  great 
scandal  to  Englishmen.  Not  only  was  Aylmer,  as  a  foreigner, 
held  to  be  unfit  for  the  charge  of  a  great  and  important 
diocese;  but  for  the  first  time  in  history  there  was  appointed 
to  one  of  the  English  sees,  a  youth  who  was  unable  to  re- 
ceive episcopal  consecration,  and  who  apparently  was  not 
intended  to  be  more  than  the  elect  of  the  diocese,  which, 
however,  gave  him  authority  and  power  to  draw  the  revenues 
of  the  See,  whilst  at  the  same  time  he  was  permitted  to 
retain  many  of  his  previous  ecclesiastical  benefices. 

1  Matthew  Paris,  v.  224.  2  Ibid.,  242. 


308  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

On  1 3th  October,  1252,  the  bishop-elect  attended  a 
great  meeting  of  prelates  convoked  by  the  king  in  London 
to  hear  the  orders  of  the  pope,  in  regard  to  a  grant  to  be 
made  to  the  Crown  from  their  ecclesiastical  revenues.  The 
royal  letters  had  already  been  sent  to  the  archbishop  of 
York,  who  had  replied,  just  a  month  previously,  that  on  the 
receipt  of  the  pope's  and  the  king's  orders  he  had  held  a 
convocation  at  Blyth,  in  Northumberland,  but  that  as  the 
matter  touched  the  whole  Church,  the  northern  convocation 
had  come  to  no  decision,  and  desired  to  hear  what  the 
southern  province  was  going  to  do  in  the  matter.1  At 
the  London  meeting  the  king  attended  in  person.  He 
produced  a  papal  mandate  that  all  beneficed  clergy  of  the 
English  Church  were  to  pay  to  the  king  for  three  years  a 
tenth  of  their  revenues  towards  the  expenses  of  his  journey 
to  the  Holy  Land.  Moreover  this  tax  was  not  to  be  levied 
on  the  old  valuation  ;  but  the  collections  were  to  be  made 
according  to  a  new  and  strict  estimate  to  be  drawn  up 
by  the  king's  officers  appointed  for  the  purpose.  Bishop 
Grosseteste  at  once  opposed  the  imposition  of  this  unheard- 
of  tax.  The  elect  of  Winchester,  on  the  other  hand,  urged 
the  need  of  compliance  with  orders  which  came  both  from 
the  pope  and  the  king.  He  asserted  also  that  the  French 
prelates  had  been  obliged  to  agree  to  a  similar  demand, 
though,  he  added,  "  they  have  more  power  than  we  have, 
and  are  more  used  to  resist."  Grosseteste,  however,  de- 
clared that  because  the  French  had  given  way,  it  became 
all  the  more  necessary  that  the  English  prelates  should 
stand  firm  and  resist,  so  as  to  avoid  creating  a  precedent 
by  the  concurrence  of  the  two  nations  in  these  demands. 
In  the  end,  most  of  the  bishops,  including  even  the  elect 
of  Winchester,  refused  to  entertain  the  royal  requests,  al- 
1  P.  R.  O.  Royal  Letters,  No.  279. 


DE  VALENCE,  BISHOP  OF  WINCHESTER  309 

though  they  were  backed  up  and  founded  upon  the  express 
orders  of  the  pope.1 

The  king,  not  unnaturally,  was  greatly  angered  at  the 
turn  of  events,  and  especially  at  the  attitude  of  Aylmer, 
the  elect  of  Winchester,  upon  whose  support  he  had  calcu- 
lated with  certainty,  since  he  owed  his  position  and  wealth 
entirely  to  his  royal  master's  influence.  For  a  time,  how- 
ever, in  order  ultimately  to  gain  his  point,  he  allowed  him- 
self to  be  persuaded  to  conceal  his  wrath  by  turning  his 
demand  into  a  mere  request,  and  dropping  altogether  the 
papal  orders  upon  which  he  had  previously  relied.  He 
pleaded  that  he  was  going  to  fight  for  the  honour  of 
Christ  and  His  Church,  and  that  all  those  who  had  this  at 
heart,  ought  to  give  him  fitting  support  and  assistance. 

This  apparent  change  in  Henry's  attitude  worked  a 
similar  change  in  the  hearts  of  the  English  prelates.  "  We 
undoubtedly  believe,"  they  said,  "  that  if  the  pope  really 
understood  how  the  English  Church  was  burdened  and 
oppressed  by  so  many  taxes  and  exactions,  the  king 
would  never  have  obtained  such  a  document  from  the 
Roman  Curia."  In  every  way  our  king  is  impoverishing 
his  kingdom  and  bringing  the  Church  to  want.  "  What 
shall  we  say  about  the  prelates  he  has  intruded  into  the 
best  Churches  of  the  land  ?  How  miserably  his  archbishop 
of  Canterbury  (for  instance)  has  secured  for  himself  the 
wealth  of  the  country,  pretending  that  he  is  so  over- 
burdened with  debts,  that  he  cannot  live  without  help 
from  the  whole  English  Church ! "  They  then  went  on  to 
declare,  that  they  had  no  belief  in  the  king's  declaration 
that  he  was  going  in  person  to  the  Holy  Land,  and  that 
in  their  opinion  he  hoped  to  secure,  by  means  of  this  pre- 
tence, the  money  of  his  subjects.  Still  they  were  willing 

1  Matthew  Paris,  v.  324-326. 


3io  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

to  grant  what  was  now  demanded  of  them,  provided  that 
he  would  again  promise  to  observe  the  charter  of  their 
rights  and  liberties,  which  he  had  so  often  sworn  to  and 
had  as  frequently  broken,  and  provided  also  that  the 
money  now  collected  was  not  used  for  any  other  purpose 
than  to  meet  the  needs  of  the  Holy  Land. 

Henry  was  furious  at  the  attitude  taken  up  by  the 
bishops,  who,  however,  remained  firm  and  declared  that 
they  could  and  would  do  nothing  in  the  absence  of  the 
archbishop  of  Canterbury,  who  was  their  head,  and  also 
without  the  counsel  of  the  archbishop  of  York,  who  was 
away  in  the  northern  parts  of  the  country.  Seeing  that  he 
could  gain  nothing  from  the  prelates  as  a  body,  the  king 
tried  again  his  usual  policy  of  putting  pressure  upon 
certain  individuals  amongst  them.  His  first  attempt  was 
made  upon  Hugh  North  wold,  bishop  of  Ely,  whom  he  re- 
ceived with  great  condescension.  Rising  to  greet  him 
upon  his  arrival,  and  seating  him  by  his  side  he  put  him 
at  his  ease,  by  referring  to  the  many  services  the  bishop 
had  already  done  him.  He  then  went  on  to  say  that  at 
the  present  time,  more  than  ever  before,  he  stood  in  need 
of  help,  as  he  had  taken  upon  himself  the  obligation  of 
fighting  in  the  Holy  Land  for  the  cause  of  the  universal 
Church,  and  he  invited  him  to  set  an  example  to  the  rest 
of  the  English  bishops,  by  at  once  giving  him  what  was 
now  asked  ;  promising  that,  if  he  did  so,  he  would  ex- 
perience the  royal  gratitude  in  the  shape  of  many  ad- 
ditional rich  benefices  which  he  could  secure  to  him. 

The  bishop,  however,  was  unmoved  by  the  king's  praises 
and  promises,  and  plainly  declared  to  King  Henry  that  he 
would  abide  by  the  decision  of  the  meeting.  "If  we  pre- 
lates," he  added,  "  were  to  give  in  to  your  will,  the  Church 
would  be  impoverished ;  and  against  your  oath  and  to  the 


DE  VALENCE.  BISHOP  OF  WINCHESTER  311 

injury  of  the  faith,  it  would  subject  itself  to  servitude  and 
to  the  payment  of  a  lasting  tribute.  He  recalled  to  Henry's 
mind  the  fact  that  men  like  St.  Thomas  and  St.  Edmund 
had  suffered  to  maintain  the  rights  of  the  Church,  and  he 
pointed  out  how  all  the  money,  collected  by  St.  Louis  of 
France  in  a  similar  way,  had  only  gone  to  enrich  the 
Saracens  by  the  payment  of  ransoms.  This  reply  exaspe- 
rated the  king :  losing  all  control  over  himself  he  ordered 
his  officers  to  show  the  bishop  the  door  of  the  palace,  and 
not  to  allow  him  to  enter  again.  This  was  likewise  the 
experience  of  several  others  among  the  bishops  whom 
Henry  endeavoured  to  bring  over  to  his  side;  and  whilst 
he  was  still  smarting  under  the  rebuffs  he  had  received, 
Aylmer,  the  elect  of  Winchester,  came  to  take  leave  of  his 
half-brother  before  leaving  London.  In  reply  to  Aylmer's 
salutation  :  "  I  commend  you  to  the  Lord  God,"  Henry 
replied  ;  "  and  I  you  to  the  living  devil.  Even  if  the  whole 
world  were  against  me,  you  who  are  my  half-brother,  ought 
to  stand  for  me.  It  was  I  who  promoted  you  against  the 
will  of  God  and  of  His  Saints  as  well  as  of  Rome,  to  whom 
of  right  the  choice  belonged,  and  I  have  advanced  you 
to  such  dignity  that  in  riches  you  are  second  to  none  in 
England."  To  this  the  youthful  prelate  replied :  "  My 
Lord,  I  am  young  in  years;  did  you  think  because  you 
made  me  (a  bishop)  I  should  be  a  child  in  my  actions  ?  God 
forbid  that  I  should  withdraw  from  the  judgement  of  all 
those  who  love  God  and  your  own  honour."  l 

On  i8th  November  of  the  same  year,  1252,  Archbishop 
Bo.niface  returned  once  more  to  England.  Almost  im- 
mediately, he  and  the  elect  of  Winchester  came  into  serious 
collision  on  a  matter  of  jurisdiction,  which  was  tried  out 
rather  by  force  than  by  law.  The  bishop-elect  appointed 

1  Matthew  Paris,  v.  325-333. 


312  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

a  priest  to  the  vacant  mastership  of  the  hospital  of  St. 
Thomas  in  Southwark,  to  which,  although  it  was  in  the  See 
of  Winchester,  the  right  of  presentation  was  claimed  by  the 
archbishop  of  Canterbury.  This  right  was  overlooked  in 
the  appointment,  whether  purposely  or  not  does  not  appear. 
The  official  of  Canterbury,  however,  assuming  that  the 
right  of  the  metropolitan  had  been  violated  maliciously 
and  of  set  purpose,  warned  the  newly-appointed  master  to 
vacate  his  office,  and  upon  his  refusal  excommunicated  him. 
Finally,  after  forty  days,  and  after  he  had  disregarded  the 
excommunication,  he  had  him  taken  as  a  prisoner  by  force 
to  Maidstone. 

On  hearing  this,  the  elect  of  Winchester  took  counsel 
with  his  brothers,  and  determined  to  avenge  by  force,  what 
he  considered  an  open  violation  of  his  right  as  Ordinary  of 
the  See.  A  band  of  men  was  quickly  got  together  and 
dispatched  to  Maidstone,  to  effect  the  liberation  of  the 
master,  or  prior,  of  St.  Thomas's  hospital,  but  not  finding 
him  they  set  fire  to  the  place.  They  then  betook  them- 
selves to  Lambeth,  and  seizing  the  official  of  the  archbishop 
as  a  hostage,  took  him  bound  as  a  common  malefactor  to 
Farnham,  where  Aylmer,  apparently  not  knowing  what  to 
do  with  him,  allowed  him  to  go.  Rumours  of  all  this  un- 
edifying  contention  reached  Archbishop  Boniface  on  his 
arrival  in  England ;  and  hastening  to  London,  in  the  church 
of  St.  Mary-le-Bow,  he  solemnly  excommunicated  all  who 
had  had  any  part  in  this  outrage.  At  the  same  time  he 
wrote  round  to  his  suffragans  ordering  them  to  publish  this 
sentence  in  every  church  in  their  respective  dioceses,  on 
Sundays  and  holydays.  To  this  letter  the  elect  of  Win- 
chester replied  by  a  direction  that  the  sentence  should  be 
publicly  declared  null  and  void,  in  Southwark  and  other 
places.  The  foreigners  at  the  court  were  divided :  some 


DE  VALENCE,  BISHOP  OF  WINCHESTER      313 

took  the  side  of  the  archbishop,  some  that  of  the  elect  of 
Winchester.  It  was  a  case  of  nationality  more  than  reason ; 
and  the  Poitevins,  who  were  the  king's  men,  upheld  Aylmer, 
whilst  the  queen's  followers,  the  Provengals,  supported  their 
countryman,  Archbishop  Boniface.  The  latter,  however, 
succeeded  in  stirring  up  popular  feeling  in  his  regard,  by 
appealing  to  the  University  of  Oxford,  where  he  was  re- 
ceived with  great  honour,  and  which  he  and  his  "  crowd  of 
Provencal  clerics,"  who  accompanied  him,  were  forced  to 
confess  in  every  way  a  rival  of  Paris.  On  /th  December, 
1252,  at  a  solemn  congregation  of  all  the  University,  Boni- 
face renewed  his  excommunication  and  published  the  names 
of  all  those  who  had  so  openly  and  publicly  offended  against 
the  dignity  and  rights  of  his  archiepiscopal  office. 

The  case  ended,  as  such  cases  usually  did  at  that  time, 
in  an  appeal  to  the  supreme  authority  of  the  pope.  This 
resulted  in  a  compromise,  by  which  the  right  to  appoint 
the  master  of  the  hospital  was  to  be  vested  in  the  bishops 
of  Winchester,  who  were  to  pay  a  small  sum  of  money  to 
the  See  of  Canterbury,  in  recognition  of  the  right  of  appoint- 
ment which  the  archbishops  had  once  exercised.1  Through 
the  influence  of  the  king  and  queen,  peace  between  Boniface 
and  Aylmer  was  brought  about;  and  on  I3th  January,  1253, 
the  elect  of  Winchester  met  the  archbishop  and  received 
absolution  and  the  kiss  of  peace. 

Meanwhile  the  king's  request  for  money  from  the  bishops 
had  been  in  abeyance  since  October,  and  the  settlement  of 
the  quarrel  between  the  archbishop  and  the  elect  of  Win- 
chester seems  to  have  suggested  to  the  king  the  possibility 
of  some  arrangement  in  his  own  affairs,  particularly  as  the 
return  of  Boniface  to  Canterbury  gave  some  hope  of  assist- 
ance from  one  who  was  the  queen's  uncle.  Inquiries 

1  Matthew  Paris,  v.  348-354. 


314  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

among  the  bishops  led  Henry  to  expect  to  receive  the 
pecuniary  aid  he  required,  upon  his  renewal  of  his  promises 
of  better  government,  which  he  expressed  his  willingness 
to  make.  This  promise  the  prelates  were  compelled  to  be- 
lieve, in  spite  of  their  remembrances  of  a  similar  promise 
made  under  the  most  solemn  circumstances  in  the  days  of 
the  archbishop  St.  Edmund.  In  the  month  of  April,  1253, 
consequently,  parliament  was  convoked  to  assemble  in  Lon- 
don. At  this  meeting  the  archbishop  of  Canterbury  and 
nearly  all  the  bishops  of  England  were  present ;  the  arch- 
bishop of  York,  who  had  skilfully  managed  so  often  to 
avoid  having  to  give  advice  to  the  king,  being  again  absent 
on  the  plea  of  age  and  health.  After  an  exposition  of 
Henry's  wishes  and  demands  and  a  discussion  thereupon, 
a  deputation  consisting  of  the  archbishop,  the  bishops  of 
Carlisle  and  Salisbury,  and  the  elect  of  Winchester,  was 
appointed  to  wait  upon  the  king  to  obtain  from  him  his 
promise  to  permit  entire  freedom  of  ecclesiastical  elections, 
in  which  the  liberty  of  the  Church  mainly  consisted.  By 
the  king's  method  of  action  this  freedom  of  choice  did  not 
really  exist;  and  at  that  time,  as  they  were  instructed  to 
say,  "  no  one  could  be  promoted  to  any  cathedral  or  con- 
ventual church,  except  he  was  thrust  into  the  office  by 
the  king."  By  this,  grave  injury  was  done  to  the  Church, 
and  both  prelates  and  subjects  were  being  ruined.  If,  ac- 
cording to  the  provisions  of  Magna  Charta,  Henry  would 
only  refrain  from  this  interference  with  ecclesiastical 
elections,  they  were  authorised  to  declare  that  the  prelates 
would  gladly  do  what  they  could  to  help  him  as  he  desired. 
The  king's  reply  to  the  deputation  is  worth  quoting  at 
length.  "  What  you  state  is  quite  true,"  he  said,  "  and  I  am 
sorry,  and  indeed  am  very  penitent  for  having  acted  as  I 
have.  We  must  at  once  try  and  correct  what  has  been 


DE  VALENCE,  BISHOP  OF  WINCHESTER     315 

done  wrongly  in  these  matters  and  see  that  it  does  not 
happen  again.  I  ask  you  to  help  me  (in  this  correction) 
lest  those  so  promoted  be  condemned  with  their  subjects. 
You  will  easily  recollect  that  I  have  promoted  this  arch- 
bishop Boniface  of  Canterbury  to  the  high  dignity  he  holds  ; 
and  that  I  have  raised  you,  William  of  Salisbury,  from  the 
lowest  rank,  since  you  were  a  writer  of  my  letters,  and  as 
a  justice  and  a  hireling  you  assisted  at  many  doubtful 
judgements.  You  will  remember  that,  setting  aside  many 
theologians  and  religious  persons,  I  exalted  you  Silvester, 
bishop  of  Carlisle,  to  the  episcopate,  who  for  a  long  while 
acted  as  mere  underclerk  in  my  chancery.1  So  also  as  to 
you,  my  brother  Aylmer,  it  is  well  known  that  when  the 
monks  were  unwilling,  I  corrupted  them  by  my  words  or 
my  threats,  and  so  raised  you  to  the  high  pedestal  of  the 
Church  of  Winchester,  when  by  age  and  learning  you  were 
still  in  need  of  a  pedagogue.  First  and  foremost  then,  both 
for  my  sake  and  your  own  it  is  necessary  that,  moved  by 
repentance,  you  resign  what  you  have  unjustly  attained, 
lest  you  be  eternally  lost.  For  my  part,  encouraged  and 
humbled  by  such  an  example,  I  will  take  care  for  the  future 
only  to  promote  such  as  are  worthy."  The  only  reply  pos- 
sible to  this  speech  of  the  king  was  made  by  the  bishops 
who  formed  the  deputation  :  "  My  Lord  King,"  they  said, 
"we  are  not  discussing  the  past,  but  the  future."  In  the  end, 
after  a  fortnight  spent  on  discussion  and  in  various  deputa- 
tions to  the  king,  the  aid  asked  for  was  granted  to  him  by 
ecclesiastics  and  laymen,  on  his  promise  to  observe  for  the 
future  the  provisions  of  the  charter  granted  by  King  John. 
The  king's  promise  was  once  more  made  the  occasion 
of  a  solemn  ceremony  in  the  great  hall  at  Westminster  on 
1 3th  May,  1253.  In  presence  of  Henry  and  his  nobles, 

1  din  lambens  cancellariam  clericorum  meorum  clericulus. 


316  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

the  archbishop  and  all  his  suffragans,  in  full  pontificals 
and  bearing  lighted  tapers,  renewed  the  solemn  sentence 
of  excommunication,  pronounced  against  all  transgressors 
of  ecclesiastical  liberties,  of  the  free  customs  of  England, 
and  in  particular  against  those  who  failed  to  recognise  the 
rights  secured  by  the  charters  of  the  liberties  of  the  king- 
dom and  the  Forest  Charters.  The  rolls  of  the  charters 
of  King  John  were  then  produced,  and  their  provisions 
read ;  and  the  king,  whilst  he  listened  to  the  sentence  of 
excommunication,  says  the  chronicler,  held  his  hand  upon 
his  breast,  his  brow  was  unclouded,  and  his  countenance 
cheerful,  and  by  no  means  did  he  look  like  a  man  who 
was  coerced  in  what  he  was  doing.  And  at  the  end,  when 
all  throwing  their  extinguished  but  still  smoking  tapers  on 
to  the  ground,  exclaimed :  "  So  may  all  who  incur  this 
sentence  be  extinguished  and  smoke  in  hell,"  the  king 
himself  added  :  "  May  God  so  help  me,  I  will  faithfully 
keep  all  these  promises  inviolable,  as  I  am  a  man,  as  I  am 
a  Christian,  as  I  am  a  soldier,  and  a  king  both  crowned 
and  anointed."  As  a  memorial  of  this  act,  Henry  and 
his  nobles  set  their  seals  to  a  document  embodying  the 
provisions  which  had  been  agreed  upon,  and  setting  forth 
that  the  offenders  were  to  be  held  as  excommunicated  in 
the  future.1  Whatever  may  have  been  the  sincerity  of 
Henry's  promises  to  the  English  prelates  at  the  moment, 
within  a  short  time  the  evil  foreign  councillors  with  whom 
he  had  surrounded  himself  quickly  suggested  that  when 
he  had  secured  the  money,  he  could  easily  obtain  absolu- 
tion from  his  oath,  by  once  more  invoking  papal  authority. 
They  hinted  that  by  the  expenditure  of  a  small  portion 
of  the  sum  thus  obtained  from  the  English  Church,  the 
king  could  induce  the  pope  to  relieve  him  of  the  obliga- 

1  Rymer,  i.  290. 


DE  VALENCE,  BISHOP  OF  WINCHESTER  317 

tions  incurred,  even  should  the  prelates  obtain  papal  con- 
firmation of  the  excommunication  pronounced  against  all 
who  should  transgress  the  charters  thus  once  more  con- 
firmed by  Henry.1 

On  their  side  the  English  bishops  endeavoured  to 
prevent  their  sovereign  from  again  repudiating  his  solemn 
engagements,  by  seeking  immediate  confirmation  from 
the  Holy  See  for  what  had  been  done.  Their  application 
was  so  far  successful  that,  on  28th  of  September  of  this 
year,  1253,  Innocent  IV,  with  the  advice  of  the  cardinals 
in  Curia,  confirmed  their  action,  and  included  in  his  ap- 
proval the  terms  of  their  excommunication  of  such  as 
infringed  the  charters  of  national  liberty.2  Moreover,  the 
deans  of  London  and  Lincoln  were  charged  to  publish 
this  papal  confirmation,  and  to  see  that  it  was  known 
throughout  England.  In  pursuance  of  this  charge  they 
communicated  the  letter  to  the  bishops,  asking  them  to 
order  the  letter  to  be  read  "  in  English  or  French,"  in  all 
churches  of  their  respective  dioceses,  according  as  they 
should  think  fit"3 

Meanwhile  Alymer,  the  bishop-elect  of  Winchester, 
had  fallen  out  with  the  monks  of  his  cathedral  monastery, 
and  had  made  them  repent  in  tears  of  blood  their  compli- 
ance with  the  king's  wishes  in  electing  him.  Matthew  Paris, 
who  may,  perhaps,  be  considered  as  likely  to  take  the  side 
of  the  monastery  against  the  bishop,  says  that  the  story 
of  their  sufferings  and  persecutions  would  bring  tears  to 
the  eyes  of  anyone  who  heard  it  related.  On  one  occa- 
sion, because  they  would  not  do  what  he  wished,  he  kept 
them  locked  up  for  three  days  in  the  church,  and  some  of 
the  weaker  members  never  recovered  the  hunger  and 

1  Matthew  Paris,  v.  378.  2  Rymer,  i.  293. 

3  Annales  Man.  (Ann.  de  Burton),  i.  320. 


3i8  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

hardships  endured  during  that  long  vigil.  This  experience 
determined  them  to  seek  shelter  in  other  houses  of  the 
order,  and  St.  Alban's,  Reading,  Abingdon,  and  other 
monasteries  opened  their  doors  to  the  fugitives.  To  their 
brethren  at  St.  Alban's  they  said :  "  We  deserve  our  suffer- 
ings for  fearing  man  more  than  God  in  the  making  of  this 
election.  We  have  raised  to  the  highest  dignity  one  wholly 
unworthy.  In  the  place  where  so  many  holy  and  worthy 
men  have  ruled,  we  have  received  a  youth,  who  is  said 
never  to  have  undergone  the  discipline  of  a  school.  He 
has  never  learnt  the  rudiments  of  learning  or  even  of 
grammar:  though  not  a  bishop,  he  dissipates  the  (revenues 
of  the)  episcopate:  ignorant  of  our  language,  of  Scripture 
and  of  all  other  clerical  learning,  he  cannot  preach  or  hear 
confessions,  or  indeed  minister  to  God  in  any  spiritual 
office." l 

The  king,  seeing  the  desolation  of  the  house  at  Win- 
chester, brought  about  by  his  nominee  to  the  episcopal 
office,  rebuked  Aylmer  for  his  treatment  of  those  who, 
at  his  royal  bidding,  had  chosen  him.  The  royal  remon- 
strance, however,  had  no  effect,  and  Alymer  filled  up  the 
places  of  those  who  had  fled  from  his  tyranny  with  low- 
bred, ignorant,  and  wholly  unworthy  men,  "  to  the  scandal 
and  lowering,"  says  the  chronicler,  "  of  the  entire  monastic 
order,  and  of  religion  itself."  Not  content  with  this,  the 
bishop-elect  appointed  a  prior  in  place  of  the  one  who  by 
law  was  the  superior  of  the  monastery.  This  latter  carried 
his  appeal  to  the  Roman  Curia,  but  being  poor  he  could 
not  at  first  prevail  against  the  large  sums  expended  by  his 
opponent.  Henry  warned  his  half-brother  that  in  order 
to  succeed  he  must  be  prepared  to  expend  large  sums  of 
money,  but  he  replied  that  the  spring  of  his  wealth  should 

1  Matthew  Paris,  v.  468. 


DE  VALENCE,  BISHOP  OF  WINCHESTER  319 

never  dry  up,  so  as  to  prevent  the  monks  getting  their 
way.  The  intruded  prior  was  confirmed  by  the  Curia, 
and  William  de  Taunton,  the  old  prior,  was  given  one  of  the 
conventual  manors  and  received  from  Pope  Innocent  IV 
the  mitre  and  other  pontificalia,1  though  what  use  they 
could  be  to  him  under  the  circumstances  does  not  appear. 
Subsequently,  however,  the  true  prior  returned  to  rule  his 
house,  for  he  received  letters  of  protection  from  Pope 
Alexander  IV  in  1255,  to  enable  him  to  prosecute  his 
case  against  Aylmer,  and  in  the  following  year  was  allowed 
to  pledge  the  credit  of  his  monastery  to  meet  the  charges 
in  Rome.2 

In  1256  Pope  Alexander  IV  tired,  no  doubt,  of  the 
endless  quarrel  between  the  Winchester  monks  and  their 
bishop-elect,  took  the  wisest  course  and  appointed  the 
celebrated  Franciscan,  Adam  Marsh,  to  hear  and  deter- 
mine the  whole  cause  in  England.  The  parties  met  at 
Winchester,  the  bishop  personally  appearing,  and  the  prior, 
William  de  Taunton,  who  was  then  in  the  Curia,  attend- 
ing by  his  proctors.  It  was  agreed  that  all  the  complaints 
and  charges  made  by  the  convent  should  be  withdrawn, 
and  that  the  elect  should  return  any  property  of  the  con- 
vent he  held,  and  that  he  should  likewise  see  that  sufficient 
provision  was  made  for  them  in  the  future,  for  which  the 
obedientiaries  were  to  render  the  bishop  a  sufficient  ac- 
count. This  truce  was  approved  by  the  king  on  26th 
June,  I256.3 

The  rest  of  the  history  of  Aylmer  does  not  concern  us 
much  in  this  place.  He  remained  a  foreigner  to  the  last 
period  of  his  stay  in  England.  In  1258,  when  the  Poitevins 

1  Ann.  Man.,  ii.  95  (Winchester  Annals). 

*  Registres  d' 'Innocent  IV,  i.,  No.  835  and  No.  1,109. 

3  Man.  Franciscana,  i.  609-612. 


320          HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

were  obliged  to  leave  England,  the  bishop-elect  of  Win- 
chester went  with  them.  His  request  to  be  allowed  to  stay 
in  Paris  was  refused  by  the  French  king,  St.  Louis,  who, 
however,  allowed  him  to  pass  through  France  to  Poitou. 
A  considerable  sum  of  money  belonging  to  him  was  inter- 
cepted at  Dover  and  confiscated.  Meanwhile  the  question 
of  his  title  to  the  See  was  raised,  now  that  he  was  in  exile. 
The  Winchester  monks  feeling  that  the  only  way  to  get 
the  royal  assent  to  any  election  in  the  lifetime  of  his  half- 
brother  was  to  make  choice  of  some  one  high  in  the  royal 
favour,  met  and  elected  Henry  de  Wengham,  the  king's 
chancellor,  as  their  bishop.  Fearing  complications  and 
appeals,  Henry  gave  only  a  conditional  assent  to  this, 
claiming  that  if  Aylmer  could  obtain  consecration  from 
the  pope  his  election  should  still  be  allowed  to  stand ;  if 
not,  then  he  agreed  to  the  choice  of  de  Wengham.  By  this 
time  Pope  Innocent  IV  had  died,  and  had  been  succeeded 
by  Alexander  IV;  and,  in  1258,  the  English  baronage 
addressed  a  letter  of  complaints  against  the  bishop-elect 
to  the  pope.  They  charged  him  with  pledging  the  property 
of  the  See  of  Winchester,  in  order  to  carry  out  the  designs 
of  the  foreign  party  in  England,  and  that  rather  than  meet 
the  accusations  made  against  him  he  had  fled  the  country. 
They  would  not,  they  declared,  feel  safe  were  he  allowed  to 
return  to  England.  In  fact,  they  say,  "  it  is  the  fixed 
determination  and  desire  of  everyone  that  he,  the  author 
of  divisions,  dissensions,  and  scandals,  be  no  longer  allowed 
to  live  amongst  us."  They  consequently  beg  the  pope  to 
remove  him  altogether  from  the  administration  of  the  See 
of  Winchester,  and  thus  "  to  avoid  scandal,  by  force  of  the 
plenitude  of  your  power."  Even  if  the  king  and  his  nobles, 
they  add,  might  wish  for  the  return  of  the  bishop-elect,  the 
people  would  never  tolerate  it.  And  indeed  such  a  thing 


DE  VALENCE,  BISHOP  OF  WINCHESTER    321 

could  not  be  allowed  "without  grave  scandal,  since  he  is 
not  a  consecrated  bishop  at  all,  but  one  to  whom  the 
administration  only  has  been  given."1 

The  English  nobles,  fearing  lest  Aylmer  might  hurry 
to  Rome  and  by  his  promises  to  the  pope  and  cardinals 
obtain  consecration,  and  so  "  have  greater  power  to  do 
harm,"  sent  four  of  their  number  to  back  up,  by  personal 
explanations,  the  representations  contained  in  their  letter. 
One  member  of  this  deputation  died  in  Paris,  but  the  other 
three  reached  the  Curia,  and  fully  explained  the  motive  of 
their  journey  to  the  Holy  Father.  They  are,  indeed,  said  to 
have  horrified  the  authorities  by  their  account  of  the  mis- 
deeds of  Aylmer  and  his  brothers.  In  their  desire  that  there 
should  be  no  mistake  on  the  part  of  the  Curial  officials  as 
to  the  true  situation,  the  barons  dispatched  a  second  letter 
to  their  agents  for  presentation  to  the  pope.  This  com- 
munication breathed  the  true  spirit  of  filial  affection  :  "  If 
the  most  holy  Roman  Church,"  they  say,  "would  with 
becoming  gratitude  recompense  the  merits  of  our  fore- 
fathers, who,  inflamed  by  the  love  of  God's  Church  and 
churchmen,  and  to  exalt  them,  have  splendidly  founded, 
built,  and  richly  endowed  so  many  churches,  as  is  clearly 
shown  by  the  testimony  of  those  marvellous  works  which 
have  lasted  through  the  ages,  it  would  extend  to  us  spe- 
cially the  favour  of  a  watchful  care.  It  would  freely  afford 
us  the  help  of  a  heart  manifesting  paternal  generosity;  it 
would  not  disturb  onr  peace  and  that  of  the  kingdom  of 
England,  but  with  all  sincere  affection  in  the  Lord,  and  by 
every  means  in  its  power,  would  maintain  it;  especially,  as 
far  as  we  are  able,  we  desire  to  be  zealous  imitators  of  the 
faith  of  our  forefathers,  and  of  the  devotion  which  they  had 

1  Additamenta,  395-404;   cf.  Ann.  Man.,  i.  170,  where  the  date  of  the 
letter  appears  to  be  25th  June,  1258. 

Y 


322  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

for  the  Church  and  churchmen."  They  fear,  however,  that 
they  may  look  for  this  in  vain,  if  what  they  hear  is  true ; 
namely,  that  Aylmer,  "  once  the  elect  of  the  Church  of 
Winchester,"  about  whom  nothing  is  too  bad  to  say,  is  to 
be  once  more,  through  his  misrepresentations,  false  sug- 
gestions, and  manifold  suppressions  of  the  truth,  sent  back 
into  England.  "  O  prince  of  the  Church  and  shepherd  of 
the  sheep  of  the  Lord's  flock,  to  whom  in  the  person  of 
Saint  Peter  it  is  said,  Feed  my  sheep,  we  beg  of  you,"  they 
plead,  "  not  in  your  great  power,  which  we  fully  recognise, 
but  in  your  zeal  for  justice,  in  your  manifold  mercies  and 
in  the  spirit  of  your  loving  kindness  in  the  ruling  your 
flock,  remember  that  the  Lord  is  not  in  the  fire,  nor  in  the 
earthquake,  nor  in  the  strong  wind  overturning  the  moun- 
tains, but  rather  in  whisperings  of  a  gentle  air"1  They 
conclude  by  making  a  touching  appeal  to  Alexander  IV, 
to  show  himself  a  father  and  not  to  do  them  the  great 
injury,  which  report  says  he  is  contemplating,  of  letting  the 
unworthy  bishop-elect  return  to  the  country  he  has  so 
shocked  and  injured.2 

This  letter  was  followed  by  a  third  appeal  to  the  pope 
to  prevent  the  evil  of  the  return  of  the  unworthy  elect, 
which  was  still  spoken  of  as  not  improbable.  "  When  the 
small  streams  are  dried  up  by  the  heat,"  the  English  nobles 
say,  "  it  is  necessary  for  the  thirsty  to  come  to  the  fount  of 
living  waters.  So  do  the  oppressed  have  recourse  to  the 
clemency  of  your  See  when  justice  is  violated  by  might. 
God,  indeed,  has  given  you  to  the  world  in  His  place,  that 
restraining  by  His  own  power  the  exalted  horns  of  the 
proud,  He  may  raise  the  humble  who  are  depressed  by  the 
power  of  the  proud."  They  then  proceed  to  give  one 
instance  of  the  injuries  inflicted  by  the  bishop-elect  in  his 

1  ///.  Reg.,  xix.  1 1- 12.  a  Additamenta,  407-408. 


DE  VALENCE,  BISHOP  OF  WINCHESTER    323 

own  diocese,  in  the  hopes  that  it  may  induce  the  pope  to 
resist  the  persuasion  which  he  was  exerting  in  the  Curia 
to  secure  the  triumph  of  his  cause.  On  their  knees,  they 
say,  they  beg  the  Holy  Father  to  put  a  bridle  upon  the 
malice  of  Aylmer,  so  that  "  he,  who  has  reverence  for  no 
one,  may  be  taught  that  he  is  subject  to  the  Apostolic 
See."1 

Towards  the  end  of  the  year  1258  the  pope  replied  to 
the  letters  of  the  barons.  The  letter  is  long  and  deals  with 
many  important  questions  other  than  that  which  seemed 
so  pressing  to  his  petitioners.  In  fact,  the  papal  letter  is 
almost  identical  with  a  Bull  sent  to  the  king  of  England  at 
the  same  time,  and  only  at  the  end  is  there  added  a  clause, 
specially  dealing  with  the  case  of  the  elect  of  Winchester. 
In  this  final  portion  of  the  Apostolic  letter,  Alexander  IV 
says  that  he  has  considered  what  they  urge  against  Aylmer, 
and  is  "  much  disturbed  and  grieved,"  supposing  what  they 
say  "  to  be  true."  He  cannot,  however,  proceed  to  a  judicial 
inquiry  since  the  elect  of  Winchester  has  no  proctor,  and 
justice  requires  that  his  side  should  be  heard  before  judge- 
ment is  given.2  So  matters  rested  ;  but  not  for  long.  It 
was  in  the  following  year  that  the  monks  of  Winchester  en- 
deavoured to  settle  the  question  of  the  bishop's  return,  by 
electing  de  Wengham  the  chancellor,  above  referred  to. 
The  king,  as  has  been  said,  consented  conditionally  upon 
Aylmer  not  being  able  to  obtain  episcopal  consecration. 
Pope  Alexander  IV,  however,  was  not  inclined  to  hearken 
to  the  bitter  cry  of  the  barons  against  the  elect,  and  seems 
to  have  regarded  their  complaints  as  mainly  political.  He 
had  already  on  3Oth  July,  1255,  permitted  Aylmer  to  defer 
his  consecration,  on  the  plea  that  he  was  not  yet  thirty 
years  of  age,  and  had  given  him  a  dispensation  from  the 

1  Additamenta,  409.  "  Ibid.,  415. 


324  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

canonical  law,  which  obliged  every  bishop-elect  to  seek 
consecration  within  six  months  of  his  confirmation,  on  pain 
of  losing  the  office  altogether.1  Whatever  may  have  been 
his  reasons,  at  this  present  juncture  the  pope  practically 
answered  the  petitioners  by  consecrating  Aylmer  on  i6th 
May,  1260.  Almost  immediately  the  bishop  set  out  for 
England,  intending  to  force  himself,  if  there  were  need,  by 
excommunication  and  interdict,  upon  the  monks  and 
diocese  of  Winchester.  That  he  did  not  determine  to  take 
this  course  with  the  king's  sanction,  is  clear  from  the  letter 
sent  by  Henry  himself  to  the  pope,  declaring  that  he  would 
not  consent  under  any  circumstances  to  Aylmer's  return  to 
England.2  The  loyalty  of  the  English  in  their  obedience 
to  the  Holy  See,  was,  however,  never  put  to  the  test ;  for 
Bishop  Aylmer,  whilst  on  his  way  to  England,  died  in 
Paris  on  4th  December  of  this  same  year  1260.  His 
death  came  as  a  great  relief  to  many,  whilst  none  appear 
to  have  regretted  this  solution  of  a  great  scandal.  The  last 
that  is  heard  of  this  unworthy  prelate  is  a  reference  in  a 
letter  from  Pope  Urban  IV  to  Albert  of  Parma,  a  papal 
official  in  England,  where  it  is  said  that  Aylmer,  the  late 
bishop,  had  promised  eighty  marks  to  the  Roman  cardinals, 
and  the  pope  directed  him  to  endeavour  to  procure  the 
payment  from  his  executors.3 

1  Registres  (fAlexandre  IV,  i.  No.  686.  8  Royal  Letters^  ii.  147. 

3  Brit.  Mus.  Add.  MS.,  15,360,  f.  10. 


CHAPTER  XVIII 

THE  ENGLISH  CHURCH  IN  THE  LAST  YEARS  OF 
BISHOP  GROSSETESTE 

WHEN  Pope  Innocent  IV  died  on  7th  December,  1254, 
many  grave  matters  concerning  England  still  awaited  solu- 
tion. Before  passing  on  to  consider  the  attitude  of  his 
successor,  Alexander  IV,  towards  England,  it  may  be  well 
to  examine  briefly  into  the  state  of  ecclesiastical  affairs  in 
the  country  during  the  three  or  four  last  years  of  Pope 
Innocent's  reign,  and  to  make  an  attempt  to  determine  the 
relations  then  existing  between  Rome  and  England. 

The  papal  "provisions  "  of  foreigners  to  English  bene- 
fices, which  during  the  whole  of  this  reign  had  given  rise  to 
such  dissatisfaction  in  the  country,  though  perhaps  some- 
what fewer  in  number,  were  still  sufficiently  numerous  to 
keep  alive  a  spirit  of  discontent,  which  occasionally  found 
expression  in  the  letters  and  speeches  of  even  the  most 
loyal  churchmen.  Although  some  mitigation  of  the  evil 
had  been  obtained  from  Rome,  in  such  papal  enactments,  for 
example,  as  that  no  Italian  should  succeed  an  Italian  in  any 
living ;  still,  in  practice  dispensations  from  these  restrictions 
were  readily  found  when  necessary.  An  example  may  be 
given  of  the  case  of  St.  Alban's  in  1251.  In  the  December 
of  that  year  the  pope  sent  his  letters  to  the  abbot  and  con- 
vent in  favour  of  John  de  Camezana,  his  nephew,  who  de- 
sired to  have  the  church  of  Wingrave,  the  patronage  of 

325 


326  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

which  belonged  to  the  abbey.  The  living  was  not  at  the 
time  vacant ;  but  the  pope  took  to  himself  the  next  pre- 
sentation in  favour  of  Camezana,  and  he  dispensed  for  this 
time  with  the  law  forbiding  one  Italian  to  succeed  another 
in  the  holding  of  any  benefice.  After  stating  this  case,  the 
chronicler  appears  rather  to  apologise  for  finding  a  place 
for  the  incident  in  a  general  history  of  the  times.  But,  he 
says,  "  I  have  concluded  to  insert  it,  that  readers  may  see 
with  what  injuries  and  oppressions  the  Roman  Curia 
harasses  us  poor  English.  This  is  what  alienates  our  hearts, 
though  not  our  persons,  from  our  father  the  pope,  who 
seems  driven  (to  treat  us)  with  the  harshness  of  a  conqueror; 
and  from  our  mother  the  Roman  Church,  which  acts  to- 
wards us  with  the  persecuting  spirit  of  a  step-mother."  * 

Similar  heartburnings  had  been  experienced  in  France, 
then  under  the  rule  of  St.  Louis.  Pope  Innocent  IV,  in 
order  to  be  able  to  carry  on  his  quarrel  with  the  emperor, 
and  to  continue  the  struggle  of  the  Christian  arms  against 
the  Moslem  power  in  the  Holy  Land,  was  forced  to  take 
many  exceptional  measures  to  obtain  money.  However 
necessary  the  object — and  about  the  crusades  at  least  there 
can  be  little  doubt — the  measures  taken  were  contrary  to 
the  truest  interest  of  Christian  countries,  as  tending  to 
alienate  peoples  and  their  rulers  from  the  centre  of  Christen- 
dom. These  exactions,  it  must  be  remembered,  weighed 
as  heavily  on  the  French  clergy  as  they  did  on  those  of 
England.  Innocent  IV  felt  himself  bound  to  recompense 
the  faithful  services  of  those  who  surrounded  him,  and  the 
readiest,  and  it  would  almost  seem  the  only  means  of  doing 
so,  was  to  make  the  endowments  of  England  and  France 
pay  for  these  services  in  the  shape  of  pensions,  prebends, 
and  benefices.  Louis  of  France,  in  spite,  or  rather  perhaps 

1  Matthew  Paris,  v.  232-233. 


LAST  YEARS  OF  GROSSETESTE          327 

because,  of  his  ardent  devotion  to  religion,  felt  himself 
bound  to  protect,  even  against  him  whom  he  regarded  as 
the  head  and  supreme  authority  in  the  Church,  the  pre- 
rogatives of  his  Crown  and  the  rights  and  possessions  of 
his  subjects. 

In  May,  1247,  the  archbishop  of  Canterbury,  then  in 
the  Curia,  tells  his  brother,  Peter  of  Savoy,  of  representa- 
tions being  then  made  to  the  pope  at  Lyons  by  envoys 
from  France.  The  embassy  consisted  of  the  marshal  of 
France,  Ferri  Past6,  representing  the  king,  and  the  bishops 
of  Soissons  and  Troyes  sent  by  the  French  clergy.  They 
complained  of  the  abuse  of  authority  on  the  part  of  the 
Roman  Curia,  and  the  special  points  indicated  are  pre- 
cisely those  with  which  every  student  of  the  English  re- 
cords is  familiar.  The  pope  replied  in  such  a  vague  way  as 
to  give  little  satisfaction  to  the  envoys,  and  they  were 
forced  to  leave  after  only  three  days'  sojourn,  without  having 
effected  much  by  their  representations.1  St.  Louis,  how- 
ever, clearly  shared  their  feelings  and  desires,  for  a  second 
embassy  was  dispatched  to  the  pope  at  the  beginning  of 
June  to  make  even  stronger  representations,  and  there  was 
reason.  M.  Elie  Berger,  the  editor  of  the  Registers  of  In- 
nocent IV,  thus  describes  the  action  of  the  papal  officials 
in  France  at  this  time.  Men  constantly  heard  the  words  : 
"  Give  me  so  much,  or  I  will  excommunicate  you."  They 
"  saw  priests  of  the  highest  dignity,  the  successors  of  the 
Apostles,  and  with  them  all  the  ministers  of  the  Church, 
treated  by  order  of  the  apostolic  nuncios  as  if  they  were 
slaves  or  Jews.  .  .  .  For  the  first  time  this  system  was  put 
in  practice  by  the  cardinal-bishop  of  Praeneste,  who,  during 

1  Additamenia,  131-133;  cf.  Lavisse,  Histoire  de  France,  III.,  ii.  65.  M. 
Langlois,  the  author  of  this  section,  notes  that  the  knowledge  of  this  Mtmoire 
is  due  to  Matthew  Paris,  who  has  preserved  it. 


328  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

his  legation,  had  imposed  money  procurations  on  all  the 
churches  of  the  kingdom.  He  made  the  bishops,  abbots, 
priors,  and  other  ecclesiastics  come  secretly  to  him  one  by 
one,  and  said  to  them  :  "  I  order  you,  in  virtue  of  the 
obedience  you  owe  me,  and  under  pain  of  suspension,  not 
to  reveal  to  anyone  by  word  or  action,  by  sign  or  writing, 
what  I  am  going  to  say  to  you :  if  you  do,  ipso  facto  you 
fall  under  the  sentence  of  excommunication."  Then,  having 
shut  the  lips  of  his  victim,  he  added  :  "  I  order  you,  by  the 
pope's  command,  to  pay  such  a  sum  of  money,  at  such  a 
time  and  place,  and  if  you  make  default  you  will  be  ex- 
communicated." One  of  the  demands  of  this  second  mem- 
orial presented  to  the  pope  by  the  French  ambassadors 
was  that  this  practice  should  instantly  cease.1 

To  return  to  England.  The  example  set  by  the  Roman 
authorities  in  dealing  with  the  property  of  the  English 
Church,  without  regard  to  the  purposes  for  which  it  was 
intended,  was  copied  by  the  king.  He  kept  the  property 
of  vacant  Sees  and  abbeys  in  his  hands  whenever  he  could, 
and  for  as  long  as  he  pleased,  in  defiance  of  his  reiterated 
promises.  These  lands  and  manors  he  dilapidated  at  will, 
by  cutting  down  the  timber  and  granting  leases,  and  in 
fact  he  treated  them  as  if  they  had  been  his  own  personal 
property.  In  1254,  when  he  was  in  Gascony,  Henry  did 
not  hesitate  even  to  assign  the  property  of  certain  vacant 
Sees  and  abbeys  to  some  pressing  creditors  from  whom  he 
had  borrowed  money.2  In  fact,  the  king  was  constantly  in 
such  serious  financial  difficulties  that  the  habit  of  looking 
for  anything  upon  which  he  could  lay  his  hands  had  be- 
come almost  a  second  nature  to  him ;  and  though  he  was 
at  times  generous  in  his  gifts,  they  were  sometimes  at  least 
suspected  of  being  acquired  from  some  third  party.  On 
1  Reg.  d1  Innocent  IVt  i.  cxxv.  *  Matthew  Paris,  v.  467. 


LAST  YEARS  OF  GROSSETESTE         329 

one  occasion,  about  the  year  1252,  the  Franciscans  received 
as  an  alms  from  the  king  a  two-horse  load  of  gray  woollen 
cloth,  suitable  for  their  habits.  The  friars,  however,  at  the 
same  time  heard  that  Henry  had  practically  taken  the 
stuff  from  the  merchants,  who  had  wished  to  sell  it,  with- 
out payment.  They  consequently  sent  back  the  cloth  at 
once  in  the  cart  to  the  king,  declaring  that  it  was  unlawful 
for  them  to  receive  as  alms  what  had  been  taken  from  the 
poor.1 

At  the  same  time,  whilst  in  difficulties  himself,  the 
English  king  could  be  royal  in  munificent  dealings  with 
others.  Unless  Pope  Innocent  IV  had  by  the  end  of  his 
life  learned  to  gauge  Henry's  promises,  his  closing  days 
must  have  been  consoled  by  the  king's  open-hearted 
generosity.  "  Under  pain  of  forfeiting  his  kingdom,"  says 
the  chronicler,  "  which,  by  the  way,"  he  adds,  "  he  neither 
could  do,  nor  ought  to  have  done,"  he  pledged  himself  to 
repay  all  the  cost  incurred  by  the  pope  in  the  war  in  which 
the  Sicilian  business  had  involved  the  Roman  Church.  He 
was  to  get  all  that  was  necessary  from  that  inexhaustible 
well  of  all  riches — England.  And  the  pope,  says  Matthew 
Paris,  "  not  having  for  the  country  the  bowels  of  affection, 
borrowed  the  money  to  a  large,  and  even  prodigal  amount, 
from  the  Italian  usurers,  whom  they  call  merchants ;  which 
amount,  by  the  extortion  of  the  pope  and  the  cheating  of 
the  king,  England,  reduced  to  the  depths  of  slavery,  would 
be  compelled  to  pay."2  The  wrath  of  the  English  generally 
was  during  all  this  period  stirred  up  against  the  foreign 
usurers,  who,  under  the  name  of  merchants,  came  into  the 
country  under  the  protection  of  papal  authority,  and  not 
unfrequently  in  the  train  of,  or  following  immediately  after, 
the  nuncios  or  other  papal  officials.  When  the  ecclesiastics 

1  Matthew  Paris,  v.  275.  2  Ibid.,  470. 


330  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

and  the  religious  houses  were  unable  to  find  money  to 
meet  the  frequent  demands  of  king  and  pope  upon  their 
purses,  these  money  lenders  were  ready  at  hand  to  lend, 
at  high  rates  of  interest,  or  on  the  security  of  pledges,  the 
sum  needed.  In  fact,  in  many  instances  recourse  to  these 
usurers  was  suggested  by  the  tax  gatherer  himself,  who 
otherwise  would  have  had  to  depart  without  getting  what 
he  came  for.  In  this  way  the  Church  was  still  further  im- 
poverished, and  even  the  sacred  vessels  found  their  way 
into  the  hands  of  the  money  lender.  The  English,  as  the 
chronicler  notes,  called  these  foreign  usurers  by  the  name 
of  "  Caursins,"  or  "  Caursini."  But  the  name  was  not  con- 
fined to  this  country,  any  more  than  the  existence  of  these 
pests  of  civilisation.  In  France,  many  laws  and  statutes 
were  passed  against  them  at  this  period  of  history.  In 
1268,  St.  Louis  of  France  promulgated  an  edict  by  which 
he  hoped  to  effect  their  extirpation  from  his  kingdom,  and 
he  says  that  he  hears  they  are  publicly  engaged  in  "  lend- 
ing money  upon  pledges  at  usury,  and  that  they  have  set 
up  houses  to  carry  out  their  trade  in  the  great  cities." 
Matthew  Paris  speaks  of  them  as  being  so  numerous  in 
1251,  and  so  rich  that  they  had  purchased  the  finest  palace 
in  London,  and  had  there  established  a  fixed  place  of 
business,  like  the  native  merchants.  "  Nor  do  the  prelates," 
he  says,  "  dare  to  speak,  since  they  declare  they  are  the 
merchants  of  the  lord  pope ;  neither  do  the  citizens  care 
to  call  out,  since  they  are  protected  by  some  of  the  nobles 
who,  through  the  example  of  the  Roman  Curia,  have  them- 
selves lent  money  in  order  to  increase  it."  In  1251,  how- 
ever, for  some  reason  or  other,  the  king  turned  against 
them,  and  at  his  direction  they  were  accused  before  the 
judges  in  London  of  being  schismatics  and  heretics,  since 
professing  to  be  Christians  they  had  corrupted  the  whole 


LAST  YEARS  OF  GROSSETESTE          331 

country  by  their  most  disgraceful  business  of  money  lend- 
ing. His  royal  conscience,  he  says,  would  not  allow  him 
to  shut  his  eyes  to  this  evil.  Some  of  the  money  lenders 
were  consequently  imprisoned,  and  others  concealed  them- 
selves, until  a  scarcity  of  money  suggested  the  prudence  of 
setting  them  again  at  liberty.  One  of  them  told  Matthew 
Paris  that  if  they  had  not  purchased  large  establishments 
in  London,  there  would  have  been  very  few  found  to 
remain  in  England.1 

Curiously  enough,  as  it  may  now  appear,  at  the  very 
time  and  year  about  which  the  chronicler  records  this 
action  of  the  king  against  these  foreign  usurers,  Pope 
Innocent  IV  writes  a  letter  of  commendation  to  an  English 
society,  established  for  the  protection  of  the  poor  against 
the  rapacity  of  the  money  lenders.  He  understands,  he 
says,  that  to  put  a  stop  to  what  is  eating  up  the  substance 
of  rich  and  poor  alike,  "  certain  merchants  of  various  cities 
and  places  (in  England)  in  compassion  for  the  poor,  with 
pious  and  prudent  forethought,  have  set  aside  sums  of 
money  of  their  own,  which  they  have  placed  in  the  hands 
of  chosen  and  trustworthy  citizens,  to  lend  to  the  poor, 
and  that  for  the  loan  of  the  said  sums  nothing  was  to  be 
demanded  or  received  except  the  principal."  The  society 
was  purely  philanthropic,  and  nothing  was  charged  for  the 
management  of  the  charity.  The  capital  was  not  to  be 
allowed  to  diminish,  and  it  was  even  hoped  that  it  would 
increase,  through  further  gifts  of  the  charitable.  The 
pope  had  been  told,  in  1251,  that  this  pious  society  had 
existed  already  for  more  than  four  years  in  many  places, 
and  had  done  much  good,  and  he  consequently  writes  to 
the  bishops  of  Bath  and  Wells  and  Salisbury  to  express 

1  Matthew  Paris,  v.  246. 


332  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

his  approval,  and  to  give  his  blessing  to  those  who  had 
contributed.1 

One  practice  which,  as  documents  in  the  papal  registers 
show,  arose  at  this  period,  and  which  in  process  of  time 
became  very  general,  was  that  of  pledging  the  credit  of 
religious  houses  or  ecclesiastical  corporations,  by  the  proc- 
tors transacting  business  in  the  Curia,  in  order  to  meet 
the  fees  and  other  expenses  necessary  to  expedite  their 
business.  Thus,  to  take  a  few  examples  of  this  practice, 
which  frequently  involved  the  monasteries  in  great  debt, 
Pope  Innocent  IV,  in  1253,  gave  leave  to  the  proctors  of 
Christ  Church,  Canterbury,  to  pledge  the  credit  of  their 
monastery  to  the  amount  of  several  hundreds  of  marks.2 
Also  the  same  permission  was  accorded  to  the  agents 
of  Sempringham  to  raise  1,500  marks  from  the  money 
lenders  in  the  Curia  ;3  the  same  also  to  the  monks  of 
Worcester,  then  in  Rome  on  the  business  of  their  house,4 
and  to  those  of  Evesham,5  etc. 

At  this  time,  too,  it  is  not  uninteresting  to  note  one 
result  of  the  attempt  to  enforce  the  strict  legislation  of 
Pope  Gregory  IX  for  the  monks  of  the  Order  of  St. 

1  Reg.  d'  Innocent  IV,  ii.  No.  5,117.     A  chance  document  entered  into  a 
book  of  letter-forms,  etc,,  coming  from  the  chancery  of  Bishop  Waynflete,  of 
Winchester,  shows  this  pious  work  in  practice.     In  this  case  the  money  was 
found  by  a  benefactor  to  relieve  the  poor  of  his  parish  by  making  loans  with- 
out interest,  either  upon  the  security  of  pledges  or  on  the  word  of  three  known 
sureties,  the  parish  priest  not  being  one  of  them.     The  capital  sum  was  to  be 
kept  in  a  chest  with  three  locks,  the  keys  being  held  by  the  three  trustees. 
The  loans  were  to  be  made  for  a  year  only,  after  which  they  were  to  be  paid  back 
either  entirely  or  in  portions  agreed  upon.    If  default  was  made  for  any  cause, 
the  pledge  was  to  be  sold,  and  whatever  was  over  and  above  the  amount  of 
the  debt  was  to  be  returned  to  the  borrower.    The  benefactors  to  this  "work 
of  such  obvious  charity "  were  to  be  prayed  for  at  Sunday  Mass,  and  the 
rector  was  to  urge  people  to  add  to  the  capital  in  the  hands  of  the  trustees. 
(Harl.  MS.,  670,  f.  7;b.) 

2  Ibid.,  ii.  No.  6,282.  3  Ibid.,  No.  6,427. 
*  Ibid.,  No.  7,051.  6  Ibid.,  No.  7,426. 


LAST  YEARS  OF  GROSSETESTE         333 

Benedict.  Innocent  IV,  in  1253,  wrote  to  various  bishops 
in  England  directing  them  to  enforce  the  observance  of 
these  statutes,  except  where  a  dispensation  from  them  had 
been  granted  by  the  Holy  See,1  and  he  forwarded  a  copy 
of  the  reformed  statutes.  There  is  little  in  these  statutes 
which  could  be  objected  to ;  and  according  to  the  docu- 
ment printed  by  Matthew  Paris  as  the  criticism  of  the 
Chapter  of  St.  Alban's,  little  that  was  objected  to,  as  not 
according  to  rule.  In  many  instances,  however,  and  not- 
ably in  regard  to  the  entire  abstinence  from  flesh  meat,  so 
easy  in  the  warmer  south,  custom  had  changed  the  observ- 
ance in  England.  As  far  as  it  is  now  possible  to  piece 
together  the  documents  regarding  this  papal  ordinance, 
the  chief  result  of  the  endeavour  to  enforce  primitive 
strictness,  was  the  almost  wholesale  granting  of  dispensa- 
tions to  such  religious  houses  as  sought  them  in  the  proper 
way.  Thus  Durham,  for  instance,  obtained  its  freedom 
from  the  new  legislation,  and  the  same  book  which  records 
the  law,  records  also  the  exemption  from  it.  In  the  same 
way,  Edmundsbury,  St.  Alban's,  and  a  host  of  other 
monasteries  received  the  necessary  dispensations,  some  of 
them  being  recorded  in  the  registers  at  a  time  when  the 
papal  permission  to  pledge  the  credit  of  the  houses  for 
the  purpose  of  their  business  show  that  the  monks  were 
present  in  the  Curia  to  represent  their  case.  The  principle 
upon  which  the  pope  acted  in  giving  such  dispensations 
is  stated  clearly  in  some  of  the  documents  which  convey 
them.  The  Rule  of  St.  Benedict,  the  pope  declares  in 
substance,  is  sufficiently  difficult  and  hard ;  and  to  this 
the  legislation  of  Pope  Gregory  IX,  and  the  statutes  of 
his  legate,  added  many  precepts  and  ordinances  of  great 

1  Matthew  Paris,  Additamenta,  p.  234;  cf.  Wilkins,  Concilia,  i.  702,  where 
the  document  is  addressed  to  Durham. 


334  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

gravity,  which  circumstances  and  times  made  it  hard,  if 
not  impossible,  to  observe.  Moreover,  this  later  legisla- 
tion took  away  from  the  abbot  the  wise  discretion  left  to 
him  by  the  founder  of  the  Order.  The  pope,  therefore, 
released  the  monks  from  the  obligation  of  these  later 
statutes,  and  restored  the  discretionary  power  of  the  local 
superior,  except  where  "  by  the  rule  he  had  no  authority 
to  dispense." l  It  was  at  this  time,  and  in  connection  with 
the  same  matter,  that  the  pope  directed  the  bishops  of 
Christendom  to  make  a  visitation  of  all  the  religious 
houses  within  their  jurisdiction,  in  order  to  ascertain 
whether  the  legislation  above  referred  to  was  effective, 
in  cases  where  no  dispensation  from  the  observance  had 
been  granted.  In  France  the  Benedictine  Order,  by  the 
payment  of  a  large  sum  of  money,  secured  immunity 
from  this  visitation  for  their  entire  body.  In  England, 
where  only  some  of  the  monasteries  were  exempt  from 
episcopal  jurisdiction,  the  question  only  arose  in  cases 
where  the  bishop  had  no  authority.  Many  of  these  ob- 
tained the  individual  dispensations  just  referred  to,  and 
in  some  cases,  as  at  St.  Alban's,  for  example,  the  monks 
contended  that  the  pope's  order  did  not  apply  to  the 
exempt  houses.  The  abbot  of  St.  Alban's  successfully 
resisted  the  proposal  of  Bishop  Grosseteste  to  visit  his 
house,  and  he  appealed  to  the  pope  to  uphold  the  privi- 
leges of  his  monastery.* 

During  the  period  which  includes  the  last  few  years  of 
the  reign  of  Pope  Innocent,  the  life  of  the  greatest  English 
churchman  of  his  age,  Bishop  Grosseteste,  was  also  drawing 
to  a  close.  On  his  return  to  England  from  his  journey  to 

1  Reg.  d'Snn.  IV.,  iii.  No.  7,440.     The  document  has  reference  to  the 
case  of  a  foreign  monastery. 
a  Matthew  Paris,  v.  381. 


LAST  YEARS  OF  GROSSETESTE          335 

Lyons,  "sad  and  downhearted,"  he  is  said  for  a  time  to 
have  thought  of  resigning  his  office,  but  he  allowed  himself 
to  be  persuaded  to  fight  to  the  last.     In  the  Lent  of  1251 
he  was  suspended  from  his  office  for  a  time,  for  his  refusal 
to  institute  a  certain  Italian,  who  knew  no  English,  to  the 
best  benefice  in  his  diocese.1     About  the  same  time,  he 
made  a  severe  visitation  of  his  diocese,  preaching  every- 
where and  compelling  all  holders  of  benefices  not  ordained, 
to  receive  the  priesthood  or  to  resign  their  cures.     In  this 
reform,  he  was,  however,  to  some  extent  defeated  by  the 
dispensations   obtained   from    the  Roman  authorities,  by 
many  of  the  non-ordained  beneficed  clerks  in  the  diocese 
of  Lincoln.2     He  made  no  secret  as  to  his  views  about  the 
foreigners  who  had  been  forced  into  English  benefices  by 
papal  provisions.     "  If  he  handed  over  to  them  the  cure  of 
souls,"  he  used  to  say, "  he  felt  that  he  would  be  damned." 8 
His  refusal  to  institute  the  Italian  nominee  of  the  pope, 
just  referred  to,  was  the  first  actual  break  with  the  Roman 
authorities  ;  but  his  suspension  could  not  have  lasted  very 
long,  if  indeed  it  took  place  at  all,  since  on  the  occasion  of 
the  dedication  of  the  church  at  Hayles,  on  5th  November 
of  the  same  year,  1251,  he  is  found  acting  as  bishop  of  the 
diocese,  and  singing  the  Mass  at  the  high  altar,  as  became 
the  consecrating  prelate.     The  monastery  of  Hayles  was 
founded  at  this  time  in  pursuance  of  a  vow,  made  during  a 
storm  when,  coming  back  from  Gascony,  by  Richard  of 
Cornwall.    At  the  dedication  of  the  church  there  were  pre- 
sent the  king  and  queen  and  most  of  the  great  nobility. 
Thirteen  bishops  took  part  in  the  consecration,  each  cele- 
brating at  his  own  altar,  and  Bishop  Grosseteste  singing 
the  Mass  at  the  high  altar.     Richard  of  Cornwall  himself 
described  the  celebration  to  Matthew  Paris  and  told  him 
1  Matthew  Paris,  v.  227.  a  Ibid.,  279.  3  Ibid.,  257. 


336  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

that  besides  entertaining  the  royal  guests  and  the  bishops 
and  nobles,  he  also  provided  a  fish  banquet  for  all  the 
monks,  and  dined  more  than  three  hundred  knights  be- 
sides.1 

One  important  measure,  which  Grosseteste  had  long 
striven  to  secure,  he  was  enabled  to  see  accomplished  be- 
fore his  death.  This  was  the  regular  appointment  of  vicars 
with  fixed  salaries,  to  work  in  the  parishes  where  the  bene- 
fice had  been  appropriated  to  some  monastery,  college,  or 
ecclesiastical  establishment.2  Although  the  papal  brief  ar- 
ranging this  was  dated  in  September  1250,  for  some  reason 
or  other  it  was  not  published  till  two  years  later,  when  a 
special  letter  from  Pope  Innocent  IV  directed  Grosseteste 
to  see  that  the  stipends  of  the  vicars  in  his  diocese  were 
increased  from  the  sum  formerly  paid  by  the  collegiate 
establishments  and  monasteries.3 

In  1252,  when  the  question  between  the  archbishop  of 
Canterbury  and  his  suffragans  as  to  the  right  of  visitation 
was  being  debated  in  the  Roman  Curia,  the  proctor  for  the 
bishops  received  the  papal  permission  to  borrow  the  sum 
of  two  thousand  marks  for  his  expenses  in  the  cause. 
There  appears  to  have  been  a  difficulty  in  securing  the  re- 
payment of  this  loan,  and  Bishop  Grosseteste  received  a 
letter  from  the  pope  directing  him,  in  common  with  the 
rest  of  the  bishops,  to  have  collections  in  all  the  non- 
exempt  churches  of  England.  The  money,  the  pope  directs, 
was  to  be  paid  by  all  according  to  their  means  under  the 
usual  penalties  of  suspension  and  excommunication,  the 
diocese  of  Canterbury  alone  being  exempted. 

On  the  same  date,  5th  June,  1252,  the  pope  issued  an- 
other letter,  in  which  he  speaks  of  a  sum  of  four  thousand 

1  Matthew  Paris,  v.  262.  2  Wilkins,  Concilia,  i.  699. 

3  Matthew  Paris,  v.  300. 


LAST  YEARS  OF  GROSSETESTE          337 

marks,  which  had  been  promised  him  by  the  clergy  of  the 
province  of  Canterbury,  but  which,  as  he  understands,  they 
are  now  unable  to  pay  immediately  without  great  difficulty. 
In  this  document,  therefore,  the  Holy  Father  suggests,  and, 
in  fact,  orders,  that  the  money  be  raised  by  a  collection  in 
the  churches  of  the  province,  to  which  each  church  should 
contribute  the  sum  at  which  it  had  been  rated.1  Both  of 
these  papal  letters  Bishop  Grosseteste  ordered  to  be  pub- 
lished and  carried  into  effect  in  his  diocese. 

In  what  was  to  be  almost  the  last  year  of  his  life, 
Grosseteste  embarked  upon  the  most  serious,  as  it  is  per- 
haps the  best  known  incident  in  his  whole  career — his  dis- 
agreement with  the  pope.  Innocent  IV,  in  January  1253, 
wrote  to  the  archdeacon  of  Canterbury  and  to  Master 
Innocent,  the  papal  notary  in  England,  saying  that  he  had 
conferred  a  canonry  at  Lincoln,  at  the  request  of  one  of  the 
cardinals,  upon  Frederick  di  Lavagna,  his  nephew.  Di 
Lavagna  was  a  cleric,  and  the  letter  directed  that  he  should 
have  the  next  vacant  canonry  at  Lincoln,  all  laws  to  the 
contrary  being  dispensed  with,  and  that  he  might  be  in- 
stituted to  the  benefice  by  means  of  his  ring  and  by  proxy.2 
When  this  order  was  communicated  to  Bishop  Grosseteste 
he  wrote  in  the  strongest  terms  of  protest  to  the  com- 
missioners, thinking,  as  both  he  and  the  other  bishops  of 
England  had  often  declared,  that  such  appointments  were 
unjust  and  against  right  reason.3 

"  You  know,"  he  writes,  "  that  devotedly  and  reverently 
and  with  filial  affection  I  obey  the  apostolic  orders ;  but  in 
cases  such  as  this,  which  are  against  the  apostolic  precepts, 
zealous  for  the  paternal  honour,  I  oppose  and  resist,  as  by 
divine  law  I  am  bound  to  do  both."  The  pastoral  office 

1  Additamenta,  213-217.  2  Ibid.,  229-231. 

3  Matthew  Paris,  v.  389. 


338  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

exists,  he  goes  on  to  argue  in  substance,  for  the  sake  of 
the  sheep :  the  ministry  is  instituted  that  those  in  it  may 
watch  over  the  flock,  not  that  they  may  kill  and  destroy  it. 
To  allow,  therefore,  men  to  obtain  from  the  ministry  merely 
what  they  could  get  for  themselves  would  be  a  scandal  and 
a  crime.  "  It  is  impossible,  therefore,  that  the  most  holy 
Apostolic  See,  to  which  all  power  is  given  by  the  Holy  of 
Holies,  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  as  the  apostle  declares :  '  to 
build  up  not  to  destroy  1  can  either  order,  or  command,  or 
request,  or  connive  at  anything  approaching  a  sin  of  this 
kind,  so  hateful,  detestable,  and  abominable  to  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  and  so  hurtful  to  the  human  race."  This  is 
impossible  to  conceive,  for  it  would  be  an  abuse  of  the 
power  of  the  Holy  See,  which  is  "  clearly  most  holy  and 
supreme."  Therefore,  the  bishop  concludes,  believing  as 
I  do,  out  of  the  very  duty  of  obedience  and  fidelity  by 
which  I  am  bound,  "  as  to  both  parents,"  to  the  Apostolic 
See,  "  and  out  of  that  love  of  the  union  with  that  See  in 
the  body  of  Christ — in  a  filial  and  obedient  spirit  I  do  not 
obey,  I  refuse  and  I  rebel." x 

When  Grosseteste's  attitude  was  explained  to  the  pope, 
he  expressed  himself  very  strongly  against  the  bishop's  de- 
claration. He  contemplated  taking  severe  measures  against 
him,  declaring  that  even  the  king  of  England  was  his  vas- 
sal and  depended  upon  his  good  pleasure  for  his  kingdom  ; 
but  he  allowed  himself  to  be  restrained  by  the  more 
prudent  counsels  of  the  cardinals.  Some  of  his  advisers 
even  went  so  far,  according  to  the  English  chronicler,  as  to 
say  that  in  their  opinion  what  the  bishop  had  written  was 
the  truth.  The  Spanish  cardinal,  Giles  de  Torres,  arch- 
bishop of  Toledo,  spoke  in  the  highest  terms  of  Grosse- 
teste,  and,  pointing  out  that  his  reputation  for  learning  and 

1  Matthew  Paris,  v.  389-392. 


LAST  YEARS  OF  GROSSETESTE          339 

sanctity  was  not  confined  to  England,  declared  that  any 
condemnation  of  his  attitude  in  this  question  would  only 
serve  to  stir  up  the  public  sentiment  against  the  Roman 
Curia.1 

Bishop  Grosseteste  did  not  act  hastily  in  this  matter. 
The  application  for  English  benefices  to  satisfy  the  claims 
of  foreign  ecclesiastics  upon  the  gratitude  of  the  Curia,  had 
become  so  numerous  about  the  middle  of  the  century,  that 
in  1252  he  determined  to  make  an  inquiry  into  the  incomes 
then  possessed  by  foreigners  in  England,  many,  if  not  most, 
of  whom  were  absent  from  their  benefices,  and,  indeed, 
from  the  country.  He  found  that  the  abuse  had  grown 
greatly  in  the  then  pontificate;  and,  in  fact,  that  Innocent  IV 
had  appointed  as  many  foreigners  to  such  livings  as  all  his 
predecessors  put  together.  The  total  income  thus  derived 
by  foreign  ecclesiastics  at  the  date  of  Grosseteste's  inquiry 
was  put  at  the  enormous  sum  of  70,000  marks,  the  ordinary 
revenue  of  the  king  of  England  at  that  time  being  hardly 
one  third  of  that  amount.2  Allowing  for  every  possible 
exaggeration  of  these  figures,  the  state  of  the  matter  re- 
vealed by  the  inquiry  initiated  by  the  bishop  was  suffici- 
ently grave  to  make  him  determine  at  all  costs  to  arrest 
the  evil,  if  possible.  His  opinion  on  the  matter  appears  in 
a  strong  communication  made  by  him  to  parliament  this 
same  year,  1252.  He  wished,  he  said,  that  all  might  be  true 
and  faithful  children  of  mother  Church,  from  which  they 
had  received  the  regeneration  of  baptism.  It  was,  however, 
impossible  to  tolerate  the  giving  away  to  foreigners  what 
the  pious  devotion  of  founders  had  intended  for  divine 
worship,  for  the  support  of  the  ministers  of  the  Church,  and 
for  the  care  of  the  poor.  This  was  especially  detrimental 
when  these  foreigners  "  lived  in  remote  countries,  and  were 

1  Matthew  Paris,  v.  393.  3  Ibid.,  355. 


340  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

men  who  not  only  aimed  at  carrying  off  the  fleece,  but 
knew  not  even  the  look  of  their  flocks.  They  were  ignorant 
of  the  language,  neglected  the  cure  of  souls,  and  yet  col- 
lected and  carried  away  money,  to  the  great  impoverishing 
of  the  kingdom."  English  people  were  too  patient,  or  too 
foolish;  and  if  they  did  not  make  a  stand,  their  country, 
which  was  of  old  free,  would  find  itself  saddled  with  the 
payment  of  a  perpetual  tribute.  He  exhorts  them,  there- 
fore, to  put  an  end  to  these  provisions  and  impositions 
made  by  the  Apostolic  See,  and  not  to  allow  men  to  reap 
where  they  had  not  sown,  or  those  to  claim  their  food  who 
had  not  been  labourers.1 

During  the  heat  of  the  summer,  1253,  Bishop  Grosseteste 
was  seized  with  what  proved  to  be  his  last  illness,  at  his 
manor  of  Buckden.  He  at  once  sent  for  his  friend  the 
Dominican,  Friar  John  of  St.  Giles,  a  skilled  doctor  of 
medicine  as  well  as  a  trained  theologian.  With  him  he 
held  long  conversations  about  the  state  of  the  Church  and 
the  evils  which,  in  his  opinion,  seemed  most  to  threaten  it. 
Of  course,  chief  amongst  these  was  the  appointment  of 
foreigners  and  young  people  to  the  English  benefices,  and 
the  consequent  neglect  of  souls;  but  even  above  this  in 
importance,  the  dying  bishop  seems  to  place  as  an  evil  of 
the  times,  the  influx  of  money  lenders  and  usurers  into  the 
country,  which  was  in  his  opinion  mainly  caused  by  the 
exactions  of  the  papal  officials.  They  had  never  existed  in 
the  country  previously,  he  declared,  and  he  gave  instances 
to  show  that  the  conditions  for  lending  money  made  by 
these  men,  who  called  themselves  Christians,  and  were 
under  papal  protection,  were  harder  than  those  made  by 
the  Jews  themselves.  Bishop  Grosseteste's  whole  soul 
seemed  filled  with  darkness  and  foreboding  at  the  thought 
1  Grosseteste,  Efist.,  442. 


LAST  YEARS  OF  GROSSETESTE          341 

of  the  many  evils  which  were,  in  his  opinion,  afflicting 
religion  at  this  time,  and  which  made  him  content  to  leave 
the  world,  where  so  much  seemed  hopelessly  amiss.  He 
died  on  gth  October,  I253,1  and  according  to  the  testimony 
of  people  at  the  time,  which  the  chronicler  did  his  best  to 
sift  and  prove,  there  were  sounds  of  bells  in  the  air  on  the 
night  when  he  passed  away;  Pope  Innocent  IV,  so  it  was 
said,  dreamed  that  the  bishop  came  to  him  and  gave  him 
a  wound  in  his  side,  from  which  he  never  recovered;  and 
later,  miracles  were  said  to  have  been  wrought  at  his  tomb 
and  through  his  intercession.  In  after  years  attempts  were 
made  to  procure  his  canonisation,  but  they  failed,  although 
for  centuries  the  English  people  reverenced  his  memory. 
A  modern  writer  says  of  him :  "  Probably  no  one  had  a 
greater  influence  upon  English  thought  and  English  litera- 
ture following  his  time  than  Bishop  Grosseteste;  few  books 
written  then  will  be  found  that  do  not  contain  quotations 
from  '  Lincolniensis ' ! "  Roger  Bacon  writes :  "  Only  one 
knew  science  like  the  bishop  of  Lincoln,  and  Tyssyngton 
speaks  of  the  comparison  between  him  and  modern  doctors, 
being  like  the  comparison  of  the  sun  to  the  moon  at  an 
eclipse." 

It  is  only  right  to  give  here  the  substance  of  the  reply 
made  by  Pope  Innocent  IV  to  the  archbishop  and  bishops 
in  May,  1253,  to  a  representation  sent  to  him  in  consequence, 
no  doubt,  of  Bishop  Grosseteste's  agitation.  "  The  Roman 
Church,"  he  says,  "  has  to  bear  on  its  shoulders  all  common 
burdens,  and  is  ready  to  lighten  the  load  of  each  individual. 
— It  has  lately  been  told  us  by  the  messengers,  whom  you 
sent  to  us,  that  the  English  Church  is  burdened  in  an  in- 
tolerable way  by  the  Apostolic  See  by  the  provision  of 
foreigners  to  benefices,  to  the  great  loss  of  the  said  Church, 
1  Matthew  Paris,  v.  400-407. 


342  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

and  to  the  scandal  of  the  English,  since  they  assert  that 
these  provisions  exceed  the  yearly  sum  of  fifty  thousand 
marks.  These  messengers  consequently  beg  in  your  name 
that  the  clemency  of  the  Apostolic  See  may  provide  some 
remedy."  The  pope  then  goes  on  to  say  that,  from  the 
bottom  of  his  heart,  he  is  distressed  at  the  burdens  of  the 
Church,  which  are  specially  grave  in  the  days  in  which 
they  were  living.  Especially  is  he  sorry  that  the  Eng- 
lish Church  should  feel  the  burden,  since  it  has  always 
shown  its  devotion  to  the  Roman  Church.  But  the  times 
are  specially  evil,  and  he  is  constantly  being  importuned 
on  all  sides,  and  even  forced  to  do  many  things,  sometimes 
wholly  against  his  will,  sometimes  with  little  desire  to  do 
them.  In  this  way,  some  clerics,  "worn  out  and  greatly 
exhausted,  after  great  labours,"  appeal  to  him  for  the  favour 
of  an  apostolic  provision,  which  out  of  paternal  compassion 
he  had  granted  them.  Others  were  supported  in  their  re- 
quests for  rewards  by  those  who  could  not  be  gainsaid: 
whilst  there  were  others,  again,  whose  appointments  were 
useful  to  the  churches  themselves.  On  consideration  of  the 
complaints  addressed  to  him  by  the  English  Church,  he 
had  come  to  the  conclusion,  he  says,  to  propose  the  follow- 
ing arrangement,  "should  your  opinion,"  he  adds,  "agree 
with  ours  " :  that  the  English  ecclesiastics  should  tolerate 
the  appointment  of  Italian  clerics  to  English  benefices  to 
the  annual  value  of  eight  thousand  marks. 

In  the  midst  of  all  these  difficulties,  however,  the  in- 
ternal life  of  the  Church  was  by  no  means  neglected.  It 
would  be  to  take  an  altogether  wrong  view  of  this  period 
to  suppose  that  all  the  energies  of  ecclesiastics  were  ex- 
hausted in  their  efforts  to  secure  some  mitigation  of  the 
taxation,  which  seemed  calculated  to  interfere  seriously 
with  the  purposes  for  which  the  English  benefices  had  been 


LAST  YEARS  OF  GROSSETESTE          343 

created  by  generations  of  pious  benefactors.  The  bishops, 
in  their  visitations  and  by  their  synodical  constitutions, 
endeavoured  to  sustain  a  high  standard  of  Christian  and 
clerical  life  among  clergy  and  people.  Grosseteste  was 
untiring  in  his  efforts  in  this  regard,  and  he  was  even 
seriously  blamed  for  the  over-severity  of  his  episcopal 
examinations  and  corrections.  Some  few  notes  as  to  the 
constitutions  issued  by  the  bishops  at  this  period,  will  help 
the  reader  to  understand  what  were  the  teachings,  practices 
and  high  ideals  of  this  period  in  the  history  of  the  English 
Church,  and  help  to  correct  the  impression,  which  might 
perhaps  be  formed  from  the  tale  of  the  many  difficulties, 
that  the  higher  aims  and  aspirations  were  lost  sight  of  in 
the  world  of  trouble  and  strife. 

To  take  some  examples  :  In  1246  Bishop  Richard  de  la 
Wych,  of  Chichester,  issued  to  his  clergy  some  synodical 
statutes  as  to  their  duties.  The  salvation  of  our  subjects, 
he  says,  rests  on  us  by  virtue  of  our  office.  "  We  are  bound 
to  see  to  their  correction  in  spiritual  matters,  lest  any  one 
by  want  of  knowledge  may  stray  from  the  path  of  justice, 
or  through  presumption  dare  to  contravene  the  canonical 
institutions.  For  this  reason,  in  this  holy  synod,  we  pro- 
pose to  issue  these  mandates  lest  we,  who  are  bound  to 
render  our  account  of  others,  may  be  condemned  in  the 
great  examination  for  our  own  negligence."  The  bishop 
then  goes  on  to  treat  in  a  special  way  of  the  sacraments. 
These,  he  says,  "  are  seven — the  Baptism  of  those  entering 
upon  the  way  of  life  ;  the  Confirmation  of  those  fighting  ; 
the  Eucharist  for  those  journeying  along  the  way ;  the 
Penance  of  those  who  have  wandered  from  it  but  are  re- 
turning ;  Extreme  Unction  for  those  passing  away ;  Orders 
for  those  ministering  ;  Marriage  for  those  labouring." 

The  constitution,  speaking  of  Baptism  at  some  length, 


344  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

charges  the  priest  to  see  that  the  lay  people  of  his  parish 
know  the  proper  form  for  administering  the  sacrament, 
and  when  they  have  had  need  to  make  use  of  it  in  case 
of  great  necessity,  the  priest  is  to  question  them  how  they 
have  performed  the  rite,  in  order  to  be  quite  certain  that 
it  has  been  rightly  done.  The  font  and  the  holy  oils,  as 
well  as  the  Eucharist,  are  to  be  kept  under  lock  and  key. 
No  fee  is  to  be  demanded  for  any  baptism,  confession,  or 
burial,  or  indeed  for  any  ecclesiastical  ministration,  but 
whatever  is  offered  gratuitously  may  be  kept.  As  to  Con- 
firmation, if  there  be  any  doubt,  the  child  is  to  be  again 
confirmed.  Parents  must  present  their  children  within  a 
year  of  their  attaining  the  proper  age  to  be  confirmed,  and 
adults  are  to  be  asked  by  their  confessors  whether  they 
have  received  the  sacrament.  If  they  have  not,  as  soon  as 
possible  after  confession,  they  must  be  sent  to  the  bishop. 

All  that  surrounds  the  altar  is  to  be  of  the  greatest 
cleanliness :  the  priest  must  see  that  the  vestments  are 
good  and  in  no  wise  torn  ;  the  Holy  Eucharist  is  not  to  be 
reserved  for  longer  than  seven  days,  but  must  be  changed 
each  Sunday  ;  when  the  Blessed  Sacrament  is  taken  to  the 
sick,  it  must  be  borne  by  the  priest  with  the  utmost  rever- 
ence, with  cross,  lights  and  holy  water,  and  preceded  by 
one  ringing  a  bell  to  let  the  faithful  know. 

For  the  sacrament  of  Penance  three  things  are  declared 
to  be  necessary — contrition,  confession  and  satisfaction ;  and 
the  need  of  contrition  or  sorrow  for  sins  is  to  be  insisted 
upon  as  a  necessary  condition  for  the  remission  of  sins. 

Only  those  who  have  passed  a  sufficient  examination 
are  to  be  allowed  to  enter  the  ranks  of  the  clergy,  and  no 
one  is  to  be  ordained  to  sacred  Orders  if  he  come  with  any 
other  design  than  to  serve  God  alone ;  ordination,  there- 
fore, should  be  bestowed  on  no  one  for  money,  favour  or 


LAST  YEARS  OF  GROSSETESTE         345 

privilege,  and  all  those  in  the  least  tainted  with  heresy,  or 
suspected  of  evil  or  unholy  lives,  must  be  rigorously  ex- 
cluded from  the  service  of  the  altar.  Every  parish  priest 
ought  to  labour  for  the  salvation  of  his  people,  and  as  far 
as  his  means  will  allow,  he  must  assist  the  poor.  All  the 
clergy  are  bound  to  live  at  their  own  churches,  and  there, 
according  to  their  ability,  to  see  to  the  hospitals  and  other 
works  of  charity.  All  churches  are  to  be  carefully  looked 
after,  and  the  chalices,  books,  and  the  ecclesiastical  orna- 
ments must  be  sufficient  and  clean.  On  the  death  of  a 
priest,  if  he  has  not  in  his  lifetime  properly  seen  to  the 
care  of  his  church,  this  has  to  be  made  good  from  the 
property  he  leaves  behind  him.  All  the  faithful  are  to  be 
warned  that  they  must  know  the  Creed,  the  Lord's  Prayer 
and  the  Angelical  Salutation.  The  meaning  of  these  the 
priest  must  diligently  and  frequently  teach  to  the  people, 
at  least  in  their  native  language.1 

In  another  set  of  constitutions  issued  by  Walter  Gray, 
archbishop  of  York,  in  1250,  the  work  of  the  parishioners 
in  their  parish  church  is  stated  clearly.  They  are  to  be 
taught  and  made  to  understand  that  it  is  their  duty  and 
privilege  to  provide  the  chalice,  missal  and  principal  vest- 
ments, i.e,  chasuble,  alb,  amice,  stole,  maniple,  girdle,  cor- 
porals, as  well  as  other  vestments  for  the  deacon.  According 
to  the  means  of  the  parishioners,  their  churches  should 
have  a  silk  cope  for  the  chief  feasts,  and  two  others  for 
the  conductors  of  the  choir  on  those  days ;  a  processional 
cross  for  feast  days  and  another  for  funerals ;  a  bier  for  the 
dead  and  a  vessel  for  holy  water;  the  instrument  for  giving 
the  pax ;  the  great  candlestick  for  Easter ;  the  thurible ; 
the  lamp  and  bell  used  in  carrying  the  Blessed  Sacrament 
to  the  sick ;  the  Lenten  veil ;  two  candlesticks  for  wax 

1  Wilkins,  Concilia,  i.  688-693. 


346  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

lights ;  such  books  as  the  legend,  antiphonar,  grayle,  psalter, 
tropary,  ordinal,  missal  and  manual ;  the  frontal  of  the  high 
altar,  and  three  surplices;  a  proper  pyx  for  the  Body  of 
Christ ;  the  banners  of  the  Rogation  days  ;  the  great  bells 
with  their  cords ;  the  holy  font  with  its  fastenings ;  the 
vessel  for  the  chrism ;  the  images  in  the  church ;  and,  in  the 
chancel,  the  chief  image  of  the  saint  to  whom  the  church 
is  dedicated.  Moreover,  to  the  people  pertain  all  repairs 
of  books  and  vestments,  etc.,  when  needed  ;  the  keeping  of 
the  lights  in  the  church,  and  the  repairs ;  and  indeed,  when 
necessary,  the  construction  of  the  nave.  The  rector  has  to 
see  to  the  chancel  with  its  walls,  windows  and  ornaments.1 

In  a  third  set  of  constitutions  issued  by  Walter  de 
Kirkham,  bishop  of  Durham,  in  1255,  the  necessity  of 
frequently  expounding  the  moral  law  and  of  teaching  the 
people  what  they  should  know  about  the  sins  by  which 
God  is  offended,  etc.,  is  insisted  upon  in  plain  language. 
The  clergy  are  to  preach  to  the  people  on  holydays  and 
Sundays  "in  the  common  and  vulgar  idiom,"  about  the 
sacraments  and  about  the  articles  of  their  faith,  and  to 
teach  them  the  Pater  and  Ave,  and  how  they  should  make 
the  sign  of  the  Cross,  lest  when  the  laity  be  asked  on  these 
matters  "  in  the  last  day's  judgement,  they  shall  be  able 
to  excuse  themselves,  by  reason  of  the  negligence  of 
priests."  * 

1  Wilkins,  Concilia,  i.  698.  a  Ibid.,  704. 


CHAPTER  XIX 

THE  POPE'S  GIFT  OF  THE  SICILIAN  CROWN  TO 
HENRY'S  SON  EDMUND 

IN  the  autumn  of  1251,  the  pope,  with  his  hands  already 
too  full  of  other  business,  became  involved  in  considerable 
difficulties  as  to  Sicily.  On  the  deposition  of  the  emperor 
Frederick  II,  that  kingdom  devolved  upon  the  Holy  See; 
and  the  situation  became  grave  when  the  emperor's  son, 
Conrad  IV,  landed  at  Naples  to  commence  operations  for 
recovering  the  sceptre.  The  pope  could  only  protect,  or 
recover  his  position,  by  the  help  of  some  prince  powerful 
enough  to  dislodge  the  Hohenstauffen  from  southern  Italy, 
and  to  found  there  a  dynasty  faithful  to  the  pope,  acknow- 
ledging him  as  overlord.  Innocent  IV,  with  this  end  in 
view,  opened  negotiations  simultaneously  with  the  royal 
houses  of  France  and  England.  In  the  former  kingdom 
his  thoughts  turned  to  Charles  of  Anjou,  who,  being  very 
rich,  and  possessing  great  domains,  could  easily  collect 
and  support  the  considerable  forces  which  would  be  neces- 
sary when  hostilities  were  commenced  against  Conrad  IV. 
By  his  marriage  with  the  heiress  of  Provence,  also,  his 
estates,  stretching  along  the  shores  of  the  Mediterranean, 
were  not  too  far  removed  from  the  papal  possessions  to 
make  him  a  useful  ally.  In  August,  1252,  therefore,  not 
only  was  the  offer  made  to  Charles,  but  the  king,  St.  Louis, 
and  the  count  of  Poitiers  were  asked  to  urge  upon  their 
brother  the  importance  of  accepting  the  pope's  offer.  At 

347 


348  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

the  same  time,  however,  Innocent  IV  had  more  than  one 
string  to  his  bow,  and  he  was  already  in  communication 
with  others. 

In  the  same  month  of  August,  1252,  Innocent  wrote  to 
the  English  king  about  Sicily.  He  had  long  before,  he 
says,  offered  the  crown  to  Richard,  earl  of  Cornwall, 
Henry's  brother.  This  was  probably  in  1250,  when  the 
earl  of  Cornwall  paid  a  visit  to  the  pope  at  Lyons,  and  is 
said  to  have  had  several  secret  conferences  with  him. 
Earlier  again,  in  1247,  on  the  death  of  the  first  prince 
whom  the  pope  had  set  up  as  king  of  Sicily  on  the  de- 
position of  Frederick  II,  a  papal  legate  had  journeyed  to 
England  to  offer  Richard  of  Cornwall  this  very  unstable 
throne,  which  offer,  however,  was  rejected.  At  Lyons,1 
three  years  later,  the  negotiations  for  the  Sicilian  crown, 
referred  to  in  Pope  Innocent's  letter  of  August,  1252,  were 
in  all  probability  commenced,  but  at  the  time  the  pope's 
intentions  received  little  encouragement  from  Richard, 
who  was  apparently  not  anxious  to  occupy  the  throne 
of  his  deposed  brother-in-law  Frederick.  In  his  letter 
to  the  English  king,  dated  3rd  August,  1252,  the  pope 
asks  him  to  press  his  brother  to  accept  the  crown  "out 
of  reverence  of  God,  the  Apostolic  See,  and  of  us,"  so 
that  "by  His  help  whose  business  it  is,  he  may  attain 
through  his  temporal  crown  to  an  eternal  one."  *  Richard 
himself  received  two  papal  Bulls,  one  dated  2nd  August, 
and  the  other  8th  August,  which  were  doubtless  couched 
in  similar  terms,  and  the  existence  of  which  is  now 
known  only  by  an  ancient  inventory  of  the  papal  archives 
printed  by  Muratori.3 

1  Matthew  Paris,  v.  347. 
*  Rymer,  i.  284. 

3  Antiquitates  Italiae,  vi.  col.  104.    This  catalogue  was  made  in  A.D.  1366, 
and  is  noticed  by  M.  Elie  Berger,  Reg.  <f  Innocent  IV,  ii.  cclxxix. 


PAPAL  GIFT  OF  SICILIAN  CROWN         349 

Failing  to  obtain  a  satisfactory  conclusion  by  letter, 
Pope  Innocent  dispatched  his  notary,  Albert  of  Parma,  to 
England,  and  he  reached  this  country  on  nth  November. 
He  was  not  altogether  unknown  in  the  land,  as  two  years 
before  he  had  been  sent  to  the  English  king  to  convey  the 
pope's  orders  that  during  the  absence  of  the  king  of  France 
in  the  Holy  Land,  the  English  were  not  to  molest  that 
country  in  any  way.  The  chronicler  sees  in  the  offer  of 
the  Sicilian  kingdom  to  Richard  of  Cornwall,  a  desire  on 
the  part  of  the  pope  to  make  use  of  the  great  riches  he 
was  supposed  to  possess  in  defence  of  the  Church.  Earl 
Richard  himself  gave  Matthew  Paris  his  information  on 
the  subject,  and  the  reasons  stated  by  the  chronicler  for 
his  refusal  of  the  papal  offers  are  thus  probably  correct. 
He  was  not  in  good  health,  nor  very  skilled  in  the  arts  of 
war;  it  did  not  appear  right  to  supplant  his  own  nephew 
Henry,  the  son  of  the  emperor  Frederick,  nor  was  it 
prudent  to  give  up  a  certainty  for  an  uncertainty.1 

Apparently  the  earl  of  Cornwall,  whilst  showing  plainly 
enough  his  determination  to  refuse,  asked  what  the  pope 
on  his  part  was  prepared  to  do  in  the  way  of  finding 
money,  and  of  placing  in  his  hands  certain  strongholds. 
Innocent  would  grant  nothing  of  this  kind,  and  Albert  left 
England  with  what  amounted  to  Richard's  refusal.  When 
the  nuncio  got  back  to  Rome  and  reported  the  failure  of 
his  mission,  he  said  that  Richard  of  Cornwall  had  told  him 
that  if  the  pope  would  not  agree  to  his  conditions  it  was 
as  much  as  to  say,  "  I  sell  you,  or  give  you,  the  moon ;  go 
and  take  it."  And  this  proved  to  Innocent  that  his  scheme 
was  impossible  so  far  as  the  earl  was  concerned. 

Master  Albert,  the  papal  notary,  also  carried  back  with 
him  a  letter  from  the  king  to  the  pope,  the  terms  of  which 

1  Matthew  Paris,  v.  346-347. 


350  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

gave  some  hope  of  future  success  for  the  papal  diplomacy. 
"  We  offer  our  thanks,"  Henry  says,  "  as  far  as  human  de- 
votion can,  to  the  Roman  Church,  our  mother,  and  espe- 
cially to  your  loving  Paternity,  because  you  have  made 
choice  of  Richard,  earl  of  Cornwall,  before  all  other 
princes  of  the  world,  for  the  throne  of  the  kingdom  of 
Sicily."  But  when  Albert,  your  notary,  anxiously  begged 
that  we  would  help  our  brother  to  acquire  the  kingdom, 
we,  "  not  unmindful  of  all  the  good  and  special  favours  we 
have  so  often  received  from  the  Roman  Church,  as  a 
thankful  and  devoted  son,  have  allowed  him  to  receive 
proper  help  from  the  clergy  of  our  kingdom." l 

By  the  end  of  1252  the  successes  of  Conrad  in  the 
south  of  Italy  made  it  imperative  that  the  pope  should 
find  some  ally  to  take  up  his  quarrel,  in  return  for  the 
crown  of  Sicily.  The  negotiations  with  France  were  again 
resumed,  and  Count  Charles  of  Anjou  was  to  be  pressed  to 
accept  the  offer,  now  made  by  Master  Albert  of  Parma, 
who  had  been  charged  with  a  similar  mission  to  England. 
On  7th  June,  1253,  the  title  of  legate  was  conferred  upon 
him,  and  he  was  authorised,  in  carrying  out  this  business, 
to  contract  any  debts,  no  matter  on  what  onerous  terms, 
and,  if  necessary,  to  pledge  the  credit  of  the  Roman 
Church,  as  well  as  that  of  all  the  churches  and  monasteries 
within  the  limits  of  his  legation  with  their  property  and 
revenues.2 

The  donation  of  the  crown  of  Sicily  to  the  count  of 
Anjou,  however,  was  accompanied  with  many  and  very 
onerous  conditions,  which  are  expressed  in  the  letter  en- 
tered in  the  papal  register,  under  the  date  of  loth  June, 
I253.3  The  pope  had  evidently  allowed  himself  to  enter- 

1  Rymer,  i.  288.  *  Reg.  <f  Innocent  IV,  No.  6811. 

3  Ibid.,  No.  6819. 


PAPAL  GIFT  OF  SICILIAN  CROWN         351 

tain  confident  expectations  that  the  count  of  Anjou  would 
accept  the  crown,  though  burdened  by  so  many  conditions. 
The  legate  was  authorised  to  give  way  in  respect  to  some 
of  the  most  objectionable  provisions;  but  finally,  in  the 
autumn  of  1253,  negotiations  were  broken  off,  and  the 
refusal  of  the  crown  by  Charles  of  Anjou  was  complete. 
The  nuncio,  Albert  of  Parma,  still  remained,  however,  in 
France,  and  thence  conducted  new  negotiations  with  Eng- 
land. In  March,  1254,  he  wrote  to  Edmund,  King  Henry's 
son,  that  out  of  a  knowledge  of  "  the  sincere  and  unbroken 
fidelity  which  the  English  sovereign  had  ever  manifested 
to  the  Roman  Church,"  and  believing  that  the  young 
prince  would  follow  in  his  father's  footsteps,  Pope  Inno- 
cent had  determined  to  confer  on  him  the  kingdom  of 
Sicily,  to  be  held  as  a  fief  from  the  Roman  pontiffs.  He 
added  that  he  would  be  informed  as  to  the  conditions  of 
this  gift,  but  that  they  were  such  as  both  he  and  the  Eng- 
lish king  had  already  accepted.1 

Hardly  was  this  mooted,  and  indeed  whilst  Innocent 
IV  was  waiting  with  impatience  for  Henry  to  take  some 
action  to  settle  his  son  in  his  new  kingdom,  when,  on  2ist 
May,  1254,  Conrad  IV  died.  This  seemed  to  suggest  for  a 
while  a  possible  change  in  the  papal  policy.  The  pope 
seemed  drawn  to  support  the  rights  of  the  infant  son  ol 
Conrad  IV,2  and  he  even  allowed  the  insertion  into  the 
form  of  oath  of  fidelity  to  the  papacy  the  words  "  saving 
the  rights  of  the  infant  Conrad."  Meanwhile,  Henry  III, 
"  who  did  nothing  either  for  the  new  crown  of  his  son  or 
for  the  Holy  See,"  called  himself  "  tutor  or  guardian  of 
Edmund,  king  of  Sicily."3  In  the  previous  May,  1254, 

1  Rymer,  i.  297. 

*  Reg,  d' Innocent  IVt  ii.  cclxxxv. 

1  Rymer,  i.  310. 


352  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

the  pope  had  written  to  urge  the  English  king  to  hasten 
the  preparations,  by  which  it  was  necessary  he  should 
assert  the  claim  of  his  son  to  the  new  kingdom.1  This 
communication  he  had  followed  up  a  few  days  later  by 
urging  him  to  cut  down  all  unnecessary  expenses,  "  even 
for  pious  objects,"  in  order  to  be  able  to  carry  out  the 
necessary  operations  in  Sicily,  which  he  was  to  remember 
was  "  even  more  than  any  mere  work  of  piety."  Moreover, 
so  anxious  was  he  that  something  should  be  done  at  once, 
that  he  wrote  also  to  the  queen,  begging  of  her  to  urge  her 
consort  to  take  his  advice  and  leave  other  matters  alone, 
until  the  all-important  affair  of  Sicily  had  been  arranged.3 
Nor  did  Pope  Innocent  stop  here ;  he  wrote  two  other 
letters  to  the  English  king.  In  the  first,  he  told  him  that 
he  had  arranged  for  a  large  sum  of  money  to  help  him  in 
the  task  he  had  undertaken,  one  half  to  be  paid  at  Lyons 
when  Henry  was  ready  to  begin,  and  the  rest  when  he 
needed  it.  In  the  next  letter,  dispatched  the  same  day, 
2ist  May,  1254,  the  pope  gives  the  king  leave  to  make  use 
of  the  tenth  on  ecclesiastical  property,  which  had  been 
granted  for  three  years  for  the  expedition  to  the  Holy 
Land,  for  the  Sicilian  business.  The  tax  was  extended 
for  two  years  beyond  the  original  limit  of  three.3 

At  the  instigation  of  the  nuncio,  Henry  sent  to  the  pope, 
for  the  defence  of  the  Sicilian  kingdom  in  the  interests  of 
the  Roman  Church,  whatever  sums  of  money  he  could 
scrape  together  from  his  much  depleted  treasury,  or  which 
he  could  borrow  from  his  brother  Richard  of  Cornwall,4  or 
could  extort  from  the  Jews.  This  sum  was,  however,  soon 
gone,  and  Innocent  urged  Henry  to  let  him  have  more ; 

1  Rymer,  i.  302.  *  Ibid.  a  Ibid.,  303. 

*  He  borrowed  5 ,000  marks  from  the  earl  of  Cornwall,  and  in  payment 
"assigned  and  gave  over  to  him  all  the  Jews  in  England."  (Rymer,  315.) 


PAPAL  GIFT  OF  SICILIAN  CROWN       353 

whereupon  the  king  sent  him  signed  and  sealed  letters, 
promising  to  find  what  might  be  needful,  upon  which 
letters  the  pope  could  borrow  from  the  Italian  money 
lenders  what  he  wanted  for  the  support  of  his  army.1 

It  was  not  until  April,  1255,  that  Alexander  IV,  who 
had  now  succeeded  Pope  Innocent,  laid  down  the  con- 
ditions upon  which  the  kingdom  of  Sicily  had  been  given 
to  Edmund,  the  son  of  Henry  III,  in  a  lengthy  Bull.  He 
speaks  of  the  well-known  love  and  faithful  service  of  the 
English  for  "  their  mother,  the  Roman  Church,"  and  how 
anxiously  and  with  what  generosity  she  watched  to  requite 
such  affectionate  loyalty.  His  predecessor  had  given  over 
the  kingdom  of  Sicily  to  Edmund,  "  out  of  the  plenitude 
of  his  power,  supplying  any  defect  if  such  existed."  He 
now,  he  says,  desires  to  lay  down  the  conditions  of  this 
gift ;  it  is  not  to  be  divided,  but  held  as  one  kingdom  from 
the  Holy  See,  Edmund  and  his  successors  doing  homage 
and  taking  the  oath  of  allegiance  to  him  and  his  successors 
in  the  papal  Chair ;  every  feast  of  SS.  Peter  and  Paul 
two  thousand  ounces  of  gold  are  to  be  paid  to  the  pope  as 
tribute,  and  a  body  of  troops  is  to  be  found  to  serve  the 
pope's  interests  at  the  expense  of  the  king  of  Sicily  for 
three  months  yearly.  Then,  after  providing  for  the  juris- 
diction of  the  churches  of  the  territory,  the  document 
demands  a  promise  that  the  holder  of  the  crown  of  Sicily 
will  not  strive  to  hold  also  the  office  of  the  king  of  the 
Romans,  under  pain  of  excommunication.  Edmund  is  also 
to  remit  entirely  the  sum  of  a  hundred  thousand  pounds, 
which  Pope  Innocent  IV  had  promised  to  enable  him  to 
secure  his  position.  He  then  gives  the  form  of  homage 
which  the  king,  in  the  name  of  the  young  prince,  is  to  take 
before  his  nuncio,  and  to  send  to  the  pope  in  a  document 

1  Matthew  Paris,  v.  457-459. 
A  A 


354          HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

sealed  with  a  golden  seal.  This  oath  Edmund  is  to  take  in 
his  own  name  when  he  reaches  the  age  of  fifteen,  and  at 
any  time  at  the  pleasure  of  the  pope  he  and  his  successors 
may  be  called  upon  to  renew  it.  Moreover,  the  king  and 
his  eldest  son  Edward  shall  swear  to  the  same,  and  be 
sureties  for  the  keeping  of  these  conditions,  until  Edmund 
reaches  the  age  appointed.  Then  comes  the  money  question : 
the  Bull  requires  that  the  king  of  England  shall  repay  the 
expenses  already  incurred  by  the  pope  in  the  Sicilian  busi- 
ness. These  are  put  at  135,541  marks;  and  after  three  pay- 
ments have  been  made  of  10,000  marks,  the  pope  will  be 
content  to  take  the  king's  promise  to  pay  the  rest  to  various 
money  lenders  of  Siena,  Florence,  Bologna,  and  other  parts 
of  Italy.  When  the  payment  of  these  sums  is  secured,  the 
king  of  England  shall  come,  or  send  a  representative,  with 
a  sufficient  force,  to  take  possession  of  this  kingdom  of 
Sicily.  If  he  neither  comes  nor  sends,  then  he  shall  lose 
all  the  sums  of  money  he  has  already  advanced  for  this 
business,  and  "  he,  the  said  king,  shall  be  excommunicate, 
and  the  whole  of  England  placed  under  an  ecclesiastical 
interdict."1 

Towards  the  end  of  April,  1255,  the  pope  is  found  urg- 
ing Henry  to  pay  some  of  the  money  required  under  these 
conditions,  and  he  suggests  that  four  thousand  pounds  would 
satisfy  him  for  the  present.2  A  fortnight  later,  in  a  letter 
addressed  to  the  archbishop  of  Canterbury  and  his  chap- 
lain Rustand,  the  new  nuncio  for  England,  Alexander  IV 
suggests  that  Henry  III  might  have  his  crusading  oath 
changed  into  one  that  binds  him  to  take  up  the  Sicilian 
question3  and  defend  the  Church  against  the  rebellion  of 
Manfred,  the  son  of  Frederick  the  emperor.4  About  the 

1  Rymer,  i.  316-318.  a  Ibid.,  319. 

3  Ibid.  4  Ibid.,  320;  cf.  Matthew  Paris,  v.  520. 


PAPAL  GIFT  OF  SICILIAN  CROWN       355 

same  time,  also,  those  who  had  received  money  to  fight  in 
the  Holy  Land  were  ordered  by  the  papal  letters  to  restore 
it  to  the  king  for  the  Sicilian  business,  and  all  sums  re- 
ceived for  absolutions  from  the  crusading  vows,  and  which 
by  previous  letters  were  to  be  expended  on  the  purposes 
of  the  Holy  Land,  were  now  to  be  handed  over  for  the 
same  end.1 

In  1255,  again,  the  king  was  in  great  straits  for  money. 
However,  as  the  feast  of  St.  Edward  the  Confessor  ap- 
proached, and  it  seemed  doubtful  whether  he  could  be 
present  on  account  of  business  in  the  northern  parts,  he 
directed  his  treasurer  to  make  the  usual  presents  in  his 
name:  that  is,  thirty-six  monks'  cowls  to  be  offered  at  the 
great  silver  cross  on  the  High  Altar,  and  a  golden  dish  of 
an  ounce  weight,  which  the  king  was  wont  to  offer  at  the 
Mass  on  St.  Edward's  day.  Besides  this,  he  directed  that 
both  of  the  king's  halls  at  Westminster  were  to  be  filled 
with  the  poor  of  London,  where  they  were  to  be  entertained 
as  usual.2  The  king,  however,  was  able  to  be  present  at  the 
feast,  and  taking  advantage  of  the  presence  of  so  many 
nobles  and  churchmen,  he  asked  them  to  come  to  his  aid 
in  money  matters.  He  first  appealed  to  his  brother,  Richard 
of  Cornwall,  to  whom  the  pope  had  also  written,  begging 
him  to  come  to  his  brother's  assistance,  and  to  lend  him 
40,000  marks  towards  the  Sicilian  expedition.  The  earl 
refused,  because  the  whole  matter  had  been  undertaken 
altogether  without  the  advice  or  consent  of  the  English 
nobles.  In  this  refusal  the  earl  of  Cornwall  was  supported 
by  the  rest  of  the  nobility  then  present,  who  appealed  to 
the  provisions  of  Magna  Charta,  which  only  allowed  such 
grants  to  be  made  in  parliament. 

When  the  king  returned  from  Gascony,  writes  Matthew 

1  Rymer,  i.  322.  2  Ibid.,  328. 


356          HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

Paris,  "he  was  in  debt  to  the  amount  of  300,050  marks"; 
but  he  was  not  deterred  by  this  from  daily  scattering 
what  he  had,  and  hoped  to  have,  among  his  foreign 
friends.1 

About  this  same  time,  Rustand,  the  papal  envoy  upon 
whom  the  king  had  bestowed  a  prebend  at  York,  com- 
menced to  preach  a  crusade  in  London  and  elsewhere, 
against  Manfred,  the  son  of  the  late  emperor.  Manfred  had 
made  an  alliance,  he  declared,  with  the  Saracens,  and  was 
thus  equally  an  enemy  of  the  Church  and  of  all  Christian 
nations,  and  the  same  Indulgences  were  promised  to  those 
who  would  take  up  the  quarrel,  as  to  those  who  took  the 
Cross  against  the  infidel.  At  the  end  of  one  discourse  to 
some  religious  in  their  Chapter-house,  he  is  reported  to 
have  added :  "  Be  ye  obedient  sons :  enter  into  an  obliga- 
tion with  such  and  such  a  money  lender,  for  so  much 
money." a 

Meanwhile,  Alexander  IV  had  dispatched  one  of  his 
cardinals  with  an  army  into  Apulia,  to  endeavour  to  es- 
tablish some  hold  over  the  kingdom  he  was  offering  to 
Henry  for  his  son.  After  a  brief  success,  the  papal  forces 
were  pushed  back  into  the  part  of  the  country  about  Monte 
Cassino,  known  as  the  Terra  laboris — the  land  of  labour — 
and  further  disaster  seemed  to  threaten,  when,  on  26th 
September,  1255,  he  wrote  an  urgent  letter  to  Henry,  to 
come  quickly  to  the  assistance  of  his  troops,  whilst  the 
island  of  Sicily  and  some  other  parts  of  the  kingdom  still 
remained  faithful  to  the  Roman  Church.  Further,  he  in- 
sisted, that  whatever  else  he  did,  the  English  king  must  at 
once  send  money  and  a  capable  leader  to  take  charge  of 
the  operations.  "Away  with  delays,"  he  writes  in  con- 

1  Matthew  Paris,  v.  520-521.  *  Ibid.,  522. 


PAPAL  GIFT  OF  SICILIAN  CROWN       357 

elusion,  "  Away,  beloved  son,  with  delays;  for,  as  you  know, 
the  end  is  always  bad  for  those  who  are  prepared,  to  put 
things  off."1 

About  this  same  time  Rustand  the  legate,  and  the 
bishop  of  Hereford,  who  was  practically  the  pope's  agent 
in  England,  obtained  letters  in  blank  to  any  monastery 
they  might  please,  to  enable  them  to  collect  money  for  the 
pope's  needs.  Against  the  provision  of  the  fourth  Lateran 
Council  under  Innocent  III,  which  prohibited  borrowing 
and  contracting  debts,  this  letter  urged  the  religious  houses 
to  raise  money  for  the  needs  of  the  Church,  by  borrowing 
five,  six,  or  seven  hundred  marks  or  more.3  In  the  same 
way,  but  unsuccessfully,  the  pope  tried  to  induce  Richard 
of  Cornwall  to  lend  him  five  thousand  marks. 

Rustand,  failing  to  induce  the  king  to  do  anything,  or 
to  obtain  much  money  from  the  bishops  and  nobles  singly, 
summoned  all  the  prelates  to  meet  in  London  on  i$th 
October,  1255,  trusting  that  "like  obedient  sons,  they  would 
be  favourable  to  what  had  been  asked,  and  what  was  yet 
to  be  asked  of  them."  In  the  assembly,  after  the  reading 
and  examination  of  his  powers,  the  nuncio  told  them  what 
he  desired,  which  was  in  fact  so  large  a  sum  of  money,  that 
for  ever  after  the  English  Church,  and  for  that  matter  the 
whole  kingdom,  would  have  been  hopelessly  impoverished. 
As  an  example  of  these  desired  impositions,  the  chronicler 
mentions  that  the  monks  of  St.  Alban's  alone  were  to 
furnish  six  hundred  marks  for  the  pope's  use,  which  they 
could  do  only  by  borrowing  on  usurious  conditions, 
especially  as  Rustand  and  the  bishop  of  Hereford  desired 
to  shorten  the  term  allowed  for  payment.  Against  this, 
some  of  the  bishops  stood  firmly  opposed :  it  was  a  sub- 

1  Rymer,  i.  328. 

8  Matthew  Paris,  v.  524.    Some  suspicion  seems  to  attach  to  this  letter. 


358         HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

version  of  the  liberty  of  the  Church,  they  declared,  and  rather 
than  contribute,  they  would  prefer  to  die  like  St.  Thomas  to 
protect  the  interests  of  their  Sees.  The  archbishop  of  Can- 
terbury was  away,  the  archbishop  of  York  had  given  in, 
the  elect  of  Winchester  was  suspect  in  his  intentions,  and 
the  bishop  of  Hereford  was  plainly  and  openly  for  Rustand 
and  his  exactions.  After  some  days'  discussion,  the  majority 
of  the  prelates  followed  the  lead  of  the  bishop  of  London, 
and  refusing  the  demands  of  the  papal  envoy,  appealed  for 
protection  to  the  pope  himself.  Their  action  was  apparently 
as  displeasing  to  the  king  as  to  Rustand  himself,  since 
Henry  had,  no  doubt,  hoped  to  pacify  the  outcries  against 
himself  on  the  part  of  the  pontiff,  by  allowing  him  to 
plunder  the  prelates  of  his  kingdom.1  As  some  at  the  time 
said,  "  the  pope  and  the  king  were  like  the  shepherd  and 
the  wolf  combining  to  destroy  the  flock." 

So  matters  stood  till  the  close  of  the  year  1255.  The 
king,  in  December,  was  pressed  to  find  four  thousand 
pounds,  which  he  owed  to  the  papal  agent  for  money  ad- 
vanced to  secure  the  crown  of  Sicily  for  his  son.  He  en- 
deavoured to  get  the  money  from  the  collector  of  the  sums 
to  be  expended  on  the  crusades.  The  collector,  however, 
naturally  hesitated  to  apply  money  obtained  for  one  pur- 
pose to  another  so  wholly  different,  and  refused  to  do  so 
without  some  surety.  Henry  thereupon  required  the  abbot 
and  convent  of  Westminster  and  other  religious  houses  to 
guarantee  the  sum  to  the  collector.2 

With  the  new  year,  1256,  Rustand  called  another  meet- 

1  Matthew  Paris,  v.  520-599.  The  method  by  which  the  tithes  were  to  be 
collected  is  set  out  in  the  Annales  de  Burton  (Ann.  Mon.  i.  354-360),  where 
also  past  exactions  from  Burton  are  noted.  For  other  accounts  of  the  synod 
under  Rustand,  see  Reg.  S.  Osmundi,  i.  709,  and  Ann.  Mon.  iii.  196-198.  For 
Rustand's  questions,  cf.  Earth.  Cotton,  p.  135. 

1  Rymer,  i.  334. 


PAPAL  GIFT  OF  SICILIAN  CROWN       359 

ing  of  the  prelates  in  London,  which  from  his  point  of 
view  was  not  more  successful  than  the  previous  one. 
Rustand  claimed  that  all  churches  belonged  to  the  pope, 
to  which  assertion  the  prolocutor  of  the  clergy  replied : 
"  Certainly,  so  far  as  guardianship  goes,  but  not  as  regards 
use  or  appropriation.  Just  as  we  speak  of  everything 
belonging  to  the  prince,  which  is  as  much  as  to  say,  they 
are  his  to  defend,  not  to  take  away ;  so  we  talk  of  all 
churches  as  belonging  to  the  pope,  and  this,  he  added,  was 
the  intention  of  the  founders."  The  papal  nuncio,  angered 
at  this  reply,  demanded  that  every  one  should  speak  his 
mind  for  himself,  so  that  both  the  pope  and  the  king  might 
know  what  were  the  real  sentiments  of  all.  Rustand,  more- 
over, refused  to  abate  any  of  his  written  demands,  although 
it  was  pointed  out  to  him  that  he  wished  the  prelates  to 
declare  "that  they  had  borrowed  large  sums  of  money 
from  the  Italian  merchants,  and  had  used  it  for  the  good 
of  their  Churches."  Which  statement  was  false  in  fact, 
and  was  known  to  be  so  by  all.  For  this,  if  for  no  other 
reason,  the  prelates  declared  that  they  would  rather  court 
the  martyrdom  of  St.  Thomas,  than  agree  to  such  demands 
as  these.  Upon  this  Rustand  somewhat  retreated  from 
his  position,  and  it  was  agreed  to  send  representatives  to 
Rome  on  the  subject.1 

Meanwhile,  if  we  can  trust  Matthew  Paris,  the  popular 
devotion  of  England  to  the  Roman  Church  and  Curia  was 
severely  tried  by  these  demands  upon  the  ecclesiastical 
revenues  of  the  country.  "  We  all,  both  prelates  and 
people,"  he  says,  "  have  been  hitherto  noted  for  pur  devout 
attachment  to  our  mother,  the  Roman  Church,  and  our 
father  and  pastor,  the  lord  pope,"  but  during  this  year, 
1255,  and  the  year  following,  English  loyalty  was  tested 

1  Matthew  Paris,  v.  532. 


360  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

almost  beyond  endurance.1  Still,  the  affair  of  the  king- 
dom of  Sicily  was  pressing ;  and  in  spite  of  the  appeals 
of  Pope  Alexander  IV,  King  Henry  made  no  move. 
Edmund,  his  son,  acted  as  if  he  were  established  on  his 
throne,  and  provided  in  quite  a  royal  manner  for  those 
who  had  served  him  or  his  cause  out  of  the  forfeited  estates 
and  other  escheated  possessions  in  the  territory  of  which 
he  had  become  the  king.  In  February,  1256,  the  pope's 
patience  became  nearly  exhausted,  as  appears  in  a  letter 
he  wrote  on  the  5th  of  that  month  to  the  bishop  of  Here- 
ford. He  had  been  told  very  frequently,  he  writes,  about 
the  great  zeal  which  Henry  had  for  the  honour  of  the 
Roman  Church,  and  how,  moved  by  devotion  towards  it, 
he  had  accepted  the  kingdom  of  Sicily,  trusting  to  the 
help  and  in  the  power  of  the  King  of  kings.  But,  when 
it  came  to  paying  some  of  the  great  expenses  which  had 
been  incurred,  when  it  came  to  meeting  the  debts  about 
which  the  money  lenders  were  ever  vexing  and  troubling 
the  Holy  See,  nothing  was  forthcoming  but  promises  which 
were  not  kept.  The  situation  was  serious  beyond  words, 
as  the  very  churches  of  Rome  were  pledged  for  the  repay- 
ment of  the  loans,  and  already  the  merchants  were  threat- 
ening to  seize  them  for  the  debts.  The  bishop  is  conse- 
quently urged  to  secure  a  tithe  of  all  ecclesiastical  bene- 
fices in  England  and  other  lands  ruled  over  by  the  English 
king,  and  also  whatever  money  he  can  get  from  the  king 
himself,  and  forthwith  to  send  over  the  whole  towards 
liquidating  the  debt.  As  to  the  general  position,  the  pope 
declares  that  he  is  overwhelmed  with  astonishment  that 
Henry  has  done  nothing.  The  situation  in  the  kingdom  of 
Sicily  has  been  made  known  to  him,  and  he  sends  neither 
money  nor  men  to  try  and  retrieve  the  misfortunes  which 

1  Matthew  Paris,  iii.  535. 


PAPAL  GIFT  OF  SICILIAN  CROWN       361 

have  befallen  the  papal  arms  in  endeavouring  to  protect 
what  are  now  the  interests  of  the  English  king  in  Sicily.1 

It  was  indeed  an  extraordinary  situation.  Henry  was 
apparently  unwilling  that  the  real  state  of  the  case  should 
be  made  known  in  the  Curia,  for  at  this  time  all  clerics 
passing  through  the  port  of  Dover  were  compelled  to 
swear,  if  they  went  to  Rome,  not  to  do  anything  against 
the  king's  interests  in  the  matter  of  the  kingdom  of  Sicily.2 
The  king  was  at  the  time  trying  to  satisfy  some  of  his 
creditors,  who  had  apparently  come  over  to  England  to 
try  on  the  spot  to  secure  payment.  On  i^th  February, 
1256,  he  ordered  the  abbot  of  Westminster  to  pay  1,705 
marks,  i?s.  and  8d.  to  some  merchants  from  Siena,  which 
Rustand,  the  nuncio,  had  certified  as  due  to  them 
for  the  Sicilian  business;3  but  about  the  same  date  he 
wrote  to  his  agent  in  the  Curia,  to  secure  some  delay  in 
the  payment  of  the  135,541  marks,  which  he  had  bound 
himself  to  pay  at  Michaelmas,  and  which  he  promised 
still  to  strive  to  meet  as  soon  as  possible.4  Again,  on  27th 
March  of  this  year,  the  king  wrote  fully  to  the  pope  as  to 
his  critical  position.  The  bishops  and  nobles,  he  declares, 
will  not  consent  to  assume  the  obligations  attached  to 
the  gift  of  the  crown  of  Sicily  to  the  English  prince, 
Edmund,  and  in  particular  they  refuse  to  hold  themselves 
bound  to  the  item  of  the  conditions  which  says  that  we 
are  pledged  to  pay  135,541  marks  before  taking  posses- 
sion. We  have  thus  found  the  greatest  difficulty  in  meet- 
ing the  sums  of  money  due  to  the  Florentine  and  Sienese 
merchants,  and  "  we  do  not  believe,"  he  continues,  "  that 
there  is  to-day  any  prince  who  could  find  so  great  a  sum  " 
as  that  demanded  of  us.  Under  these  circumstances  the 
conditions  previously  imposed  on  him  are  not  only  diffi- 

1  Rymer,  i.  336.  *  Ibid.,  337.  3  Ibid.  *  Ibid. 


362          HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

cult,  but  have  become  practically  impossible  for  him  to 
carry  out,  and  he  appeals  to  the  pope  for  some  consider- 
ation. The  sums  of  money  for  which  he  had  become 
answerable  were  truly  enormous,  especially  when  it  is 
remembered  that  the  whole  matter  was  practically  repu- 
diated by  the  nation.  For  example,  during  the  latter 
half  of  May,  Henry  had  to  pay  60,000  marks  to  the  mer- 
chants of  Florence  and  Siena,  over  and  above  the  10,000 
which  he  had  to  find  for  the  pope  and  cardinals  at  the 
same  time,  and  over  and  beyond  these,  the  furnishing  of 
the  expedition  would  necessarily  take  a  considerable  sum 
of  money.1  Still,  the  difficulty  did  not  appear  to  the  king 
to  be  insuperable ;  for  at  this  time  Prince  Edward,  his 
eldest  son,  promised  the  pope  to  carry  out  all  the  condi- 
tions upon  which  Sicily  was  given  to  his  brother  Edmund, 
should  his  father,  Henry,  die  before  they  were  all  fulfilled.* 
At  this  time,  naturally,  every  expedient  was  made  use 
of  to  raise  money.  The  abbot  and  monks  of  St.  Alban's 
appealed  to  the  Holy  See  against  having  to  provide  a 
benefice  for  an  Italian  cleric,  John  de  Camezana,  whose 
induction  would  have  been  specially  hurtful  to  the  interests 
of  the  monastery.  Apparently  the  only  reply  that  they 
received  was  in  the  shape  of  an  order  to  pay  a  sum  of 
400  marks  to  certain  money  lenders.  This  sum  they  were 
said  to  owe  to  these  "  merchants,"  although  it  was  the  first 
they  had  heard  of  the  matter,  and  the  payment  was  called 
for  under  penalty  of  suspension.  In  the  same  way  many 
other  religious  houses  found  themselves  compelled  to  pay 
like  sums,  for  the  repayment  of  which  the  king  had  ap- 
parently pledged  their  credit.3 

1  Rymer,  i.  337-338-  *  •#*'</.,  338. 

3  Matthew  Paris,  v.  552;  cf.  Gervase  of  Canterbury,  ii.  205,  where  it  is  said 
that  all  the  Benedictine  houses  were  made  responsible  for  thirty  marks  at  least, 
without  their  knowledge. 


PAPAL  GIFT  OF  SICILIAN  CROWN        363 

On  1 2th  February,  1256,  the  king  summoned  the  pre- 
lates to  meet  him  in  London  "on  grave  and  difficult 
affairs,"  after  Mid-lent  Sunday,  informing  them  at  the 
same  time  that  his  brother  Richard  of  Cornwall  had 
been  elected  king  of  the  Romans.  Before  this  meeting, 
the  authority  of  Rustand  the  papal  nuncio  had  been  rein- 
forced by  the  presence  of  the  archbishop  of  Messina,  the 
bearer  of  letters  from  the  pope  which  asked  the  English 
prelates  and  clergy  to  listen  to  his  words  and  advice,  and 
to  furnish  him  with  means  of  support  under  the  title  of 
procurations.  On  Sunday,  2nd  April,  the  archbishop  of 
Messina  spoke  to  the  prelates  and  a  great  number  of 
others  in  the  Chapter-house  at  Westminster,  about  the 
kingdom  of  Sicily,  endeavouring  to  make  them  see  how 
important  it  was  that  the  nation  should  enter  cordially 
with  the  king  into  the  business.  The  proposal,  thus  for  the 
first  time  brought  formally  before  the  people,  was  debated 
for  several  days;  and  it  was  finally  determined  to  refuse  the 
pope's  offer  of  the  kingdom,  for  various  reasons  stated  in 
a  document  drawn  up  in  Latin  and  French  and  given  to 
the  archbishop. 

At  this  same  meeting,  on  Passion  Sunday,  1256, 
Rustand  the  legate  published  various  letters  he  had 
brought  from  the  pope,  giving  him  large  and  unheard-of 
powers  for  the  purpose  of  raising  money  to  meet  the  great 
needs  of  the  Roman  Curia.  Amongst  other  things,  he  de- 
clared that  the  pope  had  granted  to  himself  for  five  years 
the.  first  fruits — that  is  the  first  year's  revenues — of  all 
benefices  and  dignities,  excepting  only  bishops'  Sees  and 
the  prelacy  of  religious  houses.  To  these  demands  the 
assembled  prelates  refused  to  reply,  without  due  time  for 
consideration  and  counsel.1 

1  Ann.  Mon.  (Ann.  de  Burton),  i.  384-391. 


364  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

In  the  Easter  week  of  this  same  year,  1256,  the  bishops 
were  again  summoned  to  London  to  reply  to  the  demand 
of  the  nuncio  Rustand.  At  first  they  were  inclined  to 
yield,  but  being  incited  to  continued  opposition  by  the 
barons,  they  positively  refused  to  contribute  to  the  king 
out  of  their  baronies.1  At  the  same  time,  Rustand,  the 
nuncio,  undertook  to  deal  with  the  Cistercians.  He  sum- 
moned them  to  meet  him  on  I4th  May,  "to  hear  the 
commands  of  the  lord  pope."  Under  this  authority,  he  de- 
manded for  the  pope  and  the  king  the  entire  value  of  their 
wool  and  even  more,  whilst  "  the  whole  world  knows,"  says 
the  chronicler,  "that  their  support  is  entirely  from  their 
wool."  The  abbots  refused  to  entertain  the  demand,  on 
the  ground  that  such  a  matter  would  require  the  sanction 
of  the  Cistercian  General  Chapter.  Upon  this,  Rustand 
applied  to  the  king  to  deal  with  them;  and,  for  a  time, 
many  of  the  English  abbots  were  subjected  to  much  per- 
secution, and  had  to  meet  many  fresh  demands  upon  their 
revenues.  They  at  last  applied  to  the  pope  for  protection ; 
and  Alexander  IV,  on  25th  May,  1256,  after  praising  the 
Order  of  Citeaux,  granted  them  a  general  immunity  from 
ordinary  taxation  and  wrote  to  the  king  not  to  trouble 
them  with  money  exactions.2 

Meanwhile,  on  behalf  of  the  prelates,  appealing  against 
the  nuncio  Rustand,  the  bishops  of  Bath  and  Rochester 
had  gone  to  the  Roman  Curia.  The  king  endeavoured  to 
prevent  their  crossing  from  England ;  but  failing,  he  pro- 
hibited any  other  prelate,  knight  or  cleric,  from  leaving  the 
country.  Alexander  IV  listened  to  the  representations  of 
the  English  prelates,  and  on  i$th  May,  1256,  issued  a  Bull 
in  reply.  In  this  he  says,  that  acting  under  his  licence  the 
bishop  of  Hereford,  Aquablanca,  then  his  agent  in  England, 

1  Matthew  Paris,  v.  553.  *  Ibid.,  555-557. 


PAPAL  GIFT  OF  SICILIAN  CROWN        365 

borrowed  from  two  citizen  merchants  of  Florence  for  the 
affairs  of  the  English  king  500  marks,  and  "  although,  in 
the  letters  and  in  the  legal  bond  for  the  repayment  of  this 
loan,  it  is  expressly  stated  that  the  money  was  not  borrowed 
for  your  business,  or  for  that  of  your  monasteries,  still  as 
by  it  the  bishop  has  pledged  you  and  the  monasteries  and 
their  property  to  the  said  merchants,"  this  is  to  say,  that 
if  the  king  does  not  meet  the  debt,  you  are  not  bound 
beyond  the  amount  of  the  tithe  of  your  ecclesiastical 
revenues,  granted  to  the  king  and  the  Apostolic  See. 

In  June,  1256,  the  pope  sent  a  reply  to  the  king's  peti- 
tion to  be  allowed  to  postpone  the  payment  of  the  sums 
of  money  expended  by  the  Holy  See  on  the  Sicilian 
business.  He  again  urges  Henry  to  set  on  foot  some  ex- 
pedition at  once.  Delay,  he  says,  will  be  fatal  to  the  pros- 
pect of  recovering  the  portions  of  the  kingdom  already  in 
the  hands  of  the  enemies  of  the  Roman  Church ;  and  as  to 
the  payment  of  the  debts,  the  pope  thinks  it  best  to  send 
over  a  tried  and  faithful  servant  to  arrange  about  that.1 
But  apparently  the  pope's  creditors  were  pressing  for  pay- 
ment. They  were  not  inclined  to  await  the  return  of  the 
papal  messenger ;  for  three  days  later,  Alexander  IV 
writes  again  to  Henry,  urging  preferential  consideration 
for  Rolando  Bonsignori,  a  Roman  merchant,  and  his 
associates  in  Siena,  Aldebrando  Aldebrandi  and  Raynerio 
Bonaccursi.  The  pope  had  borrowed  1,057  marks  from 
them  for  the  Sicilian  business  and  he  wants  them  paid  out 
of  the  tithe  of  ecclesiastical  property,  no  matter  what 
arrangements  Rustand  or  the  bishop  of  Hereford  had 
made,  and  in  fact  without  regard  at  the  moment  to  the 
larger  sum  of  6,000  marks,  due  to  certain  merchants  of 
Florence.2  A  fortnight  later  than  this  letter,  on  22nd 

1  Rymer,  i.  342.  a  lbid.t  343. 


366          HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

June,  1256,  the  pope  sent  a  communication  to  Rustand  on 
the  question  of  the  debts,  for  which  the  king  was  respon- 
sible. He  had  ordered,  he  said,  that,  to  satisfy  the  most 
importunate  of  the  creditors,  2,000  marks  should  be  raised 
on  the  credit  of  certain  monasteries  and  churches  in 
England.  Rustand  is  to  collect  the  amount  of  these 
obligations  from  the  abbeys  and  churches  which  have 
been  so  bound,  and  when  it  has  been  paid  he  may  declare 
the  various  monasteries  and  churches  released  from  the 
obligation  contracted  in  their  name.  In  order  that  the 
amount  to  be  paid  may  not  be  doubtful,  the  pope  enters 
the  names  of  those  religious  houses  upon  the  credit  of 
which  he  has  borrowed  the  2,000  marks  in  question  from 
the  merchants  of  Florence  and  elsewhere.  Thus  the  Prior 
and  convent  of  Durham,  for  example,  have  to  find  500 
marks ;  Bath,  400 ;  Thorney,  400 ;  Croyland,  400 ;  and  the 
Augustinian  house  of  Gisburn,  3OO.1 

Matters  still  remained  in  the  same  unsatisfactory  state 
during  the  whole  of  the  year  1256.  In  August,  two  Bulls 
were  issued  by  Alexander  IV:  the  first  gave  Henry  the 
fruits  and  revenues,  etc.,  of  all  dignities  and  benefices  in 
England  and  other  countries  subject  to  the  English  rule, 
which,  on  becoming  vacant,  by  the  provisions  of  the 
Lateran  Council,  devolved  to  the  pope ; a  and  the  other, 
addressed  to  the  legate  Rustand,  told  him  that  at  the 
king's  supplication  he  had  granted  Henry  these  revenues 
because  he  knew  "the  sincere  affection  he  had  to  the 
Roman  Church."  He  charged  him  to  see  that  they  were 
given  over  to  him  without  difficulty,  as  well  as  all  benefices 
held  conjointly  with  other  benefices,  which  by  law  were 
confiscated  to  the  use  of  the  pope,3  unless  licence  had  been 
expressly  given  to  the  incumbent  to  hold  more  than  one 

1  Matthew  Paris,  v.  581-584.-  a  Ibid.,  344.  3  Ibid. 


PAPAL  GIFT  OF  SICILIAN  CROWN       367 

living.  Curiously  enough,  however,  at  this  very  time  the 
pages  of  the  papal  register  contain  numerous  instances  of 
this  very  permission  being  granted  at  the  Roman  Curia.1 
In  the  following  month,  September,  1256,  a  whole  series  of 
papal  Bulls,  eleven  in  number,  dealing  with  the  same  mat- 
ter, were  issued  by  the  pope ;  and  they  manifest  his  grave 
anxiety  to  secure  the  collection  of  the  money  granted  to 
the  king  from  the  ecclesiastical  revenues.2  Still,  time  was 
running  on,  and  apparently  nothing  was  being  done  to 
bring  the  promised  expedition  of  Henry  to  Sicily  any 
nearer  realisation  than  it  had  been  montns  before.  On 
26th  September,  consequently,  not  to  bring  matters  to  a 
head  prematurely,  the  pope  wrote  to  the  king  once  more 
extending  the  time  for  the  fulfilment  of  his  promises. 
Henry  had  dispatched  the  abbot  of  Westminster  to  the 
Curia  to  explain  his  difficulties,  and  to  ask  that  Alex- 
ander IV  might  have  patience  until  the  coming  Michael- 
mas. This  the  pontiff  concedes,  but  he  reminds  the  king 
that  he  will  certainly  expect  his  long-promised  aid  both  in 
money  and  men  by  that  time.3  On  the  same  day  the  pope 
sends  two  letters  to  the  nuncio  Rustand,  bidding  him 
compel  the  Scotch  prelates  to  come  to  the  aid  of  the 
Church  in  this  unfortunate  Sicilian  business.  After  saying 
that  the  affection  of  a  child  is  known  by  the  readiness  with 
which  it  comes  to  the  aid  of  its  parent  when  in  distress, 
the^pope  continues:  "The  Roman  Church,  which  by  divine 
institution  has  the  primacy  amongst  the  rest,  has,  especially 
in  these  days,  to  bear  the  insupportable  burden  of  ex- 
penses incurred  in  defending  ecclesiastical  liberty,  and 
chiefly  in  the  affair  of  the  kingdom  of  Sicily.  For  this  it 
has  contracted  debts,  under  usurious  conditions,"  which  it 

1  E.g.,  Brit.  Mus.  Add.  MS.,  15,35^,  &  406,  412,  433,  447,  451,  etc. 
a  Rymer,  i.  345-346,  348.  3  Ibid.,  348. 


368  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

would  never  be  able  to  meet  unless  helped  by  the  bishops 
and  clergy,  etc.,  of  Scotland  and  elsewhere.  Rustand  is  to 
declare  to  the  ecclesiastics  of  Scotland  that  by  papal  au- 
thority he  has  granted  to  the  English  king  for  his  work  of 
establishing  his  son  Edmund  on  the  throne,  and  meeting 
these  debts  wherewith  the  Church  is  burdened,  a  twentieth 
part  of  all  the  ecclesiastical  revenues  of  the  Scottish 
Church.1 

A  few  days  later  than  the  date  of  these  documents,  the 
first  indication  is  given  in  the  papal  letters  that  Alex- 
ander IV  is  thinking  of  relieving  Rustand  of  his  position 
in  England.  On  3oth  September,  in  a  letter  addressed  to 
the  archbishops,  bishops,  and  abbots  of  Gascony,  he  speaks 
of  sending  Rustand  to  them  as  "  an  angel  of  peace  " ; a  and, 
on  6th  October,  he  acquaints  the  English  nuncio  of  this 
appointment.3  Meanwhile  the  term  of  grace  given  to 
Henry  to  fulfil  the  conditions  upon  which  Sicily  had  been 
granted  to  his  son  Edmund  had  again  run  out.  He  had 
been  threatened  with  excommunication  and  his  kingdom 
with  interdict  if  these  conditions  were  not  carried  into 
effect ;  but  once  more  his  agents  at  the  Curia  interposed 
their  petitions  and  assurances,  and  the  pope  consented 
to  a  further  delay  of  six  months,  from  ist  December  1256. 
To  try  once  more  and  obtain  money  from  English  ecclesi- 
astics in  order  to  meet  the  papal  debts,  the  archbishop 
of  Messina  was  dispatched  to  England.4  In  sending  the 
archbishop's  credential  letters  the  pontiff  again  recalls  the 
great  trouble  and  expenses  he  had  been  put  to,  after 
the  English  king  had  accepted  the  crown  of  Sicily 
for  his  son,  to  defend  interests  which  were  then  rather 
those  of  England  than  of  the  Holy  See.  An  expedition 

1  Ryraer,  i.  349.  z  Brit.  Mus.  Add.  MS.,  15,358,  f.  477. 

8  Ibid.,  f.  481.  *  Rymer,  i.  350. 


PAPAL  GIFT  OF  SICILIAN  CROWN        369 

had  been  promised  again  and  again  by  the  English  king, 
but  none  had  ever  been  dispatched.  This  state  of  affairs 
could  not  obviously  be  allowed  to  continue,  and  the  arch- 
bishop of  Messina  was  given  full  powers  to  take  counsel 
and  to  determine  what  was  to  be  done.  Though  unwilling 
to  take  back  the  crown  thus  bestowed  upon  the  king's  son 
Edmund,  the  pontiff  felt  that  something  must  be  done  to 
bring  the  matter  to  a  conclusion  ;  he  hoped,  however,  that 
Henry  would  not  readily  abandon  the  position  he  had 
taken  up,  and  thus  display  his  weakness  and  impotency 
before  all  the  kings  and  princes  of  the  world.  The  pope 
concluded  by  begging  the  king  to  secure  what  money  he 
needed  "by  reconciling  himself  with  the  prelates  of  his 
kingdom,  who  assert,"  says  Pope  Alexander,  "that  they 
have  been  despoiled  of  their  rights  by  him,  and  with  all 
other  persons  "  by  whose  assistance  he  could  accomplish 
this  important  business.1 

At  this  same  time  Pope  Alexander  likewise  wrote  to 
the  king  as  to  the  state  of  the  Church  in  England.  The 
bishop  of  Rochester,  who,  it  will  be  remembered,  had  pro- 
ceeded to  Rome  to  plead  for  the  English  prelates  against 
the  nuncio  Rustand,  had  asserted,  so  said  the  pope,  "  that 
they  and  their  Churches  were  much  ground  down  in  their 
rights  and  liberties  by  the  royal  power."  The  bishop  had 
come  to  the  Holy  See,  as  others  had  previously  come  to 
his  predecessor,  Pope  Innocent,  asserting  that  these  rights 
had  been  gravely  injured  by  the  king's  action  in  regard  to 
Sicily.  Desiring  to  safeguard  the  royal  honour  as  far  as 
possible,  and  to  eliminate  from  the  question  whatever 
might  be  dangerous,  after  consultation  with  the  royal 
agents,  the  bishop -elect  of  Salisbury  and  the  abbot  of 
Westminster,  the  pontiff  suggested  to  the  bishop  of  Ro- 

1  Rymer,  i.  351. 
B  B 


370  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

Chester  the  propriety  of  adjourning  for  a  time  the  con- 
sideration of  the  English  grievances.  "  We  insinuated  to 
the  said  bishop,"  continues  the  pope,  "  that  in  all  that  per- 
tains to  the  free,  peaceful,  and  tranquil  state  of  the  said 
Churches,  I  will  induce  you,  by  God's  help,  so  to  act  that 
neither  he  nor  his  fellow  bishops,  nor  the  other  prelates, 
either  secular  or  regular,  need  trouble  themselves  in  the 
matter."  This  being  so,  Alexander  IV  warns  Henry  of 
the  danger  of  neglecting  the  sentence  of  excommunication 
that  had  been  pronounced  by  all  the  bishops  against  those 
who  infringed  the  ecclesiastical  liberties,  which  excom- 
munication had  been  confirmed  by  the  pope,  and  which 
liberties  he  had  at  his  coronation,  and  subsequently,  sworn 
to  protect.1 

For  half  the  year  1257  matters  continued  in  the  same 
uncertain  and  unsatisfactory  state.  The  archbishop  of 
Messina  came  over  to  the  country,  and,  having  discussed 
the  Sicilian  question  with  the  king,  appears  to  have  de- 
parted with  the  king's  renewed  assurances  that  he  intended 
in  a  brief  time  to  send  over  an  expedition  under  an  able 
commander  and  supplied  with  plenty  of  money.2  In  June, 
however,  a  letter  to  his  nuncio  seems  to  show  that  the 
pope's  suspicions  of  Henry's  plain  dealing  were  aroused. 
Rustand  had  evidently  written  to  say  that  the  king  had 
forbidden  him  to  pay  to  the  money  lenders  any  more  of  the 
money  he  had  been  collecting  from  ecclesiastics,  and  had 
ordered  him  to  lodge  it  all  in  the  new  Temple  in  London, 
"  until  it  should  be  more  certain  what  would  be  the  end  of 
the  negotiations  about  Sicily."  He  had  reason  to  complain, 
so  said  the  pope,  since  Henry  had  received  so  many 
favours  and  grants  from  the  Roman  Church,  and  only 
recently,  in  order  to  protect  the  rights  of  the  young  king 

1  Rymer,  i.  251.  3  Ibid.,  355. 


PAPAL  GIFT  OF  SICILIAN  CROWN       371 

of  Sicily,  he,  the  pope,  had  publicly  excommunicated  Man- 
fred and  his  followers.  Does  the  king  of  England,  he  asks, 
wish  to  see  the  Church  sink  beneath  the  burden  of  debts 
incurred  for  him  in  his  behalf?  Is  he  going  to  allow  us  to 
be  harassed  by  the  demands  of  money  lenders  ?  "  Is  this 
a  sign  of  the  great  devotion  which  he  pretends  to  have  as 
a  son  for  his  father,  not  to  think  of  how  our  mind  must  be 
disturbed  by  all  this  ?  Assuredly  We  never  expected  such 
a  mode  ot  action  from  him,  nor  ever  imagined  that  he 
would  in  this  way  repay  us  for  so  many  benefits,  favours, 
and  rich  gifts."  The  pope  then  goes  on  to  order  Rustand  to 
ignore  the  king's  command,  and,  notwithstanding  his  pro- 
hibition, to  continue  to  pay  off  the  loans  as  he  receives  the 
money.  He  is  to  tell  the  king,  that  if  he  tries  to  hinder  the 
payment  being  made  to  the  money  lenders,  the  pope  will 
be  compelled,  though  unwillingly,  to  proceed  against  him 
and  the  kingdom  of  Sicily  as  he  thinks  best.1 

About  the  middle  of  the  same  year,  1257,  Alexander  IV 
determined  to  make  one  more  effort  to  bring  the  un- 
fortunate matter  of  the  crown  of  Sicily  to  a  conclusion, 
and  he  wrote  once  again  to  the  king,  that  he  was  sending 
over  Master  Herlot  as  his  legate  to  treat  on  the  matter.2 
Herlot  arrived  only  in  the  week  before  Easter  of  the 
following  year,  some  time  between  the  I7th  and  the  24th  of 
March.  Although  he  was  not  given  the  name  of  legate,  he 
had  the  power  and  dignity;  and  "the  king,  according  to 
his  wont,"  says  the  chronicler,  "  warmly  approved  of  his 
coming."  Shortly  before  this,  however,  Rustand  departed 
from  England,  being  summoned  to  Rome  to  answer  accu- 
sations which  had  been  made  against  him  of  receiving 
bribes  and  of  otherwise  enriching  himself  through  his 
office.3 

1  Rymer,  i.  357.  a  Ibid.,  358.  »  Matthew  Paris,  v.  673. 


372  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

Henry  anticipated  the  work  of  the  legate  by  sending 
powers  to  his  agents  in  the  Curia  to  renounce  the  crown 
of  Sicily  in  his  son's  name  should  they  think  fit.1  At  the 
same  time  he  laid  before  the  pope  a  statement  of  what  he 
had  done  in  the  business.  He  had  already  paid  many  of 
the  debts  incurred  in  the  matter  by  the  Church,  not  indeed 
as  fully  as  he  wished,  because  he  had  had,  and  still  ex- 
perienced, great  opposition  from  the  prelates  in  getting  the 
tax  on  ecclesiastical  property  granted  him  by  the  pope. 
But  since  this  delay  was  apparently  considered  to  be 
gravely  detrimental  to  the  Roman  Church,  unwilling  to  be 
the  cause  of  this,  he  desires  to  leave  it  to  the  pope  to 
determine  whether  he  should  retire.  "This  being  under- 
stood," the  king  continues,  "  that  looking  only  to  the 
honour  of  the  Roman  Church,  you  will  so  determine  the 
said  business,  so  that  we,  our  heirs,  and  the  whole  kingdom 
of  England,  will  obey  with  our  wonted  devotion  to  the 
Roman  Church ;  nor,  by  reason  of  this  business  from  which 
we  have  derived  no  advantage,  shall  we  at  any  future  time 
suffer  loss.  If  we  have  bound  ourselves  to  carry  out  the 
business,  we  have  done  so  through  the  sincere  affection 
and  devotion  which  we  have  ever  had  for  our  mother  the 
Roman  Church,  and  not  from  any  desire  of  temporal  gain."2 
With  this  letter  was  sent  a  set  of  instructions  to  the 
English  agents,  and  to  those  who  were  to  represent  Henry 
in  the  Curia.  They  suggested  the  possibility  of  securing 
considerable  modifications  of  the  conditions  under  which 
the  Sicilian  crown  had  been  originally  accepted  by  Henry 
for  his  son,  and  in  view  of  the  likelihood  of  these  proposals 
being  accepted,  several  blank  skins  of  parchment,  signed 
and  sealed  by  the  king  and  by  his  sons  Edward  and 
Edmund,  were  furnished  the  envoys.3 

1  Rymer,  i.  359.  *  Ibid.,  359-360.  3  Ibid.,  360. 


PAPAL  GIFT  OF  SICILIAN  CROWN       373 

By  this  time  Boniface,  the  archbishop  of  Canterbury, 
had  returned  once  more  to  England,  and  by  his  orders  the 
bishops  and  archdeacons  of  his  province  were  summoned  to 
meet  at  Canterbury  some  time  about  22nd  August,  1257, 
to  consider  the  oppressions  under  which  the  Church  in 
England  was  then  suffering.1  At  this  meeting  articles  of 
complaint  to  the  number  of  fifty  were  drafted.  One  of  the 
most  serious  was  that  which  asserted  that  the  king  had 
endeavoured  to  prevent  the  prelates  coming  together  to 
discuss  their  grievances.  He  had  threatened  them  with 
confiscation  if  they  did,  and  thus  endeavoured  to  deprive 
the  Church  of  its  natural  and  necessary  liberty.  The  pre- 
lates, however,  wholly  disregarding  the  royal  prohibition, 
met  according  to  the  archbishop's  summons.  The  articles 
agreed  upon  by  the  assembly  appertained  to  the  essential 
liberties  of  the  Church,  and  the  archbishop  and  bishops 
agreed  to  fight  vigorously  to  maintain  these  rights,  which 
were  really,  as  the  account  of  the  proceedings  states,  "  like 
to  those  for  which  St.  Thomas,  the  archbishop  of  Canter- 
bury, contended,  and  gloriously  won  the  cause."2  The 
taxes  which  had  been  laid  upon  them  formed  only  one 
of  the  many  complaints  made  by  the  ecclesiastics  at  this 
time.  Yet  there  seemed  to  be  no  limit  to  the  money 
required  by  the  king.  Almost  at  the  very  time  of  this 
meeting,  in  despair  of  receiving  any  protection  from  the 
Roman  Curia,  except  when  it  desired  to  safeguard  its  own 
right  of  taxation,  the  prelates  gave  way  under  the  pressure 
brought  to  bear  upon  them  by  Henry,  and  agreed  to  find 
him  42,000  marks  for  the  Sicilian  business.  On  his  part 
the  king  again  promised  to  respect  and  guard  their  liberties, 

1  Matthew  Paris,  v.  632. 

2  Wilkins,  Concilia,  i.  723-750;  cf.  Ann.  Man.,  i.  400. 


374  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

and  gave  his  assent  to  the  fifty  articles  drawn  up  by  the 
bishops.1 

Up  to  the  end  of  1257  there  was  little  change  in  the  con- 
dition of  affairs.  The  pope  increased  his  gifts  of  the  eccle- 
siastical revenues  in  England  to  the  king,  allowing  him  to 
take  another  tenth  for  five  years;2  but  the  same  difficulty 
as  before  was  experienced  in  collecting  these  dues,  in  spite 
of  the  sentences  of  excommunication  issued  against  those 
who  would  not  pay.3  In  December,  1257,  a  letter  to  the 
king  from  the  pope  says  that  the  sentence  of  excommunica- 
tion for  the  non-fulfilment  of  his  engagements  was  not 
pronounced  upon  him,  owing  to  the  representations  made 
by  his  agents  in  Rome.  Henry  must,  however,  remember 
that  delays  must  come  to  an  end,  and  he  must  be  careful 
not  to  find  himself  finally  under  the  sentence  passed  against 
one  who  has  forsworn  himself,  and  his  country  plunged 
into  an  ecclesiastical  interdict.4  At  the  beginning  of  1258, 
in  two  more  letters  addressed  to  Henry,  the  pope  urges 
him  to  try  and  meet  the  creditors  who  have  lent  money  for 
the  recovery  of  the  Sicilian  possessions.  His  agents  in 
Rome,  conjointly  with  Rustand,  who  knew  the  situation  in 
England,  have  pledged  the  king's  credit  for  these  payments.5 
As  a  general  reply  to  these  appeals,  the  king  wrote  to 
Octavian,  cardinal  of  Sancta  Maria  in  Via  Lata,  that  in 
time  he  still  hoped  to  carry  out  all  he  had  promised.  Not- 
withstanding the  opposition  of  the  English  barons  to  the 
scheme,  he  still  trusted  somehow  to  find  the  means  of 
carrying  through  the  affair  of  the  Sicilies  by  himself,  in  the 
four  months  still  left  of  the  period  allowed  him  for  com- 
pleting the  conditions  of  the  gift  of  the  crown  to  his  son.6 

1  Matthew  Paris,  v.  638.  a  Gervast  of  Cant.,  ii.  206. 

3  Brit.  Mus.  Add.  MS.,  15,359,  f.  153;  Rymer,  i.  368.       4  Rymer,  i.  366. 

s  Ibid.,  365,  368,  369.  e  Royal  Letters,  ii.  126. 


CHAPTER  XX 

THE  CHURCH  AND  THE  PROVISIONS  OF  OXFORD 

WITH  the  retirement  of  the  nuncio  Herlot  from  England, 
the  troublesome  business  of  the  Sicilian  crown  practically 
came  to  an  end,  so  far  as  England  was  concerned.  It  was 
not,  however,  until  the  year  1263,  that  the  right  of  Prince 
Edmund  to  the  throne  was  formally  renounced  at  the  invita- 
tion of  Pope  Alexander  IV's  successor,  Urban  IV.  On  25th 
July  of  that  year,  the  pope  announced  to  the  English  king  his 
intention  of  sending  over  an  envoy  to  settle  the  matter,1  and 
the  English  bishops  were  warned  to  assist  this  mission.2  Two 
days  later,  the  letter  introducing  the  embassy  was  written,3 
as  well  as  a  citation  to  the  king  and  Prince  Edmund,  to 
prove  their  rights  within  four  months  if  they  still  desired 
to  claim  the  throne  of  the  Sicilies.  In  this  last  communica- 
tion, the  pope  expresses  the  disappointment  felt  generally 
in  the  Curia,  that  "  the  great  power  of  the  royal  house  and 
of  the  English  people  (which,  in  bestowing  the  crown,  his 
predecessor  had  specially  desired  to  honour),  had  not  long 
ago  come  to  the  help  of  its  mother  (the  Roman  Church)." 
As  nothing,  however,  had  been  done,  it  became  necessary 
to  take  measures  to  relieve  the  Church  of  its  responsibilities 
and  to  free  the  kingdom  of  Sicily  from  the  many  evils  from 
which  it  was  suffering  on  account  of  the  delay.  Under- 
standing, however,  that  the  design  he  had  formed  was  not 

1  Reg.  Urbani  IV,  No.  298;  cf.  Brit.  Mus.  Add.  MS.,  15,360,  f.  233. 
*  Ibid.,  No.  299.  3  Ibid.,  No.  297. 

375 


376  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

taken  in  good  part  by  you  (King  Henry),  we  think  it  right 
to  warn  you  that  should  you  fail  to  fulfil  the  conditions 
upon  which  you  received  the  crown  for  your  son,  within 
the  specified  time  of  four  months,  we  will  proceed  to  grant 
it  to  some  one  else.1 

On  the  arrival  of  the  delegate  in  this  country,  the 
position  of  the  English  king  was  indeed  so  critical  in  regard 
to  his  own  people,  that  it  became  clear  to  the  envoy,  if  not 
to  the  king,  that  all  idea  of  receiving  material  or  financial 
assistance  from  England  must  be  abandoned.  This  practic- 
ally closed  the  incident  of  Sicily  so  far  as  the  English  king 
was  concerned.  Herlot,  the  pope's  nuncio,  had  arrived  about 
the  middle  of  March,  and  parliament  was  summoned  to 
meet  in  London  on  2nd  April.  The  object  of  the  nuncio 
was,  it  is  said,  to  obtain  "  a  clear  and  exact  reply "  as  to 
the  intention  of  England  in  regard  to  Sicily.  He  asked, 
in  the  first  place,  for  a  vast  sum  of  money  to  free  the  pope 
from  the  obligations  he  had  taken  on  himself  in  behalf  of 
the  king  and  at  his  request.  The  amount  of  this  claim  far 
exceeded  what  the  barons  had  expected,  and  the  meeting 
broke  up  without  coming  to  any  conclusion;2  but  shortly 
after,  another  nuncio,  a  friar  named  Mansuetus,  sent  at  the 
king's  request,  arrived  in  England,  possessing  more  ex- 
tensive papal  powers  than  Herlot.3  His  efforts,  and  even 
threats,  did  not,  however,  avail  more  than  those  of  his  pre- 
decessor to  induce  parliament  to  accept  the  burden  of 
indebtedness  in  regard  to  Sicily. 

To  return  to  the  situation  in  England  in  1258:  For  a 
second  time  Herlot  met  the  parliament  at  Oxford  on  28th 
April,  and  whether  by  design  or  by  accident,  the  bishops 
and  other  prelates  were  absent  from  this  meeting.  In  the 

1  Reg.  Urbani  IV,  No.  297;  cf.  Rymer,  i.  428. 

9  Matthew  Paris,  v.  676.  8  Ibid.,  679. 


THE  PROVISIONS  OF  OXFORD  377 

pope's  name  Herlot  demanded  a  third  part  of  all  goods 
moveable  and  immoveable  for  his  master's  use.  "  This 
most  harsh  and  unheard-of  tax  "  caused  absolute  conster- 
nation among  the  nobles,  who  asked  for  time  for  reflection 
and  consultation.  To  all  the  expostulations  of  the  nuncio 
they  replied  that  the  immense  sum  asked  would  mean  ruin 
to  them,  and  that  if  the  king  had  obtained  the  crown  of 
Sicily  from  the  pope  for  his  son  Edmund,  this  was  done 
wholly  without  their  knowledge  and  consent.  It  was  an 
evident  folly,  they  said,  and  had  been  treated  as  such  by 
Richard  of  Cornwall,  when  the  throne  had  been  offered  to 
him.1  They  attended  the  adjourned  meeting  at  West- 
minster with  retainers  fully  armed,  and  they  demanded  in 
the  first  place  that  the  king  should  at  once  dismiss  his 
foreign  advisers,  that  he  should  renew  all  the  charters  of 
liberties  so  frequently  promised,  and  should  take  an  oath 
on  the  gospels  to  govern  henceforth  by  the  advice  of  a 
council  of  twenty-four  Englishmen.  Henry  and  his  son 
Edward  were  unable  to  resist,  and  at  once  took  the  oath ; 
upon  this  all  the  nobles  renewed  their  fealty  to  the  king.2 
Though  parliament  was  prolonged  to  5th  May  of  this 
year,  1258,  nothing  more  could  be  done  by  the  papal 
agents  in  the  business  upon  which  they  had  come;  whilst 
it  became  more  and  more  evident  that  grave  difficulties 
between  the  king  and  his  subjects  were  imminent.  In 
view  of  these  internal  commotions  in  England,  the  Sicilian 
question  remained  in  abeyance.  If  pressed  it  would  ob- 
viously have  tended  to  alienate  the  barons  from  the  king 
even  more  than  they  already  were;  and  so,  on  i$th  August, 
Herlot  "  quietly  and  prudently "  left  England  having  ac- 
complished nothing  by  his  mission. 

1  Matthew  Paris,  v.  680. 

*  Ann.  Man.,  i.  163;  cf.  Flores  Hist.,  ii.  417. 


378  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

Meanwhile  the  prelates  had  been  summoned  to  meet 
the  archbishop  at  Merton  to  consider  the  situation  from 
an  ecclesiastical  point  of  view.  Their  deliberations  the 
previous  year  in  the  synod  at  Canterbury  had  prepared 
them  for  this  more  important  gathering,  and  the  resolutions 
carried  at  this  second  meeting  traversed  the  same  ground. 
Matters,  they  declared,  had  got  to  such  a  state  that  it  was 
impossible  to  shut  their  eyes  longer  without  imperilling 
their  salvation  and  giving  up  all  their  ecclesiastical  liber- 
ties. But  they  premised  that  in  reality  they  asked  for 
nothing  new  and  for  nothing  that  was  not  covered  by  the 
sentence  of  excommunication  pronounced  previously  by 
the  archbishops  and  bishops,  and  indeed  for  nothing  that 
had  not  more  than  once  before  been  approved  by  the 
king.1 

The  barons  for  their  part  determined  to  appeal  to  the 
pope,  not  alone  against  the  exactions  proposed  by  his 
nuncio,  but  against  what  they  considered  the  disastrous 
influence  of  foreigners  in  England,  and  in  order  to  justify 
their  attitude  of  opposition  to  their  sovereign.  They  con- 
sequently drew  out  a  long  letter  and  sent  it  to  the  Curia 
by  a  special  embassy.  This  was  followed  by  a  second  and 
even  by  a  third  document,  which  have  already  been  re- 
ferred to  in  a  previous  chapter,  where  also  the  gist  of  the 
pope's  reply  was  given.2  The  prelates  called  to  meet  at 
Oxford  to  consider  the  situation  and  in  particular  the 
position  they  were  to  take  in  regard  to  the  coercion  being 
exercised  by  the  barons  on  the  king,  attended  in  only 
small  numbers,  and  they  separated  without  coming  to  any 
decision,3  although  there  was  no  doubt  as  to  the  side  they 
would  take,  in  the  event  of  the  relations  between  the  king 

1  Ann.  Man.,  i.  409-422  ;  cf.  Wilkins,  Concilia,  i.  736-740. 

z  pp.  321-323.  3  Matthew  Paris,  v.  707. 


THE  PROVISIONS  OF  OXFORD  379 

and  the  nation  being  stretched  to  the  snapping-point.  It 
was  at  this  time,  on  the  very  eve  of  his  departure  from  the 
country,  that  the  papal  envoy  Herlot  sent  a  long  com- 
munication to  Pope  Alexander  IV.  He  first  congratu- 
lated him  upon  the  peace  which  had  been  made  between 
France  and  England,  and  said  that  in  after  years  it  would 
be  pointed  to  as  one  of  the  great  works  accomplished  by 
Alexander  IV.  The  kings  are  now  united  "  to  serve  you  in 
fear  and  obey  you  with  love.  From  this  time  forth  like 
another  Solomon  you  may  command  kings  and  kingdoms 
in  the  days  of  peace.  Wherefore  establish  what  you  have 
accomplished,"  he  says,  "  by  sending  the  cardinal  we  ask 
you  for." l 

The  writer  then  turns  to  what  he  calls  "the  second 
chapter"  of  the  work  entrusted  to  him.  "The  English 
king,"  he  writes,  "  asks  for  a  legate  to  be  given  to  him  in 
England  for  the  better  reformation  of  the  state  of  his  king- 
dom." For  the  unfortunate  condition  of  things  then  exist- 
ing the  nuncio  blames  the  weakness  of  the  king  and  his 
arbitrary  way  of  acting,  as  well  as  the  greed  of  his  foreign 
relations,  who  like  locusts  had  followed  one  another,  de- 
vouring whatever  they  could  lay  hold  of  in  the  country. 
At  the  time  of  writing,  in  the  nuncio's  opinion,  matters 
had  improved,  and  the  king  had  pledged  himself  to 
govern  by  the  advice  of  a  council  and  had  promised  on 
oath  to  observe  and  protect  the  liberties  previously  granted 
by  himself  and  his  predecessors  to  the  people.  The  writer 
then  proceeds  to  explain  at  great  length  the  advantage  to 
the  country  of  the  new  arrangement,  and  expresses  his 
great  hopes  for  the  future  of  the  land  if  governed  in  this 
way.  He  then  turns  to  the  chief  object  for  which  this  letter 
was  penned.  "  Though  you  may  know,"  he  writes, "  both 

1  Ann.  Man.,  i.  463. 


38o  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

the  lives  of  all  your  subjects  and  the  state  of  the  whole 
world,  since  it  is  impossible  for  the  human  mind  to  know 
everything,  it  can  in  no  way  be  looked  upon  as  a  negligence 
or  want  of  care  on  your  part  if  you  do  not  fully  understand 
everything  in  the  wide  and  scattered  countries  subject  to 
your  rule."  For  this  reason  the  writer  thinks  it  his  duty  to 
explain  some  few  particulars.  For  one  thing,  he  assures  the 
pope,  "  your  devoted  servant,  the  illustrious  English  king 
and  his  prelates  and  nobles  ask  earnestly  for  a  cardinal 
legate  to  be  sent  to  England  by  the  Apostolic  See." 
They  are  quite  aware  of  the  heavy  cost  of  such  a  mission ; 
but "  moved  by  zeal  of  devotion  and  to  manifest  their  faith, 
they  would  rather  bear  the  burden  of  those  expenses  than 
witness  the  rise  of  scandals."  They  would  never  urge  this 
with  such  persistency  if  there  were  not  grave  circumstances 
at  work  in  the  country,  which  seem  to  call  for  the  presence 
of  one  possessing  full  authority  to  deal  with  the  evils  and 
their  causes.1 

With  the  beginning  of  the  year  1269,  the  king's  brother, 
Richard  of  Cornwall,  now  king  of  the  Romans,  returned  to 
England.  He  had  received  a  message,  whilst  still  abroad, 
telling  him  of  the  new  arrangements  as  to  the  government 
of  the  kingdom,  and  asking  him  to  give  his  assent  on  oath 
to  what  had  been  done.  On  the  28th  of  January  the  king 
wrote  a  letter  to  await  his  arrival,  urging  him  to  take  the 
oath  asked  for,  and  expressing  his  approval  of  it.a  This 
Richard  of  Cornwall  did,  on  landing  at  Dover,  on  2nd  Feb- 
ruary.3 

The  first  half  of  the  year  1259  was  mainly  occupied  by 
arrangements  to  complete  the  great  work  of  the  peace 
with  France.  On  2nd  August,  however,  the  question  of  a 
legate  was  again  raised,  and  the  king  wrote  to  the  pope 

1  Ann.  Man.,  i.  463-466.         2  Rymer,  i.  380.        3  Flares  Hist.,  ii.  419. 


THE  PROVISIONS  OF  OXFORD  381 

formally  asking  for  one ;  and  he  commissioned  his  agents 
in  the  Curia,  and  Rustand,  the  late  papal  nuncio  in  Eng- 
land, to  explain  the  reasons  why  the  pope  should  grant 
this  favour  for  the  Sicilian  affair  "  as  well  as  for  other 
business"  regarding  England.1    No  immediate  reply  was, 
apparently,  sent  to  this  petition ;  but  on  8th  August,  Alex- 
ander IV  wrote  to  confirm  a  gift  by  the  king  of  a  certain 
benefice  to  Arlotencio,   the   nephew  of  the   late   nuncio 
Herlot,  which  he  had  bestowed  upon  him  to  show  his  favour 
to  his  uncle.    In  this  letter  the  pope  says  that  the  nuncio 
on  his  return  had  given  the  best  possible  report  of  the 
king's  piety  and  devotion,  which  made  him  desire  to  do 
all  that  he  could  to  carry  out  his  wishes.2    In  the  month 
of  September  a  Roman  official  came  to  England  to  try 
and  arrange  matters  in  the  interminable  dispute  about  the 
elect  of  Winchester.    Against  the  action  and  bearing  of 
this  Italian  prelate  King  Henry  thought  it  his  duty  to 
protest.  He  had  presented  the  Apostolic  letters  appointing 
him  to  the  king  and  his  council  "as  a  prudent  and  cir- 
cumspect man,  zealous  for  peace  and  concord."    In  stating 
the  pope's  commands  he  had  taken  occasion  "  to  declare 
the  innumerable  benefits  the  Roman  Church  had  conferred 
upon  us  and  our  predecessors  from  ancient  times."    He 
had  then  striven  to  induce  the  king  and  council  to  receive 
again  into  the  kingdom  the  elect  of  Winchester,  threaten- 
ing them,  in  case  of  refusal,  with  the  papal  anger.    Though 
having  every  desire   to  carry  out   the  pope's   wish,   and 
though  mindful  of  many  benefits  received  from  him,  it  was 
impossible  to  restore  Aylmer  as  it  would  not  only  lead  to 
grave  complications,  but  the   king  could  only  do  it  by 
breaking  faith  with  his  council.    The  king  and  his  advisers 
then  absolutely  declared  they  could  not,  and  would  not,  do 
1  Rymer,  i.  388.  a  P.R.O.  Papal  Bulls,  Bundle  xxxv.  No.  2. 


382  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

what  the  papal  agent,  Friar  Velascus,  demanded.  Where- 
upon he  produced  letters  "  which,"  says  the  king,  "  much 
astonished  us,"  as  they  declared  the  sentence  of  excommu- 
nication and  interdict  if  we  failed  to  do  as  we  were  ordered. 
Thereupon,  to  prevent  this,  both  the  king  and  his  council 
gave  notice  of  their  appeal  to  the  pope,  promising  to  show 
cause  why  the  return  of  the  elect  of  Winchester  was  im- 
possible, and  to  prove  that  the  friar  by  proclaiming  his 
sentence  would  have  been  acting  "  against  the  laws  and 
customs  of  the  kingdom,  especially  since  justice  and  right 
reason  would  not  allow  any  nuncio  of  the  pope,  or  other 
messenger,  at  one  and  the  same  time  to  give  a  command 
and  to  publish  an  excommunication." 1 

Early  in  1260,  Pope  Alexander  IV  replied  at  length  to 
the  letters  which  had  been  addressed  to  him  by  the  barons 
after  the  meeting  at  Oxford  to  justify  their  refusal  of  the 
demands  made  by  the  nuncio  Herlot.  In  his  answer  the 
pontiff  says:  "You  have  written  to  us  that  the  kingdom  of 
England,  once  so  rich,  and  the  English  people,  once  so 
wealthy,  have  fallen  into  a  calamitous  and  wretched  state 
of  poverty,  and  the  very  land  which  used  to  boast  the 
number  of  its  wise  men,  now  bitterly  laments  their  paucity. 
You  assert  that  this  arises  from  the  fact  that  there  are  no 
longer  in  the  parish  churches  rectors  such  as  were  pre- 
viously to  be  found  there,  who,  living  at  their  cures,  used 
to  relieve  the  needs  of  the  poor,  and  to  assist  with  their 
generous  aid  in  the  schools  such  as  desired  to  learn, 
either  in  the  ranks  of  the  clergy  or  among  their  own 
relations." 

You  have  written  also  that  you  and  your  ancestors, 
seeing  the  sanctity  of  the  religious  men  in  the  kingdom, 
who  appeared  to  seek  after  the  salvation  of  souls  and  the 

1  Royal  Letters,  ii.  139-140. 


THE  PROVISIONS  OF  OXFORD  383 

care  of  the  poor,  freely  gave  over  to  them  the  right  of 
patronage  in  your  churches  by  which  they  chose  fitting 
parsons  for  presentation  to  the  bishops,  by  which  arrange- 
ment the  salvation  of  souls  and  the  relief  of  the  poor  was 
greatly  assisted."  This  good  work  you  seem  to  consider 
as  set  aside  because  the  religious  have  obtained  permission 
from  the  Apostolic  See  to  convert  some  of  these  cures  to 
their  own  uses,  and  "  as  your  prelates,  that  is,  the  bishops 
of  the  kingdom,  have  told  you  that  the  correction  of  all 
these  grievances  belongs  to  us,  and  since  the  bishops  have 
written  to  us  on  the  subject,"  we  will  write  as  to  the 
remedy  we  propose  in  the  matter. 

"  You  have,  moreover,  added  to  your  letters  many  hard 
and  bitter  complaints,  which  ought  never  to  have  been 
written  by  you  to  the  Vicar  of  Christ  and  successor  of  the 
Prince  of  the  Apostles."  These  subjects  of  reproach  re- 
garded apostolic  provisions  and  appropriations  of  churches, 
which  you  complained  of,  and  about  which  you  desired  to 
know  what  we  intended  to  do.  If  in  all  you  wrote  you  were 
merely  actuated  by  zeal  and  love,  "  as  we  ought  to  believe 
and  hope,  We  should  rejoice  that  the  Roman  Church,  your 
mother,  had  in  you  sons  so  solicitous,  so  loving,  and  so 
watchful "  to  preserve  the  honour  of  the  Apostolic  See,  and 
to  secure  the  salvation  of  souls.  In  all  these  provisions, 
the  pontiff  goes  on  to  declare,  he  had  been  solely  actuated 
by  his  desire  to  do  his  best  for  religion.  He  thought,  and 
still  thinks,  he  says,  that  by  his  concessions  he  is  serving 
God,  by  helping  the  poverty  of  these  religious  men,  whilst 
the  divine  worship  in  the  appropriated  church  is  rather 
assisted  than  diminished,  and  most  certainly  the  poor  will 
receive  more  from  the  religious  people  than  they  were 
wont  to  do.  The  bishops'  rights,  too,  are  safeguarded, 
since  ample  provision  is  made  in  all  these  appropriations 


384  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

for  curates  with  proper  means  of  support,  and  for  all 
diocesan  taxations  and  rights. 

As  for  what  is  said  in  their  letters  about  the  dearth 
of  able  men  in  England,  he  can  only  say  that  in  no  country 
in  the  world,  as  far  as  he  knows,  are  there  so  many  learned 
men  to  be  found  as  in  theirs.  "In  England  resides  the 
liberal  art  of  philosophy,  by  which  the  rude  minds  of  men 
are  cultured.  From  England  comes  and  has  come  that 
renowned  stock  of  learned  and  holy  men,  in  whose  com- 
pany the  heavenly  hosts  rejoice  and  the  ranks  of  the 
blessed  in  heaven  are  filled ; 1  by  them  the  Christian 
people  are  made  illustrious  and  the  Catholic  faith  strength- 
ened, whilst  from  their  hearts  the  deep  wells  of  the 
Scriptures  have  sprung  and  still  spring  forth  and  water 
neighbouring  lands  by  the  stream  of  their  teaching."  He 
can  assure  them,  the  pope  says  in  conclusion,  that  he 
has  been  mindful  of  the  good  of  the  English  Church  in 
what  he  has  done,  and  he  hopes  that  they  will  trust  him 
to  remedy  anything  that  may  be  amiss.2 

This  letter  of  the  pope  could  hardly  have  been  deemed 
entirely  satisfactory  by  those  to  whom  it  was  addressed ; 
since,  whilst  dealing  with  one  set  of  acts  complained  of, 
it  made  no  mention  of  other  grievances,  which  to  most 
people  were  the  real  cause  of  the  trouble, — the  appointment 
of  foreigners  to  English  benefices.  Indeed,  even  before 
the  pope's  reply  had  been  received  in  this  country,  a  dis- 
turbance of  a  most  serious  kind  had  happened  in  regard 
to  this  very  matter  in  London.  Bishop  Fulk,  of  that  See, 
had,  sometime  previous  to  1260,  bestowed  a  prebend  in 
the  cathedral  church  of  St.  Paul  upon  Rustand,  the  nuncio 
in  England.  Rustand  became  a  Franciscan,  and  died  in 
Italy,  whereupon  the  pope  conferred  his  benefice  upon 

1  Corantur,  *  Rymer,  i.  392-393. 


THE  PROVISIONS  OF  OXFORD  385 

some  personal  friend.  When  this  was  done,  the  bishop 
was  already  dead,  and  the  king  claiming  the  appointment 
to  benefices  during  the  vacancy  of  the  See,  and  being 
wholly  ignorant  of  what  the  pope  had  done,  presented  his 
treasurer,  John  de  Crakehall,  to  the  vacant  prebend,  and 
caused  him  to  be  solemnly  installed. 

In  a  short  time,  however,  there  appeared  in  England 
the  proctor  of  the  pope's  nominee  claiming  the  stall  for 
him.  The  archbishop  of  Canterbury,  seeing  that  the  docu- 
ment nominating  the  Roman  was  dated  before  the  king's 
appointment,  decided  judicially  that  the  benefice  belonged 
to  the  foreigner.  In  spite  of  this  decision,  however,  the 
papal  claimant  was  refused  admission  to  the  house  at- 
tached to  the  canonry,  and  failed  to  force  his  way  into  it. 
In  the  struggle  the  unfortunate  proctor  for  the  pope's 
nominee  and  his  socius  were  killed,  and  the  inquiry  that 
followed  failing  to  discover  the  guilty  parties,  it  was 
shrewedly  suspected  that  many  in  the  city  were  not  alto- 
gether displeased  that  the  foreigners  should  have  received 
a  lesson.  For,  says  the  chronicler,  "  the  English  were  in- 
dignant that  so  many  Romans  were  frequently  enriched 
with  some  English  benefice,  whilst  no  Englishman  was 
rewarded  by  them  (the  Romans)  once  in  a  year.  And 
because  they  were  wont  to  walk  as  if  they  thought  the 
whole  earth  belonged  to  them,  the  English  hoped  this 
might  prove  a  lesson  to  them,  and  frighten  them  in  the 
future  from  coming  so  often  and  so  uselessly  into  the 
kingdom." l 

As  the  year  1260  drew  to  a  close,  the  pope  made  a 
piteous  appeal  to  Prince  Edward  to  try  and  stir  up  his 
father,  the  king,  and  the  English  barons  to  come  to  the 
aid  of  the  Church,  and  indeed  of  the  civilised  world,  by 

1  Flares  Hist.,  ii.  445. 
C  C 


386          HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

helping  to  press  back  the  Tartar  hordes  which  then  threat- 
ened to  overrun  the  whole  of  Christendom.  He  describes 
them  as  bursting  with  irresistible  fury  over  the  land,  sweep- 
ing all  before  them,  and  leaving  in  their  train  only  desola- 
tion and  ruin.  To  the  Christian  people,  it  appeared  as  if 
hell  itself  had  broken  loose,  and  they  were  inclined  to 
believe  the  boast  of  the  barbarians  that  "  the  God  of  the 
heavens  had  given  over  to  them  the  entire  earth."  Some  of 
the  most  famous  Christian  cities  were  already  in  ruins,  and 
Hungary  and  Poland  were  desolated  to  the  very  confines 
of  the  Roman  power.  Pope  Alexander,  therefore,  beseeches 
Prince  Edward  to  consult  with  the  king  and  his  nobles, 
and  to  devise  some  measure  by  which  Europe  could  be 
saved,  and  the  tide  of  barbarian  invasion  arrested,  if  not 
rolled  back.1 

With  the  coming  of  the  year  1261,  Henry  began  to 
manifest  impatience  at  the  restraints  imposed  upon  him 
by  the  "  Provisions  of  Oxford."  In  February  he  had  made 
up  his  mind  once  more  to  free  himself  from  the  oath  he 
had  taken  to  the  barons.  He  told  them  that,  although  they 
had  professed  to  act  for  the  good  of  the  country  and  to 
free  him  from  debt,  his  experience  had  shown  them  that 
this  was  not  the  effect  of  the  arrangements  made  at  Oxford, 
and  he  asked  them  not  to  be  surprised  if  he  determined 
no  longer  to  follow  their  advice.  Acting  upori  this  warn- 
ing, Henry  sent  agents  to  Rome  to  obtain  absolution  from 
his  oath,  and  he  wrote  to  his  son  and  the  king  of  France 
to  secure  their  help  for  this  attempt  to  recover  the  mastery 
in  his  own  country.2  Alexander  IV  was  not  long  in  coming 
to  a  decision  upon  the  royal  petition.  On  I3th  April,  1261, 
he  issued  a  Bull  absolving  the  king  from  the  oath  he  had 
taken  at  Oxford.  It  had  been  proved  to  him,  he  says, 

1  Rymer,  i.  403.  J  Flares  Hist.,  ii.  468. 


THE  PROVISIONS  OF  OXFORD  387 

"  that  you  were  induced  by  the  pressure  of  the  lords  and 
people  of  your  kingdom  to  bind  yourself  by  oath  to  observe 
certain  statutes,  laws  and  ordinances,  which  they,  under  a 
pretext  of  reforming  the  condition  of  the  country,  are  said 
to  have  made  in  your  name  and  strengthened  by  their 
oaths."  These  really  are  calculated  "  to  lessen  your  power 
and  to  lower  your  royal  liberty."  The  pope  then,  out  of  the 
plenitude  of  his  power,  declares  Henry  absolved  from  his 
oath;  but  adds  that  if  there  should  be  anything  in  these 
laws  and  ordinances  which  secures  the  rights  and  benefits 
of  prelates,  churches  and  ecclesiastical  persons,  he  has  no 
intention  of  declaring  these  void,  nor  of  freeing  the  king 
from  his  oath  as  regards  them.1 

According  to  the  chroniclers,  Prince  Edward  at  this 
time  also  received  absolution  from  the  oath  he  had  taken 
with  the  barons ;  but  on  being  informed  of  the  remission, 
he  immediately  renewed  his  promise.2  The  barons  endeav- 
oured to  force  the  king  to  discuss  the  special  points  in  their 
working  arrangement  to  which  he  took  exception,  but  they 
failed  to  obtai^  from  him  more  than  a  promise  that  matters 
should  remain  as  they  were  till  the  return  of  Prince  Edward 
to  England.3  The  pope,  however,  did  not  wait;  but  on  27th 
April,  1261,  he  condemned  the  oath  of  the  barons,  and 
ordered  the  archbishop  to  declare  that  all  who  had  taken 
it,  prelates  and  nobles  alike,  were  to  be  declared  absolved 
from  any  obligation.4  A  week  later,  on  7th  May,  Alexander 
IV  directed  the  archbishop  of  Canterbury  not  only  to 
publish  this  absolution  from  the  oath,  but  to  declare  ex- 
communicated any  one  who  refused  to  return  to  his  loyalty 
to  his  prince  by  accepting  this  dispensation.5  In  the  same 
month  of  May,  the  king  caused  the  papal  dispensation  of 

1  Rymer,  i.  405.         a  Flares  Hist.,  ii.  466;  cf.  Ann.  Man.,  iv.  128. 
8  Ibid.  *  Rymer,  i.  406.  5  Ibid. 


388  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

the  oath  to  be  published,  so  that  all  might  know  that  the 
"  Provisions  of  Oxford  "  were  to  be  regarded  as  altogether 
set  aside  by  the  pope.1 

On  25th  May,  Pope  Alexander  IV  died,  and  was  suc- 
ceeded by  Urban  IV.  In  the  August  of  this  same  year, 
1261,  the  archbishop  of  Canterbury,  by  reason  of  the  Bull 
of  the  late  pope,  felt  bound  to  proceed  against  those  who 
still  held  to  the  obligations  of  the  "  Provisions  of  Oxford." 
He  ordered  Hugh  Bigod,  for  example,  to  be  informed  that 
unless  he  gave  up  the  castles  of  Scarborough  and  Pickering 
he  should  be  compelled,  according  to  the  apostolic  mandate, 
to  declare  him  excommunicate.2 

Urban  IV  found  himself  in  no  less  need  of  money  than 
his  predecessor,  and  like  him,  he  not  unnaturally  turned 
towards  England  in  his  difficulties.  On  /th  September,  he 
wrote  to  Leonard,  precentor  of  Messina,  his  agent  in  Eng- 
land, to  say  that  Rustand,  the  late  papal  nuncio,  in  his  some- 
what hasty  flight  from  England,  had  left  behind  some  sums 
of  money,  which  were  to  be  secured,  if  possible.3  On  26th 
September,  he  again  wrote  to  John  of  Frosinone  to  secure 
all  money  owing  to  the  pope  in  Ireland,  and  send  it  to 
Reynerio  Bonaccursi,  Bonaventure  Bernardini,  and  R. 
lacobi,  merchants  of  Siena,  and  bankers  for  the  Apostolic 
See  in  England.4  So,  too,  to  take  one  more  example, 
Albert  of  Parma  is  charged  to  demand  from  the  archbishops 
and  bishops  the  money  which  is  due  to  the  Holy  See,6  and 
to  secure  from  the  executors  of  Aylmer,  late  bishop  of 
Winchester,  the  eighty  marks  which  he  had  promised  to 
various  Roman  cardinals.6  Besides  this,  in  December, 
Urban  IV  wrote  to  remind  the  king  that  the  tribute  of 
1,000  marks,  payable  by  England  to  the  Holy  See,  was 

1  Flares  Hist '.,  ii.,  471.  2  Rymer,  408,  409.  3  Brit.  Mus.  Add.  MS,  15,360,  f.  I. 
4  Ibid.,  f.  4.  •  Ibid.,  f.  13.  •  Ibid.,  f.  10. 


THE  PROVISIONS  OF  OXFORD  389 

overdue  for  two  years,  and  that  he  had  written  to  Friar 
John  of  Kent,  his  collector,  to  receive  the  amount  and  pay 
it  to  his  bankers  in  England.1 

The  English  king,  on  his  side,  in  the  first  months  of 
the  new  pontificate,  thought  it  necessary  to  acquaint  the 
pope  with  the  difficulties  which  had  arisen  between  him 
and  the  barons.  On  24th  October,  1261,  he  wrote  to 
Urban  IV  to  introduce  the  proctors  he  was  sending  to  the 
Curia  on  his  business.  They  would,  he  says,  explain  his 
reply  to  the  complaints  made  against  him  by  the  arch- 
bishop of  Canterbury  and  his  suffragans.  They  would  also 
be  able  to  show  how  certain  statutes  had  been  made  in 
prejudice  to  the  rights  of  the  Crown,  and  in  his  name  they 
would  ask  His  Holiness  to  annul  these  statutes  and  pro- 
visions.2 By  the  first  day  of  the  new  year,  1262,  Henry 
must  have  received  intimation  from  his  agents  in  Rome 
that  matters  were  not  succeeding  altogether  as  he  wished 
in  regard  to  his  quarrel  with  the  barons  and  bishops.  On 
that  day,  he  addressed  an  urgent  appeal  to  the  pope  to 
absolve  him  from  his  oath,  and  not  to  listen  to  the  petition 
of  the  barons.  He  had,  he  said,  always  trusted  confidently 
in  the  wonted  loving-kindness  of  the  Apostolic  See,  and 
so  now  he  came  asking  with  confidence  that  the  letter  of 
the  pope's  predecessor,  Alexander  IV,  regarding  the  state 
of  his  kingdom,  and  regulating  the  difficulties  existing  by 
absolving  him  from  his  oath,  might  be  again  approved.3 
At  the  same  time,  he  wrote  to  Cardinal  Ottoboni  in  the 
same  terms,  begging  him  to  use  his  influence  to  secure  the 
condemnation  of  the  position  taken  up  by  the  barons,  and 
the  absolution  of  their  oath.  This  had  been  done  before; 
but  it  could  not  be  made  use  of  before  the  death  of  the 

1  Rymer,  i.  413;  Brit.  Mus.  Add.  MS,  15,360,  ff.  24,  28. 
a  Rymer,  i.  410.  3  Ibid.,  414. 


390  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

late  pope,  and  he  trusted  that  the  new  pontiff  would  renew 
the  condemnation  of  his  predecessor.1  This  epistle  was 
followed  up  by  a  general  communication  to  the  cardinals 
in  Curia  in  defence  of  one  of  his  envoys  to  Rome,  John 
Mansel,  treasurer  of  York,  who  had  been  accused  in  Rome 
of  stirring  up  strife  between  the  king,  his  barons  and 
bishops.* 

Many  letters,  at  the  beginning  of  the  year  1262,  again 
manifest  the  pope's  anxiety  as  to  money  matters.  The 
archbishop  of  York,  and  other  bishops,  are  asked  to  assist 
the  work  of  Leonard  of  Messina,  the  pope's  collector  in 
England.  Master  Leonard  is  reminded  of  his  duties,  and 
told  that  in  the  Council  of  Lyons,  Pope  Innocent  ordered 
that  one  half  the  revenues  of  all  benefices  not  actually 
occupied  by  any  individual  should  be  applied  for  six 
months  to  the  defence  of  Constantinople.  Leonard  is  to 
consider  whether  it  would  be  prudent  to  insist  on  this.  He 
is  to  collect  without  fail  all  money  certainly  due,  such  as  a 
tenth  and  a  twentieth  on  ecclesiastical  goods,  the  fines  for 
the  remission  of  all  crusading  vows,  the  goods  of  clerks 
dying  intestate,  Peter's  pence,  etc.,  etc.3  At  this  time,  too, 
there  are  several  letters  of  the  pope  to  the  archbishops  of 
Canterbury  and  York,  and  to  other  bishops,  urging  them  to 
do  their  utmost  to  assist  the  Church  in  its  great  necessity. 
"The  Roman  Church,  which  is  the  head  of  all  other 
Churches,  and  the  mother  of  all  the  faithful  of  Christ,"  is  in 
debt  to  Italian  and  other  merchants,  he  says,  and  it  is  the 
duty  of  all  sons  to  help  her.4 

In  February,  1262,  the  new  pope  had  determined  to 
confirm  what  Alexander  IV  had  done  in  regard  to  the 
"  Provisions  of  Oxford."  He  instructed  the  archbishop  of 

1  Rymer,  i.  414.       a  Ibid.         3  Brit.  Mus.  Add.  MS.  15,360,  ff.  39-47. 
•  Ibid.,  ff.  51-55. 


THE  PROVISIONS  OF  OXFORD  391 

Canterbury  to  declare  the  king,  queen,  and  royal  princes, 
freed  from  the  oaths  they  had  taken.  Further,  that  the 
nobles  and  prelates  were  to  be  held  to  their  oaths  of  fidelity, 
and  were  to  be  told  that  the  promises  which  bound  them 
to  any  statutes  or  ordinances  against  the  dignity  of  the 
Crown,  or  in  prejudice  to  its  rights,  were  null  and  void.1 
The  matter,  however,  did  not  rest  here.  Simon  de  Mont- 
fort,  the  earl  of  Leicester,  had  now  been  abroad  for  some 
time,  although  he  still  remained  the  real  leader  of  the 
baronial  party.  On  i6th  October  of  this  year,  1262,  he 
suddenly  returned  to  this  country  and  attended  a  parlia- 
ment held  in  London  on  St.  Edward's  day,  which  was 
presided  over  by  Philip  Basset,  then  justiciar  of  England. 
He  brought  with  him,  and  produced  at  the  meeting,  a  letter 
from  the  pope,  approving  of  all  the  "  Provisions  of  Oxford." 
The  pope,  in  this  document,  declared  that  he  and  the  Curia 
had  been  deceived  into  granting  the  letters  absolving  the 
nobles  from  the  oaths  they  had  taken  to  keep  these  "  Pro- 
visions," and  he  recalled  those  letters.  This  papal  letter  to 
the  barons  was  published  by  the  earl,  though  against  the 
wishes  of  the  justiciar,  and  Simon  de  Montfort  forthwith 
left  England  again,  but,  as  the  chronicler  says,  "  leaving 
behind  him  many  accomplices  and  followers  ready  to  carry 
out  his  design,"  * 

1  Rymer,  i.  416.  a  Gervase  of  Cant.,  ii.  217;  cf.  Rymer,  i.  422. 


CHAPTER  XXI 
THE  WORK  OF  OTTOBONI  THE  LEGATE 

THE  tension  between  the  king  and  the  barons  became  more 
acute  with  the  close  of  the  year  1 262,  and  during  the  course 
of  1263.  In  this  latter  period,  the  state  of  unrest  in  the 
country  caused  great  distress,  and  the  general  uncertainty 
of  the  times  is  illustrated  by  the  cessation  at  this  time  of 
many  of  the  monastic  chronicles.  In  1261,  Henry  had  felt 
himself  strong  enough  to  break  away  from  the  control  of 
the  committee  of  management  imposed  upon  him  by  the 
"  Provisions  of  Oxford."  He  raised  an  army,  and  seized 
the  Tower  of  London:  but  quickly  recognising  that  he 
was  too  weak  to  come  to  actual  blows,  he  again  consented 
to  place  himself  in  the  hands  of  the  party  of  Simon  de 
Montfort. 

Meanwhile,  the  pope  supported  the  king's  authority  as 
far  as  was  possible  under  the  circumstances.  In  January, 
1263,  he  refused  to  ratify  some  ecclesiastical  statutes  which 
had  been  passed  in  synod,  because  the  bishops  had  not 
obtained  the  royal  licence  to  publish  them,  and  against 
which  Henry  had  protested  by  his  agents.1  The  following 
month,  Urban  IV  wrote  to  Archbishop  Boniface  condemn- 
ing the  "  Provisions  of  Oxford,"  and  the  general  attitude 
of  the  nobles  of  England  towards  their  king.  He  declared 
that  the  oath  which  the  king  took  to  abide  by  the  statutes 
was  void;  and  that  he  and  all  those  who  had  sworn  to 

1  Rymer,  i.  424;  cf.  Wilkins,  i.  759. 
392 


OTTOBONI  THE  LEGATE  393 

observe  these  statutes  and  provisions  were  absolved  from 
their  promises.  He  further  directed  the  archbishop  to  use 
his  authority  against  all  who  abided  by  these  oaths  in  spite 
of  this  absolution,  or  who  in  any  way  pretended  that  their 
association  had  papal  approval.1 

In  the  June  of  this  same  year  1263,  the  pope  recalled  his 
agent,  Leonard,  the  precentor  of  Messina,  and  in  his  place 
appointed  an  English  Franciscan,  John  of  Kent.2  At  this 
time,  mainly  through  the  exertions  of  Richard  of  Cornwall,3 
Henry  was  enabled  to  treat  with  his  barons  for  some  modus 
vivendi,  likely  to  put  an  end  to  the  civil  strife,  which  now 
seemed  almost  inevitable.  The  bishops  of  Winchester, 
London  and  Coventry,  were  sent  to  the  king  on  behalf  of 
the  barons  with  draft  terms  of  peace;4  and  Henry  so  far 
accepted  their  solicitations  as  to  assume  that  the  whole 
matter  was  accomplished  satisfactorily,  and  directed  the 
return  of  certain  castles  into  his  hands.5  This  the  holders 
of  these  fortresses  considered  as  at  least  premature,  since 
the  peace  had  only  been  suggested  and  not  as  yet  ratified.8 

In  the  midst  of  this  uncertainty,  and  whilst  the  negotia- 
tions between  the  king  and  the  barons  were  in  a  very 
critical  state,  the  pope  directed  his  new  agent,  the  friar 
John  of  Kent,  to  press  for  the  payment  of  the  tribute  due 
to  him.7  At  the  same  time  he  wrote  to  warn  the  English 
king  that  the  question  of  the  crown  of  Sicily  must  be  settled 
once  for  all,  and  that  he  was  sending  over  a  special  envoy 
to  arrange  the  business,8  urging  the  bishops  of  England  to 
assist  in  bringing  this  interminable  affair  to  a  conclusion. 
In  the  following  month,  August,  1263,  the  king's  brother, 
Richard  of  Cornwall,  was  nominated  king  of  the  Romans, 

1  Wilkins,  i.  760.  a  Brit.  Mus.  Add.  MS.  15,360,  ff.  223-225. 

3  Rytner,  i.  427.  *  Ibid.  5  Ibid.  8  Ibid.,  428. 

7  Brit.  Mus.  Add.  MS.  15,360,  f.  239.        8  Reg.  Urb.  IV,  ii.  No.  298. 


394  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

the  other  candidate  being  Alfonso  of  Castile.1  By  the  end 
of  the  month,  the  pope  informed  the  earl  of  his  election, 
and  explaining  to  him  the  meaning  of  the  title  "  King  of 
the  Romans,"  warned  him  of  the  duties  implied  by  the 
position.  In  a  letter  addressed  "  to  all  faithful  Christians," 
Pope  Urban  once  more  proclaimed  that  all  oaths  taken 
against  theEnglish  king  were  unlawful.  It  was  the  devil,  he 
says,  who  had  stirred  up  these  conspiracies  "  in  a  country 
which  for  long  ages  has  been  specially  devoted  to  God 
and  the  Apostolic  See."2  On  i6th  September,  he  ordered 
William,  the  archdeacon  of  Paris,  to  proceed  at  once  to 
England  to  act  as  his  nuncio,  with  power  to  dispense  the 
king  from  any  oaths  to  the  barons  which  might  hamper 
his  action,  and  in  any  other  needful  way  to  protect  his 
royal  person.3  On  the  same  day  the  pope  wrote  to  urge 
Richard,  the  elect  king  of  the  Romans,  as  he  is  now  called, 
to  help  the  English  king  out  of  his  difficulties  with  his 
barons,4  and  blamed  him  for  hitherto  favouring  the  com- 
bination against  his  royal  brother.5  At  the  same  time, 
Urban  IV  shows  that  he  is  not  wholly  disinterested  in  pre- 
serving the  peace,  for  in  a  letter  to  King  Henry  he  reminds 
him  that  the  current  yearly  tribute  of  a  thousand  marks 
remains  unpaid,  together  with  two  years  of  arrears.6 

The  refusal  of  the  custodians  of  Dover  Castle  to  admit 
the  king  and  his  officials  and  to  surrender  their  charge  to 
him,  almost  precipitated  an  open  conflict  between  the  ad- 
herents of  Henry  and  those  of  the  earl  of  Leicester.  The 
latter  gathered  his  forces  in  London  and  proposed  to  march 
to  the  relief  of  Dover;  but  a  truce  of  eight  days  being  agreed 
upon,  during  that  time  both  parties  joined  in  asking  the 

1  Reg.  Urb.  IV,  ii.  No.  358.          a  Brit.  Mus.  Add.  MS.  15,360,  f.  266. 
3  A'eg.  Urb.  IV,  ii.  No.  718.  *  Ibid.,  No.  724. 

8  Brit.  Mus.  Add.  MS.,  15,360,  f.  280.  •  Ibid.,  f.  269. 


OTTOBONI  THE  LEGATE  395 

arbitration  of  St.  Louis,  king  of  France,  whose  upright 
honesty  was  acknowledged  by  all  the  world.  Both  parties 
pledged  themselves  to  abide  by  the  decision  of  the  French 
king.1 

Meanwhile  the  pope  took  action.  On  I2th  November, 
1263,  Urban  IV  wrote  to  the  English  king  that  he  had 
determined  to  dispatch  a  legate  to  England  in  the  person 
of  Guy  Foulquois,  who  had  been  created  cardinal-bishop 
of  Sabina  two  years  before,2  and  who  afterwards  succeeded 
to  the  papal  throne,  under  the  title  of  Clement  IV.  Regard- 
ing him  as  the  most  likely  member  of  the  college  of  cardinals 
to  be  able  to  deal  with  the  civil  disorders  in  England,  the 
pope  bestowed  upon  him  plenary  powers,3  and  wrote  to 
the  French  king  to  bespeak  his  assistance  for  this  mission.* 
In  regard  to  the  bishops,  whom  the  pontiff  regarded  as 
rebels  because  they  notoriously  sympathised  with  the 
party  of  the  earl  of  Leicester,  the  cardinal-legate  was  given 
special  faculties  to  suspend  and  correct  them.5 

St.  Louis  was  not  long  in  coming  to  his  decision.  The 
English  king  and  his  son,  Prince  Edward,  had  crossed  the 
sea  to  meet  the  arbitrator  at  Amiens  on  2nd  January,  1265, 
and  thither  also  went  some  representatives  of  the  barons.6 
After  three  weeks'  inquiry  into  the  scope  and  meaning  of  the 
"  Provisions  of  Oxford,"  on  the  feast  of  St.  Vincent,  martyr, 
22nd  January,  the  French  king  gave  his  award,  which  was 
called  the  Mise  of  Amiens,  It  was  entirely  in  favour  of  King 
Henry,  on  the  ground  that  the  statutes  were  destructive 
of  the  royal  authority  and  subversive  of  his  power,  as  sub- 
sequent events  had  already  shown.  St.  Louis,  however, 
expressly  disclaimed  any  wish  or  intention  to  declare  him- 

1  Gervase  of  Cant.,  ii.  231;  cf.  Royal  Letters,  Henry  III,  ii.  p.  251; 
Rymer,  i.  433. 

a  Reg.  Urb.  77,  ii.  No.  583.         8  Ibid.,  No.  588.          *  Ibid.,  No.  586. 
5  Ibid.,  No.  589-597.  e  Gervase  of  Cant.,  ii.  232. 


396  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

self  against  the  charters  of  liberties  which  Henry  or  his 
predecessors  had  granted  to  the  English  people.1 

The  barons,  although  they  had  pledged  themselves  to 
obey  the  finding  of  the  French  king,  were  reluctant  to  do 
so  after  the  decision.  Henry,  on  his  return  to  England, 
landed  at  Whitsand  on  8th  February,  1264,  and  thence  sent 
to  demand  admittance  to  Dover  castle.  This  was  refused 
once  more.  Before  leaving  France,  the  English  king  had 
sent  to  acquaint  the  pope  with  the  result  of  the  arbitration 
at  Amiens;  and  on  I4th  March,  the  pope  sent  to  congratu- 
late him  and  to  express  his  own  feelings,  promising  to 
confirm  the  decision  of  St.  Louis  when  the  full  text  of  the 
document  should  reach  him.2  This  he  must  have  received 
immediately ;  for,  on  the  following  day,  the  letter  of  appro- 
bation was  dispatched  to  England.  After  reciting  the  terms 
of  the  award,  Urban  IV  says,  that  being  asked  both  by 
St.  Louis  and  King  Henry  to  approve  the  decision,  he 
hereby  ratifies  and  "confirms  it  by  his  Apostolic  authority."3 
The  day  following,  the  pope  wrote  to  the  archbishop  of 
Canterbury,  directing  him  to  compel  obedience  to  this 
judgement  of  the  French  king,  now  confirmed  in  all  its 
parts  by  the  papal  authority,  even  by  the  use  of  the 
spiritual  sword  of  excommunication,  should  this  be  neces- 
sary.4 The  failure  of  the  barons  to  keep  their  word  to  abide 
by  the  decision  of  St.  Louis,  no  doubt  alienated  many  who 
had  hitherto  been  well  disposed  towards  their  efforts  to 
procure  right  government.  This  was  especially  the  case 
with  some  of  the  bishops,  with  Richard  of  Cornwall,  and 
even  with  Prince  Edward,  who  had  shown  himself  against 
the  king  in  his  misgovernment.  Still,  the  party  supporting 
Simon  de  Montfort  maintained  its  hold  over  many  power- 

1  Rymer,  i.  434.  3  Reg.  Urb.  IV,  ii.  Nos.  766,  767. 

3  Rymer,  i.  436.  *  Ibid.,  437. 


OTTOBONI  THE  LEGATE  397 

ful  adherents,  and  actual  civil  war  began  early  in  the  year 
1264,  only  a  very  brief  time  after  the  date  of  the  decision 
of  St.  Louis,  by  which  it  was  hoped  the  national  discontent 
would  have  been  allayed.  Against  the  popular  party  the 
pope  continued  to  issue  his  condemnations.  He  declared 
null  and  void  all  promises  and  oaths  against  the  finding  of 
the  French  king,  and  ordered  the  archbishop  of  Canterbury 
to  make  this  known.1  He  is  distressed  to  understand  that 
serious  dissensions  are  rife  between  "  the  English  king,  who 
is  known  to  be  the  devoted  subject  of  God  and  the  See 
Apostolic,"  and  the  people  of  the  kingdom,  whom  as  his 
specially  beloved  sons,  the  pope  embraces  with  loving  arms : 
and  he  tells  them  they  will  incur  the  indignation  of  God  if 
they  do  not  retire  from  all  combinations  and  conspiracies 
against  their  sovereign.2 

On  1 4th  May,  in  a  battle  at  Lewes,  in  Sussex,  Simon 
de  Montfort's  party  was  entirely  successful.  The  king  and 
his  brother,  Richard  of  Cornwall,  and  most  of  the  leaders 
of  the  royalists,  fell  into  the  hands  of  the  insurgents, 
and  the  following  day,  rather  than  continue  the  civil  war, 
Prince  Edward  gave  himself  up  to  share  his  father's  fate. 

Meanwhile,  the  legate  Guy,  cardinal-bishop  of  Sabina, 
was  on  his  way  to  England  with  "a  large  retinue,"  and 
"having  the  power  of  both  swords,"  as  the  annalist  of 
Dunstable  calls  it,3  by  which  to  put  an  end  to  the  civil  dis- 
sensions in  England.  Matters  had  come  to  a  head  more 
quickly  than  could  have  been  foreseen,  and  when  the 
cardinal  reached  Boulogne,  Henry  was  already  in  the 
hands  of  his  opponents.  On  2/th  May,  a  messenger  crossed 
to  Dover,  bringing  letters  to  the  English  bishops  which 
summoned  them  to  meet  the  legate  on  the  opposite  side  of 

1  Reg.  Urb.  IV,  ii.  Nos.  776,  777.  2  Rymer,  i.  438. 

3  Ann.  Man.,  iii.  333. 


398  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

the  Channel.  The  barons  were  unwilling  to  allow  all  the  pre- 
lates to  depart  from  the  country,  and  two  only  of  their  num- 
ber, the  bishops  of  Winchester  and  London,  were  deputed 
to  cross  over  to  Boulogne  and  represent  them.  The  cardinal 
was  very  displeased  at  the  non-arrival  of  the  bishops,  and 
uttered  many  threats  against  them.  The  two  who  had  come 
got  no  satisfaction  from  their  interview,  and  in  a  short 
time  returned  to  Dover,  bringing  with  them  a  sentence  of 
interdict  against  the  country.  This  document  being  found 
in  the  baggage  of  the  bishop  of  London  by  the  governor  of 
Dover,  it  was  promptly  torn  up  and  thrown  into  the  sea.1 
In  their  interview  with  the'  legate,  the  two  bishops  had 
protested  against  the  interdict,  and  against  the  sentence  of 
excommunication  which  the  cardinal  proposed  to  proclaim 
against  the  citizens  of  London  and  of  the  Cinque  ports,  as 
well  as  against  the  earl  of  Leicester  and  his  followers 
generally.2  Shortly  after  the  return  of  the  two  bishops 
from  their  interview  with  the  legate  at  Boulogne,  the  pre- 
lates were  summoned  to  meet  in  London.  At  this  assembly 
they  drew  up  a  protest  against  the  action  of  the  legate, 
and  an  appeal  against  his  sentence  of  excommunication 
and  interdict.  They  were  ready,  they  declared,  to  justify 
before  any  tribunal  their  conduct  in  acting  towards  the 
king  as  they  had  done,  inasmuch  as  during  the  disturb- 
ances their  ecclesiastical  rights  had  been  set  aside  and 
their  privileges  disregarded.  At  a  public  assembly,  all — 
including  the  king  and  the  barons — had  pledged  themselves 
to  support  the  rights  of  the  Church,  and  had  agreed  to 
safeguard  this  by  sentence  of  excommunication.  They 
protested  that  they  had  nothing  to  accuse  themselves  of, 

1  Gervase  of  Cant.,  ii.  239. 

2  Flores  Hist.,  ii.  501.    The  chronicle  of  Thomas  Wykes  (Ann.  Afon.,  iv. 
156),  seems  to  place  the  interview  between  the  legate  and  the  two  bishops  in 
September,  but  it  seems  more  probable  that  it  was  in  June. 


OTTOBONI  THE  LEGATE  399 

and  they  now  appealed  from  the  legate  to  the  Holy  See  and 
to  a  general  Council.  This  appeal  was  sanctioned  by  the 
synod  of  clergy  on  igth  October;1  but  Guy  Foulquois,  the 
cardinal-legate,  had  already  given  up  any  idea  of  being  able 
to  set  foot  in  England,  and  had  by  this  time  turned  back 
on  his  journey  Romeward.2  On  2nd  October — even  before 
the  synod  of  the  clergy  in  London — Urban  IV  died,  and 
on  5th  February,  1265,  after  a  delay  of  some  months,  Guy, 
the  cardinal  of  Sabina  and  late  legate  to  England  was 
chosen  as  his  successor.  Gervase  of  Canterbury,  in  chroni- 
cling this  fact,  adds  that  the  new  pope  never  forgot  the  fact 
of  his  being  refused  an  entry  into  England,  and  as  pope 
never  showed  himself  too  favourable  to  the  English  bishops 
and  nobles.  On  the  other  hand,  at  the  request  of  the  king's 
agent,  William  Bouquer,  he,  on  his  accession,  at  once 
granted  Henry,  for  three  years,  a  tenth  of  all  ecclesiastical 
possessions  in  his  kingdom,  to  help  him  in  the  expenses 
incurred  during  the  civil  war.3 

On  1 8th  October,  1264,  after  setting  out  on  his  journey, 
and,  although  unknown  to  him,  after  the  death  of  Pope 
Urban,  the  cardinal-legate  issued  a  letter  describing  the 
situation  in  which  he  found  himself.  It  was  addressed, 
indeed,  to  the  archbishop  and  suffragans  of  Rheims,  but  it 
was  intended  evidently  for  the  information  of  all  whom  it 
might  concern.  He  had  been  prevented  from  exercising 
his  legation,  he  says,  by  the  action  of  the  earl  of  Leicester 
and  others.  Under  these  circumstances,  in  virtue  of  the 
special  powers  he  had  received,  allowing  him  to  exercise 
his  legatine  faculties  across  the  seas,  on  8th  August,  in  the 
church  of  our  Lady  in  Boulogne,  he  publicly  admonished 
the  earl  and  other  nobles,  to  allow  him  to  cross  over  into 

1  Ann.  Man.,  iii.  234.  2  Th.  Wykes,  Ann.  Man.,  iv.  157. 

8  Gervase  of  Cant.,  ii.  242;  cf.  Flares  Hist.,  ii.  502. 


400  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

England  before  ist  September  following,  under  pain  of 
excommunication,  to  take  effect  on  them  and  all  who 
should  aid  them.  He  further  declared,  at  the  same  time, 
that  the  city  of  London  and  the  Cinque  Ports  were  placed 
under  an  interdict;  all  of  which  sentences,  as  they  did  not 
obey  at  the  time  specified,  had  now  (i8th  October),  fallen 
upon  those  against  whom  they  had  been  pronounced. 
Further,  on  the  same  day  and  in  the  same  place,  by  special 
command  of  the  pope,  he  had,  he  says,  warned  all  the 
English  nobles  to  return  to  their  full  allegiance  to  their 
sovereign,  ordering  them  to  give  full  and  free  liberty  to 
the  king,  his  brother,  the  king  of  Germany,  and  their  heirs, 
whom  they  held  captives.  Lastly,  also  by  special  com- 
mand of  the  pope,  those  who  had  bound  themselves 
together  by  any  oath  against  the  king  were  warned  that 
their  oaths  were  null  and  void,  and  that  they  must  seek 
dispensations  from  the  legate.  As  all  had  neglected  these 
warnings,  before  finally  departing  from  the  parts  near  the 
sea  coast,  the  legate  solemnly  pronounced  a  sentence  of 
excommunication  by  name  against  Simon  de  Montfort 
and  the  earls  of  Gloucester  and  Norfolk,  against  their 
adherents  generally,  and  against  the  Londoners  and  the 
people  of  the  Cinque  Ports  specially.  Further,  the  whole 
country  was  declared  to  be  under  an  ecclesiastical  interdict, 
the  king's  chapels  alone  being  excepted  from  the  general 
sentence,  and  even  in  them  services  had  to  be  celebrated 
in  low  tones  and  with  closed  doors.1 

It  is  now  impossible  to  say  what  effect  the  denuncia- 
tions of  the  legate  had  upon  the  earl  of  Leicester's  party, 
or  upon  the  Church.  Possibly  these  grevious  sentences  of 
excommunication  and  interdict  remained  unknown  until 
later,  as  there  is  no  apparent  evidence  of  the  existence  of 

1  Rymer,  i.  448-449. 


OTTOBONI  THE  LEGATE  401 

any  ecclesiastical  interdict  at  this  time  in  the  life  of  the 
country.  The  document  in  which  they  are  contained  is, 
however,  evidence  of  the  outraged  feelings  and  bitter  dis- 
appointment of  the  legate,  Guy  Foulquois,  on  the  failure 
of  his  mission  of  pacification,  and  this  on  the  very  eve  of 
his  election  to  succeed  Urban  IV  on  the  pontifical  throne. 
By  the  beginning  of  May,  1265,  hardly  more  than  a  couple 
of  months  after  his  accession  as  Clement  IV,  the  new 
pope  had  determined  to  send  Cardinal  Adrian  Ottoboni  as 
legate  to  England  with  ample  powers,  to  be  exercised  also, 
if  he  saw  fit,  in  Ireland  and  Scotland.1  On  the  same  day 
as  this  commission  was  registered,  4th  May,  a  whole  series 
of  documents  attest  the  determination  of  Clement  IV  to 
provide  against  every  emergency  that  might  arise  in  the 
course  of  the  difficult  business  committed  to  the  cardinal. 
The  bishops  of  England  are  warned  to  receive  him  and 
help  him,  and  he  is  given  plenary  powers  to  relax  all  sus- 
pensions and  interdicts,  as  well  as  to  proceed  against  all 
who  are  still  in  a  state  of  rebellion  against  their  sovereign ; 
he  is  empowered  to  deal  summarily  with  any  Germans  who 
may  be  found  aiding  the  rebels,  and  should  the  attitude 
of  hostility  against  the  king  on  the  part  of  the  archbishop 
and  bishops  seem  to  require  it,  he  may  order  a  crusade  to 
be  preached  against  them  in  Europe.2 

On  the  following  day,  5th  May,  further  powers  were 
bestowed  on  the  cardinal  to  the  same  end.  He  may  absolve 
the  king  from  all  oaths  taken  under  stress  of  circumstances, 
and  may  do  the  same  for  ecclesiastics.  He  is  to  compel 
all,  whether  clergy  or  lay  people,  under  the  most  severe 
penalties,  to  give  back  to  the  king  any  lands  or  buildings 
they  may  be  holding  under  the  authority  of  the  rebels. 
He  may  cite  any  person  under  severe  pains  and  penalties 

1  Reg.  Clement  IV,  i.  No.  40.  a  lirid.t  Nos.  41-43,  56,  57,  66-68. 

DD 


402  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

to  come  to  him  at  any  time,  even  when  he  is  over  the  sea; 
and  he  may  cross  to  England  and  recross,  without  loss  of 
his  legatine  faculties.  If  any  ecclesiastic  is  disobedient  to 
him,  he  is  to  cite  him  to  answer  for  his  contempt  before 
the  pope.  In  regard  to  secular  clerks  who  are  found  re- 
calcitrant, without  further  delay  he  may  declare  them  de- 
prived of  all  their  ecclesiastical  privileges.  In  regard  to 
regulars,  the  special  legatine  powers  were  no  less  ample; 
and  he  is  ordered  to  place  censures  on  all  who  do  not 
show  proper  respect  to  his  person  or  his  suite.  A  special 
brief  declares  that  all  his  powers  are  to  be  considered  as 
of  the  most  ample  kind  possible;  whilst,  if  he  cannot  enter 
England,  all  these  powers  may  be  exercised  out  of  the 
country.  He  is  empowered  to  grant  an  Indulgence  of  a 
hundred  days  to  all  who  will  join  in  preaching  a  crusade, 
or  will  fight  against  the  rebels ;  and  to  all  pious  ladies  who 
may  assist  him,  the  cardinal  may  give  the  privilege  of  en- 
tering the  inclosure  of  any  monastery  once  a  year.1 

During  the  course  of  the  month  the  legatine  faculties 
were  still  more  amplified ;  and  Cardinal  Ottoboni  was  given 
permission  to  reward  his  suite  with  English  canonries  and 
prebends,  and  with  benefices  without  the  cure  of  souls, 
in  the  case  of  such  as  were  not  in  Holy  Orders.  To  meet 
expenses,  he  is  empowered  to  levy  a  tax  of  a  tenth  on  all 
English  ecclesiastical  property ;  and  to  consolidate  the  work 
of  pacification,  he  is  to  compel  the  nobles  and  prelates  to 
renew  their  oath  of  fealty  to  their  sovereign.2 

Whilst  Ottoboni  was  preparing  for  his  departure,  events 
were  following  each  other  with  considerable  rapidity  in 
England.  In  the  month  of  July  the  letters  of  the  pope 
show  that  the  cardinal  still  lingered  on  in  Rome,  and  up 

1  Reg.  Clement  IV,  Nos.  45-54,  58-59,  64,  72. 
a  Ibid.,  Nos.  55,  65,  69,  73,  74. 


OTTOBONI  THE  LEGATE  403 

to  the  ipth  of  the  month  some  additional  powers  were 
given  to  him,  and  some  special  points  of  advice  impressed 
upon  him.  If  England  refused  to  receive  him,  for  example, 
as  it  did  the  pope  under  similar  circumstances,  then  he 
was  to  declare  the  whole  country  placed  under  an  interdict, 
and  that  the  excommunication,  already  pronounced  by  the 
pope  himself  when  legate,  against  certain  barons,  and 
against  London  and  the  Cinque  Ports,  still  held  good. 
Further,  in  the  case  of  the  English  refusing  to  receive 
him,  the  cardinal  was  to  publish  in  France  a  prohibition 
against  anyone  marrying  into  the  family  of  a  rebel ;  to 
declare  that  all  ecclesiastical  elections  or  appointments  to 
benefices  were  void,  until  his  orders  have  been  obeyed; 
to  deprive  the  sons  and  nephews  of  all  rebel  nobles  and 
ecclesiastics  of  their  benefices  ;  and  finally  to  declare  that 
if  the  people  persisted  in  their  rebellion,  and  did  not  heed 
his  commands,  the  pope  would  give  over  their  persons  and 
their  property  to  others.1  At  length,  on  iQth  July,  1265, 
Pope  Clement  told  the  legate  not  to  delay  any  longer, 
but  to  start  at  once  on  his  mission,2  which,  apparently, 
he  did  sh6rtly  afterwards. 

When  Ottoboni  finally  reached  the  sea  at  Boulogne,  in 
the  October  of  this  year,  1265,  the  situation  in  England 
had  changed  considerably.  On  28th  May,  Prince  Edward, 
whilst  at  Hereford,  had  succeeded  in  escaping  from  the 
custody  of  the  de  Montfort  party,  and,  on  4th  August, 
had  fought  the  celebrated  battle  of  Evesham,  in  which 
Simon  de  Montfort  was  killed  and  his  power  broken. 
Though  this  did  not,  indeed,  end  the  civil  war,  which 
dragged  on  for  a  couple  of  years  longer  under  the  three 
sons  of  Simon,  it  rendered  the  work  of  the  legate  very 

1  Reg.  Clement  IV>  Nos.  115-121. 

a  Historical  Review,  1900,  p.  87,  note  from  Neues  Archiv.,  xxii.  350. 


404  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

different  from  what  had  been  anticipated  for  him.  Whilst 
on  his  journey  towards  England  Ottoboni  sent  forward 
letters  to  the  archbishop  of  Canterbury,  explaining  that 
the  Church  must  regard  the  rebellion  in  England  as  the 
work  of  the  enemy  of  man's  salvation,  and  that  he,  having 
been  sent  to  try  to  put  an  end  to  the  disturbances,  would 
look  for  help  and  assistance  in  the  work  to  the  head  of 
the  English  Church.  He  trusted  that  the  attitude  of  the 
bishops  might  not  oblige  him  to  have  recourse  to  harsh 
measures,  but  that  by  their  help  he  might  be  able  joyfully 
to  return  to  the  mother  who  sent  him,  "  carrying  with 
exultation  the  sheaves  of  salvation  and  gladness." 1 

At  the  same  time,  from  Savoy,  the  legate  wrote  to 
encourage  the  king.  "After  the  labour,  in  which  mother 
Church,"  he  writes,  "  has  begot  to  Christ,  her  Spouse,  the 
peoples  of  your  kingdom ;  after  she  has,  by  the  help  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  instructed  them  in  the  true  faith,  has  filled 
them  with  knowledge  and  learning,  and  has  adorned  them 
with  many  graces,"  nothing  can  be  more  bitter  and  griev- 
ous to  her,  than  the  turn  the  new  disturbances  have  taken 
in  these  late  days.  The  pope,  just  before  his  elevation, 
had  sought  to  probe  the  wound,  but  had  failed  to  find  a 
remedy ;  and  now,  placed  in  a  higher  position,  he  has  felt 
the  matter  more  keenly,  "  having  to  carry  on  his  shoulders 
this  and  the  other  burdens  of  the  world,  which  he  has  re- 
ceived from  the  hand  of  God  Himself."  His  heart  at  once 
turned  towards  you,  and,  looking  at  the  desolation  of  the 
kingdom,  he  thought  how  by  an  embassy  "  to  the  kingdom 
and  Church  of  England,  that  great  and  illustrious  member 
of  the  Christian  world,  founded  on  the  faith  of  the  Eternal 
God  and  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  he  might  bring  conso- 
lation in  all  its  troubles,  with  tranquillity  after  the  storm  of 
1  Hist.  Review,  1900,  pp.  87-88. 


OTTOBONI  THE  LEGATE  405 

revolution,  and  rest  after  the  tempest."  For  this  end,  the 
legate  continues,  the  pope  had  made  choice  of  him,  and 
after  a  difficult  and  circuitous  journey,  to  avoid  the  enemies 
of  the  papacy,  by  the  help  of  relations  and  friends  he 
has  reached  Savoy,  and  he  hopes  with  God's  help,  to 
come  quickly  and  to  fulfil  his  mission.1 

To  the  college  of  cardinals,  Ottoboni  writes  shortly 
after,  that  he  had  reached  the  French  court  on  29th  August, 
1265.  He  found  St.  Louis,  he  says,  "like  a  strong  and 
central  column  in  the  deserted  house  of  God."  He  was  re- 
ceived by  him  with  all  honour;  and  whilst  in  Paris,  taking 
counsel  how  best  to  fulfil  his  mission,  letters  reached  him 
from  the  king  of  England  and  the  king  of  the  Romans, 
with  others  from  Prince  Edward,  the  heir  to  the  English 
Crown.  Advised  by  the  French  king,  he  sent  forward 
messengers  to  bring  him  word  if  he  could  safely  cross  into 
the  country;  and  they  had  returned  with  the  account  of 
the  "  miserable  end  of  the  earl  of  Leicester," a  contained  in 
the  royal  letters. 

Before  Ottoboni  reached  England,  it  became  known  to 
the  pope  that,  by  order  of  de  Montfort,  a  tithe  of  ecclesi- 
astical property  had  been  collected  to  help  the  movement 
of  the  revolution.  Clement  IV  wrote  at  once  telling  the 
legate  to  take  possession  of  whatever  portion  of  this  tax 
remained  yet  unspent,  and  by  censures  and  other  ecclesi- 
astical penalties  to  get  this  money  out  of  the  hands  in 
which  it  was  found  to  be.3  At  the  same  time,  he  dis- 
patched a  mandate  to  the  English  prelates  to  hand  over 
to  Ottoboni  whatever  of  this  tax  they  still  had,4  and  for- 
warded a  Bull  declaring  null  and  void  all  conventions  or 
conspiracies  against  the  king,  as  well  as  all  promises  made 

1  Hist.  Review,  1900,  p.  88.  *  Ibid.,  p.  90.  3  Rymer,  i.  458. 

*  Ibid.,  459;  cf.  Reg.  Clement  IV,  i.  No.  234. 


406  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

by  him  whilst  in  the  power  of  the  earl  of  Leicester  and 
his  followers.  In  this  last  document,  the  pope  refers  to  his 
own  experience  as  legate,  and  to  the  sentences  of  excom- 
munication and  interdict  which  he  had,  in  that  capacity, 
passed  upon  the  rebels.  Since  that  time,  he  says,  many  acts 
had  been  done,  documents  signed  and  grants  made,  whilst 
the  king  was  in  captivity,  purporting  to  have  come  from 
the  Crown  "  freely  and  spontaneously  " ;  and  some  of  these 
were  given  on  the  promise  that  the  recipients  would  not 
ask,  or  indeed  receive,  the  approval  of  the  Roman  See. 
Some  of  the  bishops,  also,  had  sanctioned  these  acts  by 
sentences  of  excommunication  against  any  one  attempting 
to  set  them  aside.  "  Seeing,  therefore,"  says  the  pope,  "  that 
the  Lord,  setting  our  humility  over  peoples  and  kingdoms, 
has  committed  to  our  unworthiness  the  care  of  all  nations 
and  kings,"  we  declare  all  these  acts  null  and  void,  ab- 
solving the  king  from  all  oaths  and  promises  so  taken,  de- 
claring that  the  sentences  of  excommunication  pronounced 
as  above  by  the  bishops  are  without  force  and  effect.1 

When  penning  these  letters,  on  4th  September,  Clement 
IV  was  still  unaware  of  the  defeat  and  death  of  the  earl  of 
Leicester  at  the  battle  of  Evesham  a  month  previously. 
He  knew  that  Prince  Edward  had  succeeded  in  obtaining 
his  freedom,  and  he  added  another  letter  to  him,  congratu- 
lating him  on  his  escape,  and  exhorting  him  to  do  his 
utmost  to  rescue  his  father,  the  king,  out  of  the  hands  ot 
his  enemies.2  In  a  second  Bull,  addressed  to  Cardinal 
Ottoboni,  he  recites  the  critical  state  of  affairs  in  England 
as  he  understands  them,  and  tells  him  to  warn  all  to  forsake 
the  party  of  the  earl  of  Leicester,  under  the  penalties  of 
excommunication.  He  has,  he  says,  renewed  publicly  in 

1  Rymer,  i.  459;  cf.  Reg.  Clement  IV,  No.  228. 

2  Ibid.,  460;  cf.  Reg.  ut  supra,  No.  229. 


OTTOBONI  THE  LEGATE  407 

the  cathedral  church  of  Perugia,  whence  he  writes,  the 
sentences  formerly  published  by  him  as  legate,  on  the 
Thursday  in  the  Holy  Week  last  past,  and  he  desires 
Ottoboni  to  publish  them  in  the  Church  of  France,  and, 
as  far  as  possible,  in  that  of  England.1  A  few  days  later, 
these  instructions  were  followed  by  two  letters,  written  on 
1 3th  September,  which  also  show  that  the  pope  was  still 
ignorant  of  de  Montfort's  fate.  In  the  first,  Ottoboni  is 
charged  to  compel  all  English  ecclesiastics  who  have 
preached  anywhere  in  favour  of  the  national  movement  to 
unsay  their  sermons  in  the  same  places;  and  in  the  second, 
the  legate  is  told  to  order  the  clergy  to  denounce  de 
Montfort  and  other  rebels  as  excommunicated,  on  the 
Sundays  at  the  usual  time  and  place.2  In  reply  to  the 
legate's  communication,  Clement  IV  tells  him,  on  ipth  Sep- 
tember, that  he  can  best  learn  what  to  do  from  Prince 
Edward.  He  should  apply  to  the  French  king  for  help, 
and  preach  a  crusade  against  the  rebels.  He  gives  him 
faculties  to  absolve  the  bishops  of  London,  Worcester, 
Lincoln  and  Ely,  but  he  is  to  suspend  from  office  any 
bishops  or  ecclesiastics  who  side  with  the  rebels.3 

A  few  days  later,  the  news  of  the  king's  liberation  must 
have  reached  the  pope;  for,  on  22nd  September,  he  writes 
to  authorise  his  legate  to  absolve  Gilbert,  earl  of  Gloucester, 
who  had  been  expressly  named  in  his  sentence,  but  who 
was  known  to  have  taken  a  considerable  part  in  obtaining 
King  Henry's  liberty.4  By  a  Bull,  dated  the  same  day,  he 
gives  the  king  the  tenth  of  all  ecclesiastical  property,  which 
had.  been  levied  whilst  he  was  still  in  the  power  of  the  earl 
of  Leicester.5  Letters  of  congratulation  follow.  That  ad- 
dressed to  the  king  on  4th  October,  evidences  in  its  language 

1  Rymer,  i.  459;  cf.  Reg.,  No.  230.     a  Reg.  Clement  IV,  i.  Nos.  230,  233. 
3  Ibid.,  No.  956.  4  Rymer,  i.  462.  '  Ibid. 


408  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

the  supreme  exultation  felt  by  Clement  at  the  news  of  the 
king's  liberty,  and  he  urges  him  to  be  careful  how  he  uses 
his  power  in  punishing  his  enemies:  "  the  power  of  a  ruler," 
he  says,  "is  strengthened  by  clemency."1  To  the  prince, 
the  letter  of  the  pontiff  was  full  of  good  advice  and  earnest 
exhortation  to  be  thankful  to  God  for  all  His  mercies,  and 
to  take  warning  from  the  past.  He  is  to  know  "  that  rulers 
are  made  more  powerful  and  secure  by  mildness  than  by 
cruelty.  Show  yourself  ready  to  forgive  your  enemies,"  he 
writes,  "  and  let  not  the  memory  of  your  recent  injuries, 
nor  the  suggestions  of  any  one,  induce  you  to  act  cruelly 
towards  them.  Bind  them  to  yourself  as  friends  by  your 
benefits,  which  make  faithful  out  of  unfaithful  subjects; 
and  in  order  to  make  true  friends  of  your  enemies,  be  re- 
conciled with  them.  With  regard  to  the  prelates,  whom 
you  have  good  reason  to  suspect,  .  .  .  out  of  reverence  for 
Him  who  has  helped  you,  when  in  great  danger,  with  His 
loving  protection,  ...  do  not  lay  your  hand  in  punishment 
on  them,  but  following  in  your  Father's  footsteps,  show 
due  honour  to  the  Churches  and  ecclesiastics  of  the 
kingdom." 2 

On  Thursday,  2?th  October,  1265,  the  legate  Ottoboni 
reached  England  in  company  with  Henry's  queen,  who 
had  been  for  nearly  two  years  in  France.  The  king  was  at 
Canterbury  awaiting  their  arrival ;  and  the  day  following, 
the  queen  went  thither  to  him,  in  order  to  assist  in  the 
cardinal's  reception  there  on  the  next  day,  Saturday,  at 
which,  besides  Henry,  the  king  of  the  Romans  and  a  vast 
number  of  nobles  and  prelates  were  present.  The  party 
rested  at  Canterbury  until  after  the  feast  of  All  Saints ;  and 
on  Tuesday,  2nd  November,  the  king  and  queen  accom- 
panied the  legate  to  London.3  The  king  had  summoned  a 

1  Rymer,  i,  463.      2  Ibid.,  464.       3  Chron.  T.  Wykts  (Ann.  Mon.,  iv.  179). 


OTTOBONI  THE  LEGATE  409 

parliament  to  meet  him  at  Northampton ;  and  thither  the 
queen  and  the  legate  also  went,  stopping  at  the  monastery 
of  Dunstable  both  going  and  returning.1  At  Northampton, 
the  legate  appears  to  have  published  his  sentence  of  ex- 
communication against  those  who  still  adhered  to  the 
party  opposed  to  the  king.  The  first  meeting  of  Ottoboni, 
however,  with  the  clergy  generally,  was  on  ist  December. 
In  the  course  of  November,  the  pope  had  written  to  his 
legate,  and  after  describing  to  him  the  trouble  in  which  he 
himself  was  involved  in  Italy,  he  referred  to  his  former 
letters,  and  told  Ottoboni  not  to  show  grace  and  favour  to 
the  four  bishops  previously  named,  that  is,  those  of  Wor- 
cester, London,  Lincoln  and  Ely,  as  further  information 
seemed  to  show  that  they  were  not  worthy  of  it.2  Another 
letter,  or  rather  a  series  of  letters,  entered  in  the  papal 
register  at  this  time,  is  worth  recording.  The  archiepiscopal 
See  of  York  had  been  vacant  since  the  death  of  Godfrey 
de  Ludham,  some  months  previously;  and,  on  24th  Novem- 
ber of  this  year,  1265,  Pope  Clement  IV  provided  to  the 
See  Friar  Bonaventura,  then  minister-general  of  the  Fran- 
ciscans, and  one  of  the  greatest  theologians  of  the  day. 
He  was  subsequently  created  a  cardinal,  and  is  now  known 
in  the  Church's  calendar  as  St.  Bonaventure.  All  the 
necessary  documents  were  drawn  up,  including  letters  to 
the  king,  to  the  Chapter,  to  the  suffragans,  to  the  citizens 
of  York,  and  to  the  vassals  of  the  archiepiscopal  estates.3 
The  great  man,  however,  begged  to  be  excused  from 
taking  up  such  a  burden  in  a  foreign  country,  and  the 
appointment  fell  through. 

In  the  council  of  clergy,  assembled  to  meet  the  legate 
in  London,  on  ist  December,  Ottoboni  suspended  several 

1  Ann.  de  Dunstaplia  (Ann.  Mon.,  iii.  241).      2  Reg.  Clement  IV,  i.  No.  978. 
3  Ibid.,  i.  No.  171;  cf.  Moreri,  Dictionnaire,  s.n. 


410  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

of  the  bishops  for  their  attitude  to  the  king  during  the 
troubles.  Against  this  sentence  the  bishops  of  Winchester, 
London,  and  Chichester,  solemnly  appealed  to  the  Holy 
See,  and  went  to  the  Roman  Curia.  The  bishop  of  Wor- 
cester, Walter  de  Cantilupe,  though  unable  through  in- 
firmities to  undertake  the  journey,  still  maintained  an 
uncompromising  attitude  as  to  his  former  actions.1  He 
died  on  the  following  I2th  February,  when  the  legate  for- 
bade the  Chapter  to  make  choice  of  a  successor;  but, 
through  the  action  of  the  king,  the  monks  afterwards 
elected  Nicholas  of  Ely,  the  chancellor  of  England.2 

Sometime  in  January,  1266,  Ottoboni  wrote  to  the  pope 
as  to  the  state  of  public  affairs  as  he  had  found  them  on 
his  arrival  in  England.  The  nation,  when  I  came  to  it,  he 
says,  "had  somewhat  forgotten  its  redemption,  and  by  what 
labour  mother  Church  had  brought  it  forth,  and  nourished 
it  with  its  daily  food."  On  reaching  the  country,  he  had, 
he  says,  "endeavoured  to  meet  those  who  had  erred  in 
these  troubles,  and  make  them  feel  true  sorrow."  Many 
of  the  people  showed  themselves  desirous  of  obtaining  the 
grace  of  absolution ;  but  others,  who  might  have  been  ex- 
pected to  proved  themselves  columns  of  support  by  reason 
of  their  pastoral  office,  had  as  yet  kept  silence,  and  not  to 
make  matters  worse,  he  had  as  yet  done  nothing.3  To  the 
superior  of  some  religious  house  in  England  the  legate 
wrote  about  this  time  at  great  length,  pointing  out  how  in 
the  history  of  God's  dealings  with  men  He  has  punished 
those  who  have  turned  a  deaf  ear  to  the  monitions  of  the 
Church,  "  the  spouse  of  Christ  and  mother  of  all  the  faith- 
ful, who  by  God's  power  makes  and  ministers  the  heavenly 
food  "  to  her  sons.  It  is  the  part  of  teachers,  he  declares, 
to  proclaim  without  fear  the  duty  and  obligation  of  all,  as 

1  Gervaseof  Cant.,  ii.  243.      a  Ibid.,  244.      3  Hist.  Review  t  ut  sup.,  p.  91. 


OTTOBONI  THE  LEGATE  411 

did  "  the  glorious  martyr  St.  Thomas "  and  others,  whose 
lives  the  holy  Roman  Church  has  approved.  He  adds 
that  those,  who  have  fought  as  they  have  done  against 
the  king  cannot  be  absolved  except  by  the  pope,  or  by 
the  powers  he  has  granted  to  his  legate,  unless  in  the 
case  of  death.  This  he  bids  all  religious  to  make  known 
in  their  preaching  and  teaching.1  To  one  who  persisted 
in  his  rebellious  attitude  to  the  king,  Ottoboni  wrote 
most  severely,  and  warned  him  of  the  danger  that  must 
follow  to  himself  and  to  the  nation  in  continuing  this 
state  of  hostility. 

A  letter  from  the  pope  to  his  legate,  dated  8th  May, 
1266,  shows  that  the  cardinal  kept  him  informed  about 
the  various  steps  taken  in  the  pacification  of  the  kingdom. 
He  is  glad  to  hear  that  the  inhabitants  of  the  Cinque 
Ports,  and  the  dwellers  along  the  southern  coasts  of  Eng- 
land— whom  (partly  no  doubt  in  recollection  of  their 
treatment  of  himself  when  legate),  he  calls  marts  latrun- 
culos,  sea-robbers — have  returned  to  their  duty  to  their 
sovereign.2  He  speaks  also  in  his  letter  of  the  process 
instituted  against  the  bishops  of  London  and  Chichester, 
which  had  commenced  in  the  Lent  of  this  year,  and  had 
been  continued  till  Easter,  when  they  had  been  cited  to 
appear  before  the  pope  in  person.3  It  is  not  uninteresting 
to  note  in  these  letters  of  the  pope  to  the  cardinal  that 
Clement  IV  enters,  with  considerable  detail,  into  the 
troubles  which  afflict  him  in  Italy  and  elsewhere,  for  the 
information  of  Ottoboni,  whom  he  evidently  regards  as 
one  of  his  chief  advisers  in  the  government  of  the  Church.* 

1  Hist.  Review,  ut  sup.,  pp.  92-94. 

2  This  was  on  1 8th  March,  after  they  had  been  for  three  years  living  as 
pirates ;  cf.  Gervase  of  Cant. ,  ii.  244. 

3  Ann.  deDunst.  (Ann.  Mon.,  iii.  240) 
*  Reg.  Clem.  IV,  i.  No.  1094. 


412  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

With  the  pacification  of  the  country  assured,  the  ques- 
tion of  money  was  once  more  mooted.  The  pope  on 
23  May,  1266,  appointed  one  Master  Sinicius,  collector  of 
papal  dues,  and  commends  his  work  to  the  king  and 
various  bishops.  The  same  day  he  reminds  King  Henry 
that  the  annual  tribute  of  a  thousand  marks  has  not  been 
paid  for  five  years;  and,  as  the  Church  is  in  grave  need 
of  money,  he  begs  that  the  king  will  pay  the  whole 
amount  of  the  arrears  to  the  newly  appointed  collector  as 
soon  as  possible.  In  order  to  bring  pressure  upon  Henry 
for  the  settlement  of  this  claim,  in  another  letter  he 
endeavoured  to  enlist  the  influence  of  the  queen.1 

Henry,  however,  was  obviously  unable  to  pay  the 
tribute  and  was  himself  in  great  need  of  financial  assistance 
at  this  time.  Applications  to  the  pope  to  assist  him  out  of 
the  revenues  of  the  English  Church,  secured  on  8  June, 
1 266,  a  papal  grant  of  a  tenth  of  all  ecclesiastical  property3 
for  three  years.  Henry  applied  to  Convocation  for  a  larger 
amount,  which  was  at  once  refused.3  Besides  this  papal 
grant  from  the  ecclesiastical  revenues  in  England,  Pope 
Clement  gave  Henry  a  similar  tax  on  the  Scotch  church 
property,  should  the  king  of  Scotland  consent*  Cardinal 
Ottoboni  is  authorised  to  appoint  collectors  of  this  tax  on 
the  Scottish  Church,  and  he  is  told  that  the  intention  of  the 
pope  is  that  any  sums  thus  obtained  are  to  be  spent  on  the 
liquidation  of  the  king's  debts,  incurred  during  the  late  dis- 
turbances. If  the  Scotch  king  will  consent  to  the  taxation, 
the  pope  wished  the  money  in  the  first  place  to  be  used  to 
pay  the  queen's  debts;  and  then,  out  of  whatever  is  over 
from  the  tenth  on  all  ecclesiastical  property,  the  legate  is 
charged  to  pay  what  is  due  to  the  pope  for  the  annual 

1  Reg.  Clem.  IV,  L  Nos.  764,  766,  768,  etc.  *  Ibid.,  No.  320. 

*  Ann.  Mon.,  iii.  244.  *  Reg,  Clem.  IV,  \.  No.  322. 


OTTOBONI  THE  LEGATE  413 

tribute  payable  by  England  to  the  Holy  See.1  At  this  same 
time  it  was  thought  well  by  the  English  king  to  obtain  the 
pope's  confirmation  of  the  terms  of  the  dower,  promised  to 
the  queen  by  the  king,  which  was  accorded  on  his  petition.2 

The  chance  survival  of  some  of  Cardinal  Ottoboni's 
letters,3  written  during  his  stay  in  England,  have  helped  to 
show  his  zeal  and  untiring  energy  in  the  cause  of  peace  and 
in  the  restoration  of  ecclesiastical  discipline.  His  task  was 
difficult;  but  he  had  no  desire  to  show  himself  over-harsh, 
or  to  require  more  than  was  necessary  to  reconcile  those, 
who  in  fighting  against  the  king,  had  brought  upon  them- 
selves the  censures  and  excommunications  of  the  Church. 
He  writes  with  pride  at  being  called  upon  to  bring  order 
into  a  country,  the  Church  of  which  possessed  such  a 
glorious  past  as  that  of  England  could  show.  The  nation 
is  "like  a  well-beloved  inheritance,  which  the  Lord  had 
abundantly  enriched  with  a  fullness  of  faith,  with  a  know- 
ledge of  the  truth,  with  an  absence  of  error,  with  rever- 
ence for  holy  things  and  with  a  fervent  love  for  the 
beauty  of  God's  house."4  To  those  who  pleaded  that  in 
what  they  had  done  their  only  intention  was  to  force 
the  king  to  keep  the  "  Provisions  of  Oxford,"  which  he 
had  sworn  to  do,  the  cardinal-legate  replied,  that  these 
had  been  condemned  by  the  pope,  and  to  defend  them 
was  to  claim  "  to  know  better  than  the  Apostolic  See."  * 

With  the  beginning  of  1267  Cardinal  Ottoboni  sent  out 
letters  to  the  various  collectors  of  the  ecclesiastical  tenth 
granted  for  three  years  by  the  pope  to  the  king,  directing 
them  to  send  the  money  forthwith  to  the  diocesan.6  What 
was  expected  from  this  collection  appears  in  a  letter 

1  Reg.  Clem.  IV,  \.  Nos.  321,  324,  340,  786.  *  Ibid.,  No.  329. 

8  Printed  in  the  Historical  Review,  1890,  pp.  87-120.       *  Ibid.,  p.  100. 
6  Ibid.,  p.  104.  *  P.  R.  O.  Papal  Bulls,  Bundle  xliii.,  Nos.  I-J. 


4H     HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

written,  under  the  date  of  6th  February,  1266,  by  the 
legate  to  the  new  archbishop  of  York,  Walter  Giffard, 
formerly  bishop  of  Wells,  who  had  been  presented  to  the 
pope,  on  the  refusal  of  St.  Bonaventure  to  accept  the 
dignity.  In  this  letter  Ottoboni  says  that,  out  of  the 
ecclesiastical  tenth  the  pope  wishes  2,000  marks  to  be  paid 
to  Richard  of  Germany;  and  also,  that  the  arrears  of  the 
annual  tribute  should  be  paid  to  the  papal  collector  Sinicius.1 
In  the  year  1 268  the  general  state  of  the  country  allowed 
the  legate  to  turn  his  special  attention  to  the  Church.  Early 
in  April  he  preached  the  crusade  in  St.  Paul's,  London.  The 
pope  had  told  him  to  release  King  Henry  from  his  crusad- 
ing oath,  taken  long  before  but  never  yet  carried  into  effect, 
on  condition  that  Prince  Edward  went  in  his  place;2  and  the 
prince  took  the  oath  subsequently  at  Northampton,  in  June.3 
At  St.  Paul's  assembly,  amongst  others  to  bind  themselves 
by  the  crusading  vow  was  Thibaud,  archdeacon  of  Liege, 
who  had  come  to  England  with  Ottoboni,  and  who  after- 
wards was  raised  to  the  papacy,  as  Gregory  X,  when  actually 
with  Prince  Edward  on  his  expedition  to  the  Holy  Land/ 
Peace  and  quiet  was  even  yet  not  fully  restored  in  the  land, 
for  some  of  the  malcontents  endeavoured  to  prevent  pro- 
visions being  supplied  to  the  legate;  and  disturbances  took 
place  in  various  parts  of  the  city  of  London.  Ottoboni  took 
refuge  in  the  Tower,  and  thence  published  an  excommuni- 
cation against  the  disturbers  of  the  peace,  and  placed  an 
interdict  on  the  London  churches.  This  appears  to  have 
had  the  desired  effect ;  for  although  in  one  of  his  letters  the 
cardinal  complains  that  the  English  do  not  pay  proper 
heed  to  ecclesiastical  censures,  the  troubles  were  certainly 
drawing  to  an  end. 

1  Letters  from  the  Northern  Registers,  7.          *  Reg.  Clem.  IV,  ii.  No.  609. 
•  Ann.  Mon.  iv.,  No.  217.  *  Flares  Hist.,  iii.  14. 


OTTOBONI  THE  LEGATE  415 

On  2  ist  April,  1268,  and  the  two  following  days,  the 
legate  held  a  council  in  London  at  which  he  promulgated 
his  celebrated  "  Constitutions,"  which  became  the  canonical 
foundation  of  subsequent  English  Church  government. 
Some  of  the  clergy  present  endeavoured  to  raise  a  protest 
against  the  action  of  the  cardinal ;  but  the  rest  of  those 
present  refused  to  back  it,  and  it  was  withdrawn.1  The 
"  Constitutions  "  consist  of  fifty-three  sections,  or  chapters, 
and  they  cover  the  ground  of  the  whole  clerical  life  and 
practice,  and  include  several  chapters  dealing  specially  with 
the  case  of  religious  men  and  women.  About  this  same 
time  Ottoboni  had  summoned  the  Scotch  bishops  to  meet 
him  in  the  North  of  England,  in  order  to  discuss  with  him 
the  state  of  the  Church  and  to  receive  from  him  con- 
stitutions, somewhat  similar  to  those  he  had  imposed  on 
the  English  Church.  Two  bishops  only  responded  to  his 
summons,  and  some  others  sent  proctors,  but  they  refused 
to  accept  from  him  any  statutes,  claiming  that  this  had 
never  before  been  attempted  in  the  history  of  the  Scotch 
Church.2 

The  stay  of  the  legate  in  England  was  now  drawing  to 
a  close.  Clement  IV  had  need  of  his  services  elsewhere,  and 
preparations  for  his  departure  were  being  made  early  in  July, 
1268.  On  the  7th  of  that  month  he  addressed  a  letter  to 
the  prelates  of  the  province  of  York,  in  which  he  expatiated 
on  his  work  in  trying  to  pacify  England.  It  had  been  agreed 
that  those  whose  estates  had  been  confiscated  at  the  con- 
clusion of  the  struggle,  should  be  able  to  redeem  the 
forfeited  lands  by  periodical  payments,  and  many  had 
asked  the  clergy  to  help  them  in  this  matter  by  loans. 
To  this  the  legate  agreed,  and  gave  his  permission  for  the 
clergy  to  act  in  this  way,  in  the  last  of  his  letters  now 

1  Earth.  Cotton,  Hist.  Anglic.,  143.  *  Wilkins,  Concilia,  ii.  19. 


416  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

extant.  He  left  England,  according  to  the  chronicle  of 
Wykes,  on  28th  July,  1268,  having  accomplished  a  great 
deal  of  the  work  he  had  been  sent  to  do.1  Before  his 
return  to  the  Curia,  Clement  IV  died  on  29th  November, 
his  successor  not  being  enthroned  for  two  years.1 

The  rest  of  the  long  reign  of  Henry  III  presents  few 
features  of  interest  from  the  ecclesiastical  point  of  view,  and 
may  be  very  briefly  considered.  The  movement  headed  by 
Simon  de  Montfort  was  undoubtedly  popular;  and  with 
many  people  he  was  regarded  not  only  as  a  national  hero, 
but,  in  spite  of  the  condemnation  of  the  Roman  authorities, 
as  a  saint.  The  moderation  in  dealing  with  the  remnants 
of  de  Montfort's  party,  inculcated  upon  the  young  Prince 
Edward  by  the  legate,  had  as  much  as  anything  to  say  to  the 
entire  collapse  of  the  rising,  since  henceforth  Edward  held 
the  ascendency  in  his  father's  councils  and,  although  the 
king  had  been  liberated  and  the  rebellion  put  down  mainly 
through  his  exertions  and  those  of  the  earl  of  Gloucester, 
both  the  prince  and  the  earl  had  previously  been  known  as 
favouring  the  party  of  reform.  Henry  III  himself,  as  a 
modern  historian  has  put  it,  "  never  fell  back  into  his  old 
ways,"  and  there  was  not  the  same  necessity  for  the  constant 
appeals  and  counter  appeals  to  the  authority  of  the  Holy 
See,  which  characterises  the  first  half  century  of  this  reign. 
Moreover  the  papal  throne  was  vacant  for  a  while;  and 
when,  on  ist  September,  1271,  Gregory  X,  in  the  person  of 
Thibaud,  the  archdeacon  of  Liege,  was  elected  whilst  still 
in  the  Holy  Land  with  Prince  Edward,  the  king  had 
settled  down  to  a  peaceful  old  age,  and  in  the  midst  of  the 
infirmities  of  the  closing  days  of  his  life  we  hear  nothing 
more  of  the  mis-government  of  his  early  years. 

The  new  pope,  Gregory  X,  was  known  in  England,  as 

1  Ann.  Mon.,  iv.  219.  3  Ibid. 


OTTOBONI  THE  LEGATE  417 

already  pointed  out,  and  letters  of  congratulation  were  sent 
to  him  from  English  churchmen.  Walter  Giffard,  arch- 
bishop of  York,  in  his  communication  expresses  the 
national  reverence  for  the  occupant  of  the  Chair  of  Peter. 
"  The  House  of  the  Lord,"  he  says,  "  is  divinely  founded 
on  the  stone  of  help,1  upon  the  foundation  of  the  Apostles 
and  Prophets,  that  is,  upon  the  holy  Roman  Catholic 
Church,  which  has  the  first  place,  not  alone  by  virtue  of 
synodical  laws,  but  by  the  gospel  declaration  of  the 
Saviour,  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ;  and  in  St.  Peter  and  his 
successors  has  ever  had  the  character  of  holy  teaching  and 
stability.  As  from  the  trunk  of  the  tree  life  rises  to  the 
branches,  as  health  flows  through  each  member  from  the 
head,  upon  which  the  whole  body  depends,  as  the  streams 
spring  from  the  fountains,  as  the  rays  proceed  from  the 
sun,  so  all  the  Churches,  which  the  Christian  religion  has 
founded  throughout  the  world,  owe  all  to  the  greatness 
of  the  Apostolic  See.  Hence  it  is  that  the  English  Church, 
which  is  the  more  devoted  to  the  Apostolic  See,  because 
it  recognises  the  benefits  it  has  so  many  times  received 
from  it,  inconsolably  afflicted  by  the  long  vacancy,  has 
uttered  sighs  more  deep  than  others  and  more  earnestly 
besought  the  Lord,  that,  looking  with  eyes  of  pity 
upon  His  Church,  He  would  no  longer  leave  the  bark 
of  Peter  and  the  net  of  the  supreme  fisherman  to  the 
mercy  of  the  rising  storms,  but  provide  it  and  the  whole 
Christian  people  with  a  proper  ruler."  Thus,  after  ex- 
pressing the  pleasure  with  which  the  world  has  heard 
of  the  election  lately  made,  the  archbishop  concludes: 
"  I  submit  and  commit  to  your  lordship,  O  Holy  Father! 
myself,  though  the  least  of  men,  still  the  spiritual  off- 
shoot of  the  Roman  Church,  and  all  that  the  same 

1  I  Kings,  vii.  12. 
EE 


4i8  HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 

Church  has  given  to  my  charge;  though  indeed  what 
is  yours  cannot  be  more  yours.  Use  therefore  what  is 
your  own  as  you  please;  I  am  most  ready  and  will  carry 
out  your  desires.  I  profess  to  be  wholly  yours; — what 
a  slave  ought  to  be  to  his  master ;  a  pupil  to  his  teacher ; 
a  son  to  his  father." l 

A  similar  feeling  of  loyalty  to  the  pope  is  expressed 
by  the  prelates  in  a  synod  held  about  the  same  time  as  the 
date  of  the  above  letter,  January,  1272.  The  pope  had 
requested  the  clergy  to  grant  a  tenth  on  the  property 
of  the  Church  to  help  Prince  Edward  in  his  successful 
crusade  in  the  Holy  Land.  There  was  a  difficulty  in 
finding  the  money,  but  the  clergy  promised  to  do  what 
they  could,  because  "  in  this  and  in  all  other  matters  they 
desired  to  fulfil  the  wishes  and  desires  of  the  lord  pope."  * 

Henry  III  had  now  been  unwell  for  some  considerable 
time,  and  the  end  came  on  the  i6th  of  November,  1272. 

1  Letters  from  the  Northern  Registers^  42.  *  Wilkins,  ii.  24. 


INDEX 


ABBOTS,  English,  write  to  pope  about 
grievances,  248. 

Aberconway,  abbot  of,  222. 

Abingdon  abbey,  70:  Henry  III  at,  176; 
monks  of  Winchester  seek  shelter  at, 
318;  abbot  of,  ordered  to  provide 
Roman  with  a  benefice,  278;  St. 
Helen's,  dispute  about  living  of,  278 ; 
St.  Mary's  granted  to  Aylmer,  at 
king's  demand,  305. 

Aid  of  a  fifteenth  to  be  granted  by 
laity  and  clergy,  on  confirmation  of 
charters,  84;  clergy  much  disturbed 
by  prospect  of,  84. 

Albano,  cardinal-bishop  of,  examines 
into  an  English  election,  277. 

Alban's,  St.,  abbey:  visited  by  K. 
John,  23;  Otho  visits,  and  publishes 
excommunication  against  Emperor 
Frederick,  178  ;  money  demanded  of, 
>y  papal  collectors,  271 ;  dispute  with 
A.bp.  Boniface  about  visitation,  291 ; 
case  of,  pleaded  by  John  Bull,  a  monk, 
at  Lyons,  273 ;  monks  of  Winchester 
seek  shelter  at,  318;  obtains  dis- 
pensation from  severity  of  observance, 
333;  forced  to  give  living  to  pope's 
nephew,  325;  forced  to  give  money 
to  Rustand,  357 ;  protests  against  pro- 
viding benefice  for  Italian  cleric,  362. 

Alban's,  St. ,  abbot  of:  ordered  to  declare 
Ch.  Ch.  Canterbury  free  of  interdict, 
191 ;  pleads  sickness  to  excuse  absence 
from  Council  of  Lyons,  229 ;  ordered 
by  king  not  to  pay  papal  subsidy,  251 : 
appeals  to  pope  against  demands  of 
papal  collectors,  272;  gives  king 


money,  280;  has  to  give  annuity  to 
Poitevins,  307  ;  opposes  Grosseteste's 
claim  to  make  visitation,  334. 

Albemarle,  Baldwin,  earl  of,  105. 

Albert  of  Parma:  papal  official  in  Eng- 
land, 324;  ordered  to  put  England 
under  interdict  if  money  is  refused, 
280;  sent  to  England  about  Sicily, 
349;  presses  Charles  of  Anjou  to 
accept  Sicily,  350;  renews  negotiations 
with  England  about  Sicily,  351;  to 
collect  money  in  England,  388. 

Albigenses,  103. 

Alcinor,  daughter  of  K.  John,  marries 
Simon  de  Montfort,  174. 

Aldebrandi,  Aldebrando,  Sienese  mer- 
chant, 365. 

Alexander,  Franciscan  friar,  papal  col- 
lector in  England,  271. 

Alexander  II,  k.  of  Scotland:  betrothed 
to  Henry  Ill's  sister,  45 ;  opposes 
visit  from  Otho,  1 68;  meets  Henry 
and  Otho,  1 68;  denies  admission  to 
Otho,  178;  renews  peace  with  Henry, 
220. 

Alexander  IV,  pope :  accession  of,  320 ; 
protects  prior  of  Winchester,  319; 
permits  Aylmer  to  defer  consecration, 
323 ;  upholds  Aylmer  against  barons, 
323;  consecrates  Aylmer,  324;  attitude 
towards  England,  325;  makes  con- 
ditions for  grant  of  Sicily,  353 ;  sug- 
gests commutation  of  Henry's  crusad- 
ing vow,  for  Sicily,  354;  sends  ex- 
pedition into  Apulia,  356;  asks  Henry 
for  military  help,  356;  tries  to  get 
loan  from  Richard  of  Cornwall,  357; 


420 


HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 


Alexander  IV,  pope — continued. 

urges  immediate  payment  for  Sicily, 
360 ;  protects  Cistercians,  364 ;  listens 
to  complaints  of  English  prelates, 
364;  urges  Henry  to  take  up  Sicily, 
365 ;  asks  for  preference  for  debts  of 
Italian  merchants,  365;  writes  to 
Rustand  about  debts,  366;  gives 
Henry  revenues  of  vacant  dignities 
and  benefices,  366;  complains  to 
Henry  about  delay  in  Sicilian  business, 
367  ;  recalls  Rustand,  368 ;  writes  to 
Henry  about  state  of  Church  in  Eng- 
land, 369 ;  urges  Henry  to  be  recon- 
ciled to  prelates,  369;  suggests  ad- 
journment of  consideration  of  English 
grievances,  370;  warns  Henry  against 
neglecting  sentence  of  excommunica- 
tion, 370;  suspects  Henry's  sincerity, 
370;  orders  Rustand  to  pay  off  loans  in 
spite  of  Henry  III,  371 ;  sends  Herlot 
to  settle  Sicilian  affairs,  371;  grants 
Henry  a  tenth  for  five  years,  374; 
secures  peace  between  England  and 
France,  379;  confirms  English  bene- 
fice to  Italian,  381;  justifies  action 
of  Holy  See  in  so  doing,  382-385; 
justifies  impropriations  of  livings  to 
religious  bodies,  383;  bestows  Italian's 
prebend  in  St.  Paul's  on  another 
Italian,  384;  appeals  to  Prince  Ed- 
ward to  get  help  against  Tartars, 
385-386;  absolves  Henry  from  oath 
to  observe  Provisions  of  Oxford,  386; 
condemns  barons'  oaths,  and  absolves 
all,  387;  death  of,  388. 

Alfonso  of  Castile,  nominated  king  of 
the  Romans,  394. 

Amiens,  Mise  of,  395. 

Anagni,  Stephen  of,  papal   collector, 

143- 

Andrew,  foreign  prior  of  Winchester, 
opposes  Wm.  de  Raleigh,  210. 

Andrews,  St.,  abp.  of:  at  Council  of 
Lyons,  229 ;  ordered  by  Pope  to  col- 
lect money  for  Henry  III,  299. 

Anjou,  Charles,  duke  of:  brother  of  St. 


Louis  IX,  256;  thought  of,  as  king 
of  Sicily,  347;  pressed  to  accept 
crown  of  Sicily,  350. 

Apulia,  expedition  into,  356. 

Aquablanca,  bp.  of  Hereford,  borrows 
in  pope's  name,  364. 

Archdeacons,  duties  of,  defined,  173- 

Arden,  Philip:  agent  in  Rome  for  Bp. 
Nevile,  122;  describes  his  agency  in 
Rome  to  oppose  Canterbury  election, 
122-123. 

Arlotencio,  Herlot's  nephew,  provided 
with  English  benefice,  381. 

Armagh,  abp.  of,  at  Council  of  Lyons, 
229. 

Arthur,  prince,  murder  of,  25. 

Articles  of  Complaint  drawn  up  at 
Canterbury,  373. 

Arundel,  earl  of,  appeal  against  St. 
Edmund,  upheld  at  Rome,  174. 

Asaph,  St. ,  disputed  election  to  See  of, 
227. 

Asten,  John,  papal  chaplain,  granted  a 
London  prebend,  278. 

Augustine's,  St. ,  Canterbury :  resists 
St.  Edmund,  153;  privileges  of,  con- 
firmed by  Gregory  IX,  154. 

Augustinian  Order,  70. 

Aylmer  de  Valence :  See  of  Winchester 
for,  302;  descent  of,  302  note',  re- 
marks of  Matth.  Paris  on  election  of, 
to  See  of  Winchester,  304;  Henry's 
infatuation  for,  305 ;  receives  papal 
confirmation  to  election  to  Win- 
chester, 306;  returns  to  England, 
enters  Winchester,  307 ;  urges  bishops 
to  grant  Henry  money,  308 ;  opposes 
king's  wishes,  309 ;  personal  dispute 
with  Henry,  311;  dispute  with  Abp. 
Boniface  about  jurisdiction,  311; 
waits  on  king  to  obtain  freedom  of 
elections,  314;  quarrels  with  Win- 
chester monks  17;  appoints  his 
own  prior  to  Winchester,  318;  com- 
plaint against  to  pope  by  barons,  320; 
barons  oppose  his  return  to  England, 
322;  consecrated  bishop;  death  of, 


INDEX 


421 


324 ;  debts  left  behind  to  be  collected, 
388. 

Bacon:  Robert,  Dominican,  136;  Roger, 
on  Grosseteste,  341. 

Baldwin,  earl  of  Albemarle,  105. 

Baptism,  instructions  about,  59- 

Bardney,  abbot  of:  dispute  with  Grosse- 
teste, 205. 

Barons :  meet  at  Stamford,  10;  demands 
of,  drawn  up,  10;  pope  sends  brief 
to,  19;  complaints  against  to  pope 
by  K.  John,  20 ;  excommunicated  by 
pope,  20-21,  22;  disregard  pope's 
excommunication,  22;  appealed  to 
by  pope  to  submit  to  Henry  III,  30; 
side  with  Louis  of  France;  excom- 
municated by  Gualo,  30 ;  oath  of  to 
Louis  of  France  condemned  by  pope, 
31;  take  oath  to  restore  castles  to 
Henry,  53;  submit  to  pope's  orders 
about  castles,  78 ;  agree  to  extra  tax 
to  meet  king's  needs,  109;  insist  on 
removal  of  foreigners,  1 36 ;  ask  pope 
to  consider  grievances,  247 ;  complain 
to  Henry  about  broken  promises, 
274 ;  complain  to  pope  about  Aylmer, 
320;  send  deputies  to  Rome  against 
Aylmer,  321 ;  refuse  obligations  at- 
tached to  crown  of  Sicily,  361 ;  ap- 
peal to  pope  against  foreigners  in 
England,  378 ;  ask  pope  for  a  legate, 
380 ;  refuse  to  accept  award  of  Mise 
of  Amiens,  396. 

Basset,  Philip,  justiciar,  presides  over 
parliament,  391. 

Bath :  abbey,  tax  on,  366 ;  bp.  of,  goes 
to  Curia,  to  appeal  against  Rustand, 
364- 

Battle,  abbot  of,  complains  about  taxes 
to  king,  185. 

Beatrix,  duchess  of  Anjou,  256. 

Beaulieu,  Abbey:  Henry  wishes  to  re- 
move K.  John's  body  to,  1 19. 

Beauvais,  dean  of,  agent  for  Abp.  Boni- 
face in  Curia,  261 ;  obtains  further 
concessions  for  Abp.  Boniface,  262. 


Bedford :  archdeacon  of,  spokesman  of 
clergy  meeting,  95 ;  Castle,  79 ;  siege 
of,  80. 

Benedictine  order:  legislation  about 
rule  of,  in  synod  of  London,  173; 
mitigation  of  rule  of,  171,  333;  Otho 
presides  over  chapter  of,  177;  papal 
legislation  for,  177,  332;  in  France, 
obtains  dispensation  from  severity  of 
observance,  334. 

Benefices,  objection  to  grant  of,  to 
foreigners,  in  France,  236. 

Berenger,  Raymund  V,  death  of,  256. 

Berger,  Elie,  editor  of  registers  of  In- 
nocent IV,  327;  notices  Muratori's 
inventory  of  papal  archives,  348  note. 

Berkshire,  rectors,  of,  interviewed  by 
Otho  about  papal  taxation,  186. 

Bern,  Adam  de,  pleads  case  of  St.  Al- 
ban's  at  Lyons,  273. 

Bemardini,  Bonaventure,  merchant  of 
Siena,  388. 

Bigod,  Hugh,  ordered  to  give  up  castles, 
388. 

Bigod,  Roger,  represents  Henry  at 
Council  of  Lyons,  230. 

Bingeham,  Robert  de,  elected  bp.  of 
Salisbury,  120. 

Birinus,  St.,  translation  of  relics  of, 
70. 

Bishops:  regulations  for,  60;  and  reli- 
gious houses,  64 ;  duties  of,  defined, 
173;  resist  "procurations,"  178;  re- 
fuse demand  in  pope's  name  for 
money,  184;  protest  against  stop 
being  put  to  pluralities,  197 ;  urge 
emperor  not  to  interfere  with  papal 
election,  200 ;  write  to  pope  about 
English  grievances,  249 ;  unwilling 
to  make  collection  of  first  fruits  for 
See  of  Canterbury,  260 ;  urged  by 
pope  to  help  forward  crusade,  285 ; 
of  Cant.  prov.  combine  against 
Abp.  Boniface,  294 ;  meet  at  Dun- 
stable  to  concert  measures  against 
Abp.  Boniface,  297  ;  seek  papal  con- 
firmation of  sentence  of  excommuni- 


422 


HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 


cation,  317 ;  refuse  obligation  at- 
tached to  crown  of  Sicily,  361 ;  agree 
to  find  money  for  Sicilian  business, 
373  ;  meet  at  Merton  to  discuss  Sicil- 
ian business,  378  ;  ordered  by  pope 
to  deliver  money  to  Ottoboni,  405  ; 
Scotch,  summoned  to  council  by  Otto- 
boni, 415. 
Blanche,  queen,  mother  of  St.  Louis 

118. 
Blomerie,  John  de,  abbot  of  Abingdon, 

in  trouble  about  a  benefice,  279. 
Blund,  John  le :  chosen  abp.  of  Canter- 
bury, 139;  election  set  aside,  139. 
Blundevil,  Ralph,  E.  of  Chester  forbids 
payment  of  papal  tax  in  his  territory, 
126. 

Blyth :  Convocation  of  York  at,  308 ; 
tournament  at,  becomes  a  battle,  166. 
Bologna,  money  lenders  of,  354. 
Bonaccursi,  Raynerio,  Sienese  merchant, 

365,  388. 
Bonaventure,  St.,  offered  See  of  York, 

409. 

Boniface  of  Savoy :  Henry  wants  him  to 
be  abp.  of  Cant.,  191  ;  Henry  writes 
to  pope  in  favour  of,  191 ;  elected  to 
Canterbury,  194 ;  election  confirmed 
by  pope,  209  ;  arrival  of  in  England, 
216 ;  goes  to  Lyons,  223  ;  consecrated 
by  pope,  227,  258  ;  urged  by  Grosse- 
teste  to  correct  abuses,  255  ;  obtains 
privileges  from  pope,  258 ;  suspends 
bishops  for  refusing  to  collect  money 
for  him,  260  ;  asks  pope  for  help  to- 
wards his  debts,  261 ;  orders  Grosse- 
teste  to  give  benefice  to  son  of  duke 
of  Burgundy,  276-277 ;  gets  leave  from 
pope  to  grant  benefices  in  suffragan 
Sees,  281 ;  enthroned  at  Canterbury, 
282  ;  friction  with  suffragan  bishops, 
289  ;  makes  visitations  and  demands 
money,  290;  disputes  with  St.  Paul's, 
London,  290 ;  disputes  with  St.  Bar- 
tholomew's, Smithfield,  291 ;  disputes 
with  St.  Alban's,  291 ;  goes  to  Lyons  to 
support  visitation  disputes,  294 ;  per- 


suades canons  of  St.  Bartholomew's 
to  withdraw  complaints,  295 ;  pope 
decides  against,  on  appeal  about 
visitations,  295 ;  tries  to  influence 
pope  in  his  favour  on  visitation  dis- 
putes, 296 ;  Cardinal  Hugo  appointed 
to  investigate  his  debts,  297  ;  returns 
to  England,  311;  excommunicates 
brawlers,  312-313  ;  summons  prelates 
to  Canterbury,  373  ;  directed  by  pope 
to  support  Henry  against  barons,  392. 
Bonsignori,  Rolando,  Roman  merchant, 

365. 

Boulogne  :  Ottoboni  at,  403 ;  papal 
legate  at,  397,  398. 

Bouquer,  William,  king's  agent  in  Rome, 
399- 

Bourges  :  archbp.  of,  at  Council  of,  99; 
Council  of,  98. 

Boxley,  abbot  of,  deputed  to  settle  dis- 
pute between  St.  Edmund  and  Can- 
terbury about  revenues,  148. 

Braibroc,  Henry  de,  imprisoned,  79. 

Breaute,  Falkes  de :  had  care  of  royal 
castles,  74 ;  summoned  to  Dunstable, 
79 ;  rebellion  of,  79 ;  pope  intervenes 
in  behalf  of,  80,  104;  besieged  by 
king,  80 ;  Otho's  mission  suspected  to 
be  to  intercede  for,  90;  and  King 
John,  105  ;  William  de,  hanged  by 
Henry  III,  80. 

Bristol :  council  at,  presided  over  by 
Gualo,  30 ;  royal  Christmas  at,  32. 

Buckden :  Grosseteste  taken  ill  at,  340. 

Bull,  John,  monk  of  St,  Alban's,  pleads 
cause  of,  at  Lyons,  273. 

Burgh,  Hubert  de:  justiciar,  45,  74;  and 
bp.  of  Winchester,  relations  between, 
45,  and  note  ;  ordered  by  Pandulph  to 
meet  Llewellyn  at  Worcester,  47 ; 
meets  Pandulph  at  Windsor,  47  ; 
ordered  by  Pandulph  to  release  sheriff 
of  York,  48 ;  seeks  decision  of  Rome 
in  marriage  case,  69;  discontent  of 
nobles  with,  75  >  writes  to  the  pope, 
76 ;  king  relies  on  his  help,  76 ;  draws 
picture  of  misery  of  nation,  84; 


INDEX 


423 


ascendency  of,  116;  incurs  hostility 
of  nobility  and  clergy,  129;  has  no 
competitor  for  influence  with  king, 
129;  downfall  of,  130;  supplanted 
by  Peter  de  Rupibus  as  king's  adviser, 
131 ;  said  to  have  procured  death  of 
abp.  of  Cant,  by  poison,  131 ;  pointed 
at  as  instigator  of  riots  against  Romans, 
134;  pardoned  by  Henry,  155. 
Bury  St.  Edmund,  abbot  of:  commis- 
sioned to  excommunicate  rioters,  1 34 ; 
complains  to  king  about  taxes,  185  ; 
obtains  mitigation  of  observance,  333. 

Camezana,  John  de,  nephew  of  pope, 
English  living  demanded  for,  325 ; 
provided  to  English  benefice,  362. 

Cantelupe,  Roger  de:  agent  in  Rome, 
in  favour  of  Hubert  de  Burgh,  130. 

Cantelupe,  Walter  de:  brings  pallium 
to  abp.  of  Cant.,  125  ;  bp.  of  Wor- 
cester, defends  pluralities,  171;  op- 
position of,  to  Ottoboni,  410;  death 
of,  410. 

Canterbury :  prelates  summoned  to  meet 
at>  373  5  reception  of  Ottoboni  at, 
408 ;  Walter  de  Eynsham  elected 
abp.  of,  122 ;  king  refused  assent, 
appeal  to  Rome,  122. 

Canterbury:  Christ  Church,  privileges 
of,  upheld  against  Henry,  118  ;  credit 
of  pledged,  332 ;  monks  of,  claim 
metropolitical  powers  during  vacancy 
of  See,  205-206. 

Canterbury,  abp.  of:  at  Council  of 
Lyons,  229;  ordered  to  collect  money 
for  crusades,  285-286 ;  excommuni- 
cates those  who  held  to  Provisions  of 
Oxford,  388. 

Canterbury,  St.  Augustine's:  privileges 
bestowed  on,  209. 

Canterbury,  See  of:  impoverished,  258; 
pope  confirms  election  by  monks  to, 
209. 

Carlisle,  bp.  of:  has  custody  of  kingdom 
in  king's  absence,  229  ;  waits  on  king 
to  obtain  freedom  of  elections,  314. 


Cassino,  Monte,  356. 

Catherine,  St. ,  chapel  of:  in  Westmin- 
ster; ceremony  of  absolution  in,  162. 

"Caursini,"  money  lenders,  183,  330. 

Celestine  IV,  Geoffrey  of  Milan  elected 
pope  as,  199. 

Celibacy,  laws  as  to  clerical,  58. 

Chancellor  of  England,  orders  of  pope 
to,  32. 

Chapels,  royal,  Henry  protects  privi- 
leges of,  289. 

Chapters,  monastic,  64. 

Charles,  duke  of  Anjou,  brother  of  St. 
Louis  IX,  256 ;  thought  of,  as  king 
of  Sicily,  347 ;  pressed  to  accept 
crown  of  Sicily,  350. 

Charta,  Magna  :   royal  assent  to,  I,  12  ; 
John  seeks  its  nullification  at  Rome, 
I ;   appealed  against  by  John,    1 5 
some  stipulations  of,  15  ;  annulled  by 
pope,  17,  19. 

Charter,  Great :  some  stipulations  of, 
15  ;  annulled  by  pope,  17,  19;  burnt, 
225. 

Charter  of  Liberties  of  St.  Thomas,  147 ; 
monks  of  Cant,  punished  for  showing 
copy  of,  instead  of  original,  151. 

Chester,  bp.  of:  Henry's  agent  in  Rome 
to  oppose  Canterbury  election,  122; 
assures  earl  marshal  of  royal  favour, 
142. 

Chester,  earl  of,  36  ;  resists  papal  order 
about  royal  castles,  77. 

Chichester,  bp.  of :  Rob.  Passelew 
elected  as,  222 ;  consecrated  at  Lyons, 
227  ;  appeals  to  Rome  against  Otto- 
boni, 410;  cited  to  Rome,  411. 

Chichester :  dean  of,  commissioned  by 
pope  to  raise  money  for  abp.  Boni- 
face, 298 ;  prebendaries  of,  and  first 
fruits,  281. 

Christ  Church,  Canterbury :  monks  of, 
claim  privileges  about  consecration  of 
suffragans,  146 ;  dispute  with  St.  Ed- 
mund about  revenues,  148,  152  ;  de- 
clared free  of  interdict,  191 ;  dispute 
with  Grosseteste,  205. 


424 


HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 


Churches,  regulations  about  care  of,  60. 

Cincio,  a  Roman,  canon  of  St.  Paul's, 
maltreated,  132 ;  those  who  laid 
hands  on,  excommunicated,  133. 

Cinque  Ports:  barons  of,  kept  in  prison 
by  Louis,  40 ;  wardens  of,  instructed 
by  pope,  32 ;  citizens  of,  excommuni- 
cated, 398,  400,  403 ;  placed  under 
interdict,  400. 

Cistercian  abbots  receive  papal  com- 
mands to  furnish  embroidery,  250. 

Cistercians:  refuse  procurations,  188; 
refuse  war  subsidy,  203 ;  refuse  Rus- 
tand's  demands,  364. 

Citeaux,  abbot  of,  ordered  by  pope  to 
act  as  mediator  between  England  and 
France,  129. 

Clare,  earl  of,  minority  of,  130. 

Clement  III,  and  William  k.  of  Scot- 
land, 1 68  note. 

Clement  IV :  grants  Henry  tenth  for 
three  years  to  aid  against  barons,  399 ; 
determines  to  send  legate  to  England, 
401 ;  orders  legate  not  to  delay 
journey,  403 ;  condemns  tithe  im- 
posed by  barons,  405  ;  and  battle  of 
Evesham,  406 ;  orders  legate  to  warn 
all  to  leave  Simon  de  Montfort,  406 ; 
congratulates  Henry  on  his  liberation 
from  captivity,  407 ;  counsels  modera- 
tion in  victory  on  Henry  and  Prince 
Edward,  408 ;  offers  See  of  York  to 
St.  Bonaventure,  409  ;  confidence  of, 
in  Ottoboni,  411;  reminds  Henry  of 
overdue  tribute,  412;  gives  Henry 
tax  on  Scotch  Church,  412 ;  recalls 
Ottoboni,  415  ;  death  of,  416. 

Clergy :  regulations  for,  60 ;  refuse  to 
pay  subsidy,  88 ;  consider  legate's 
plan  for  raising  subsidy,  95 ;  appeal 
in  vain  to  pope  against  taxation,  109 ; 
resist  papal  demands  for  money,  187, 
264-265  ;  joint  appeal  of,  to  pope 
against  exactions,  266 ;  appeal  to 
cardinals  against  pope's  demands,  267 ; 
grant  tenth  towards  crusade,  418. 

Clerics  :  position  of  married,  56 ;  sons 


of,  allowed  to  succeed  to  father's 
benefice — abuse  of,  56-57. 

Collectors,  papal;  pope  condemns 
methods  of,  208 ;  new,  arrive  in  Eng- 
land, 269. 

Colonna,  Cardinal  John  de,  examines 
candidates  for  See  of  Canterbury,  138. 

Complaints  from  England  at  Council  of 
Lyons,  231. 

Conclave  on  death  of  Gregory  IX,  199. 

Confession,  instructions  about,  59. 

Confirmation:  instructions  about,  59; 
regulations  about,  61;  of  elections,  70. 

Conrad  IV:  endeavours  to  recover  king- 
dom of  Sicily,  347  ;  death  of,  351. 

Constantinople,  aid  for,  sought  for  in 
England,  390. 

Constitutions :  issued  by  synod  of  Ox- 
ford, 59 ;  of  bp.  of  Chichester,  343 ; 
of  Abp.  Walter  Gray,  345 ;  of  Walter 
de  Kirkham,  bp.  of  Durham,  346;  of 
Cardinal  Otho,  170;  of  Cardinal  Otto- 
boni, 415. 

Council:  at  Bristol,  presided  over  by 
Gualo,  30;  at  Merton  Abbey,  159;  at 
St.  Paul's,  summoned  by  Cardinal 
Langton,  96. 

Coventry:  bp.  of,  meets  Henry  with 
terms  of  peace,  393;  dispute  between 
monks  of,  and  canons  of  Lichfield, 
204. 

Coventry,  Walter  de,  34;  on  Gualo's 
exactions,  38. 

Crakehall,  John  de,  receives  prebend  in 
St.  Paul's,  385. 

Credit  of  religious  houses  pledged,  332. 

Cross,  archiepiscopal :  dispute  about, 
53;  settlement  of  dispute  about,  54. 

Croyland  abbey,  tax  on,  366. 

Crusades:  preached,  142;  discussions 
about,  in  Council  of  Lyons,  241 ;  pope 
urges  on,  in  England,  262;  clergy 
grant  tenth  towards,  418. 

Cumhyre,  abbot  of,  222. 

Curia,  Roman :  mass  of  business  at,  68, 
69 ;  stigma  of  avarice  resting  on,  94. 

Cursor^  papal,  62. 


INDEX 


425 


David,  prince  of  Wales:  offers  to  sur- 
render his  country  to  the  pope,  221 ; 
forced  by  pope  to  swear  allegiance  to 
Henry,  224. 

Dereham,  living  of,  refused  by  bp.  of 
Norwich  at  king's  demand,  306. 

Discipline,  ecclesiastical,  attended  to, 
56. 

Dispensations,  70. 

Dominic,  St.,  Bull  of  canonisation  of, 
170. 

Dominicans:  commissioned  to  take 
message  of  English  bishops  to  em- 
peror, 201 ;  to  promulgate  decree 
about  intestate  clerks,  250;  commis- 
sioned to  collect  for  empire  of  Con- 
stantinople, 263;  urged  by  pope  to 
help  forward  crusade,  285;  prior  of, 
gains  case  against  Abp.  Boniface,  on 
appeal  to  pope,  295. 

Dorchester,  translation  of  relics  of  St. 
Birinus  at,  Jo. 

Dover:  meeting  of  K.  John  and  Pan- 
dulph  at,  42 ;  arrival  of  Otho  at,  92 ; 
prelates  passing  through,  ordered  to 
swear  not  to  meddle  in  affair  of  Sicily, 
361 ;  papal  document  thrown  into  sea 
at,  398. 

Dover  Castle,  Henry  denied  admittance 
to,  394. 

Dublin,  Holy  Trinity,  prior  of,  receives 
papal  letters  from  Henry,  299. 

Dunstable:  meeting  at,  7;  de  Breaute 
summoned  to,  79 ;  meeting  of  bishops 
at,  to  concert  measures  against  Abp. 
Boniface,  297 ;  Ottoboni  stays  at,  409. 
Durham,  bp.  of:  ordered  by  pope  to 
check  St.  Edmund,  141 ;  ordered  to 
collect  tithe  for  crusade,  285-286. 
Durham  Monastery:  tax  on,  366;  ob- 
tains dispensation  from  severity  of  ob- 
servance, 333 ;  grants  living  of  Wear- 
mouth,  at  king's  demand,  306;  refuses 
king's  nominee  to  See,  305 ;  asks  king 
for  leave  to  elect  a  bishop,  106 ;  dis- 
pute of,  with  bishop,  65 ;  dispute  of, 
with  king,  190. 


Durham  See :  synodical  decrees  of,  57 ; 
election  to,  106;  election  of  William  de 
Stechil  to,  quashed  as  uncanonical, 
108 ;  Nicholas  de  Farnham  elected  to, 
190. 

Edmund,  prince,  Henry  Ill's  son: 
offered  crown  of  Sicily,  351 ;  conditions 
attached  to  crown  of  Sicily,  353 ;  acts 
as  already  king  of  Sicily,  360; 
negotiates  about  Sicily,  372 ;  cited  to 
prove  his  rights  to  Sicily,  375;  re- 
nounces crown  of  Sicily,  375 ;  Sicily 
obtained  for,  without  knowledge  of 
parliament,  377. 

Edmundsbury;  see  Bury  St.  Edmunds. 

Edward,  Prince:  promises  pope  to  fulfil 
conditions  for  Crown  of  Sicily,  362; 
negotiates  about  Sicily,  372;  takes  oath 
to  govern  by  help  of  Council,  377; 
absolved  from  oath  to  barons,  but  re- 
news it,  387 ;  goes  to  Amiens  to  meet 
arbitrator,  395 ;  alienated  from  barons 
after  award  of  Amiens,  396;  prisoner 
after  battle  of  Lewes,  397;  escapes 
from  rebels,  403;  writes  to  Cardinal 
Ottoboni,  405 ;  goes  to  Holy  Land  in 
place  of  Henry,  414 ;  gains  ascendency 
in  Henry's  councils,  416;  helped  in 
Crusade  by  aid  from  clergy,  418. 

Edward,  St.:  observance  of  feast  day 
of,  170 ;  feast  day  kept  by  Henry,  279. 

Eleanor  of  Provence,  married  to  Henry, 
158,  256. 

Elections,  and  confirmation  of,  70. 

Elections :  episcopal,  disputes  about, 
277 ;  papal,  bishops  urge  emperor  not 
to  interfere  with,  200. 

Ely,  bp.  -elect  of,  47. 

Ely,  bp.  of:  to  inquire  into  Tewkes- 
bury  documents,  64;  Durham  dis- 
pute, 65 ;  excuses  himself  from 
Council  of  Lyons,  229;  ordered  to 
collect  tithe  for  Crusade,  285-286; 
to  be  absolved  by  Ottoboni,  407 ;  not 
to  be  absolved,  as  unworthy  of  it, 
409. 


426 


HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 


England:  a  fief  of  the  Holy  See,  I,  3,  31, 
35,42;  part  of  patrimony  of  St.  Peter, 
3;  surrender  of  to  Holy  See,  I,  2; 
view  of  Matth.  Paris  about,  4 ;  what 
it  meant  to  K.  John,  5;  to  barons, 
clergy,  and  people,  5;  loyalty  of, 
to  Holy  See,  Adam  Marsh  on,  239; 
finds  Roman  exactions  intolerable, 
268 ;  put  under  interdict,  400. 

Enzio,  son  of  Emperor  Frederick,  cap- 
tures prelates,  195. 

Eustace,  bp.  of  London,  dispute  of  with 
Westminster  Abbey,  66. 

Evesham  abbey:  credit  of,  pledged, 
332;  battle  of,  403. 

Exactions  of  Roman  officials  in  Eng- 
land, objected  to  at  Council  of  Lyons, 
231. 

Excommunication  of  barons,  20-21 ; 
confirmed  by  pope,  23 ;  what  it  was 
meant  to  effect;  regulations  about, 
241 ;  renewal  of  sentence  of,  at  West- 
minster, against  infringers  of  Church 
liberties,  316;  complaints  as  to  trivial 
causes  for,  327-328. 

Eynsham,  Walter  de:  elected  abp.  of 
Canterbury ;  refused  royal  assent ; 
appeal  to  Rome ;  after  examination 
declared  unfit,  124. 

Fair  of  Lincoln,  battle  of  the,  36. 
Falkenburg,  Eustace,  bp.  of  London, 

54- 

Falsarii,  68. 
Farnham,  Nicholas  de,  elected  bp.  of 

Durham,  190. 

Faversham,  visitation  of,  by  Abp.  Boni- 
face, 290. 

Fealty,  sworn  to  Henry  III,  30. 
Ferentino,    John    de,    archdeacon    of 

Norwich,  maltreated,  133. 
First  Fruits:  of  S.  Province  granted  to 

Abp.  Boniface  for  seven  years,  259 ; 

difficulties  at  Chichester  about,  281. 
Florence,  money-lenders  of,  354. 
Foreigners:    national  feeling    against, 

132;  barns  of,  pillaged,  133. 


Forest,  Charters  of  Liberties  of  the, 
repudiated  by  Henry,  1 10. 

Forgeries  of  papal  letters,  62 ;  explana- 
tion of,  67. 

Foulquois,  Guy:  afterwards  Clement 
IV,  sent  as  legate  to  England,  395 ; 
refused  admission  to  England,  397- 
398  ;  returns  to  Rome,  explains  fail- 
ure of  mission;  elected  pope,  399; 
disappointed  at  failure  of  mission, 
401. 

France:  truce  renewed  between,  and 
England,  44;  peace  made  with  Eng- 
land, 37;  war  with  England,  202- 
203;  impoverished  by  Roman  exac- 
tions, 268;  heartburnings  in,  about 
papal  provisions,  326 ;  envoys  of  king 
of,  at  Council  of  Lyons,  230. 

Francis,  St.,  Bull  of  canonisation  of, 
170. 

Franciscans  commissioned  to  take  mes- 
sage of  English  bishops  to  emperor, 
2OI ;  to  promulgate  decree  about 
intestate  clerks,  250;  to  collect  for 
empire  of  Constantinople,  263 ;  urged 
by  pope  to  help  forward  Crusade, 
285;  refuse  Henry's  gift,  as  having 
been  taken  from  the  poor,  329. 

Frederick,  Emperor:  to  lead  Crusade, 
HO;  quarrel  of  with  pope,  125,  178; 
match  with  Henry's  sister  arranged, 
158 ;  warned  by  Henry  against  Peter 
de  Rupibus,  160;  sends  messengers 
to  England,  182;  asks  that  Otho 
should  be  made  to  leave,  182 ;  Henry 
writes  to  pope  on  behalf  of,  183; 
English  clergy  refuse  to  condemn, 
187 ;  tries  to  get  bishops  to  travel  to 
Council  under  his  protection,  194; 
denies  interfering  with  papal  election, 
20 1 ;  releases  cardinals  for  papal 
election,  205 ;  addresses  letter  to  pre- 
lates in  Council,  218;  and  Council  of 
Lyons,  228;  opposed  to  pope,  268; 
revolt  of  against  papal  authority,  283 ; 
tithe  for  war  against,  286 ;  deposition 
of,  347- 


INDEX 


427 


Fulk,  bp.  of  London,  gives  prebend  to 

Rustand,  384. 
Furness  abbey,  and  bishop  of  Isle  of 

Man,  71. 

Gascony:  Rustand  sent  to,  as  nuncio, 
368;  return  of  Henry  from,  355. 

Geoffrey  of  Milan  elected  pope  as 
Celestine  IV,  199. 

Germany  torn  with  civil  war,  268. 

Gervase,  the  historian,  continuator  of, 
I$t. 

Giffard,  Walter,  abp.  of  York:  receives 
legate's  orders  about  payment  of 
tenth,  414;  congratulates  Gregory  X, 
417. 

Gilbertines,  recipients  of  papal  docu- 
ments, 7°- 

Gisburn,  Augustinian  house  of,  tax  on, 
366. 

Glasgow,  bp.  of,  letter  to,  from  Gregory 
IX,  187. 

Gloucester :  Henry  crowned  at,  29 ; 
Gilbert,  earl  of,  excommunicated, 
400;  absolved  from  excommunication, 
407. 

Grant  of  a  thirtieth  made  to  the  king, 
161. 

Graund,  Ric.  le  :  abp.  of  Canterbury, 
129-131  ;  complains  to  pope  about 
Hubert  de  Burgh,  130;  death  of, 

IS*- 

Gray,  Walter:  abp.  of  York,  attends 
parliament,  274;  constitutions  of, 

345- 

Graystones,  Robt.,  historian  of  Durham, 
107. 

Gregory  IX  :  accession  of,  1 1 1 ;  settles 
case  of  Durham  election,  108;  orders 
Stephen  Langton  to  uphold  the  king, 
III;  informs  Henry  of  his  accession 
to  papacy,  in;  allows  Simon  Lang- 
ton  to  return  to  England,  112;  watches 
over  Henry's  interests ;  rebukes  ag- 
gressiveness of  French  king,  113; 
presents  to  English  benefices,  1 14 ; 
his  energy  and  capacity  for  business, 


1 14 ;  quarrels  with  emperor,  1 1 5, 178 ; 
forbids  tournaments  in  England,  116; 
upholds  Henry's  determination  to  rule 
alone,  117  ;  tries  to  secure  support  in 
quarrel  with  emperor,  117  ;  confirms 
election  of  Robt.  de  Bingeham  to 
Salisbury,  121  ;  sends  pallium  to  St. 
Edmund  by  Walter  de  Cantelupe, 
125 ;  orders  bishops  to  excommunicate 
justiciars  and  sheriffs,  129  ;  sanctions 
employment  of  bishops  as  counsellors 
of  crown,  129  ;  exhorts  Henry  not  to 
go  to  war  with  France,  129  ;  orders 
Henry  to  put  a  stop  to  outrages  on 
Romans,  134  ;  appeals  to  Hubert  de 
Burgh  to  put  down  riots,  135  ;  con- 
firms rights  of  English  lay  patrons, 
136  ;  advised  on  English  affairs  by 
Simon  Langton,  137 ;  rejects  John 
de  Sittingbourne  for  see  of  Canter- 
bury, 138  ;  confirms  election  of  St. 
Edmund  to  Canterbury,  139  ;  urges 
prudence  and  tact  on  St.  Edmund, 
141  ;  tries  to  raise  money  for  Holy 
Land,  142 ;  confirms  privileges  of 
Canterbury  monks,  148  ;  upholds 
privileges  of  Christ  Church,  Canter- 
bury, 149;  writes  about  St.  Edmund's 
dispute  with  monks  of  Canterbury, 
150  ;  declares  Canterbury  community 
innocent  of  complicity  in  forgery  of  a 
charter,  151  ;  orders  St.  Edmund  to 
safeguard  rights  of  St.  Augustine's, 
Canterbury,  153  ;  confirms  privileges 
of  St.  Augustine's,  Canterbury,  154  ; 
appoints  commission  of  inquiry  into 
dispute  between  St.  Edmund  and 
Rochester,  154;  congratulates  Henry 
for  pardoning  de  Burgh,  156;  dispute 
with  the  Romans,  156 ;  tries  to  effect 
understanding  between  England  and 
Scotland,  157  ;  asked  by  Henry  to 
send  legate  to  England,  160  ;  pro- 
mises to  send  Otho  as  legate,  161 ; 
writes  to  Henry  about  his  oaths,  163 ; 
orders  Henry  to  recall  grants  and 
charters,  164 ;  tells  Henry  his  oaths 


428 


HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 


Gregory  IX — continued. 
not  binding,  164 ;  appoints  Otho  as 
legate  to  Scotland,  167  ;  blames  king 
of  Scotland  for  not  keeping  oath  of 
fealty  to  Henry,  167  ;  recital  of  privi- 
leges granted  by,  to  England,  170 ; 
recalls  Otho,  175 ;  quashes  Winchester 
election,  176,  180  ;  legislation  of,  for 
Benedictines,  177,  332  ;  leaves  Otho 
in  England  at  king's  request,  177  ; 
urges  Otho  to  procure  money  from 
England,  179;  writes  to  Henry  about 
Winchester  election,  181  ;  discounts 
in  France  money  expected  from  Eng- 
land, 185 ;  determines  on  General 
Council  in  Rome,  187  ;  advises  Otho 
to  use  moderation  in  collecting  taxes, 
189;  effected  truces  between  England 
and  France,  201  ;  bestowed  many 
livings  at  pleasure,  237  ;  death  of, 
192,  193,  199. 

Gregory  X,  accession  of,  416. 

Grievances:  of  France  against  papal 
exactions,  234 ;  English,  laid  before 
Innocent  IV,  246-249. 

Grosseteste,  Robt.,  bp.  of  Lincoln ; 
dispute  about  place  of  consecration 
of,  146;  asks  St.  Edmund  to  let 
him  be  consecrated  at  Canterbury, 
147 ;  consecrated  at  Reading,  148 ; 
on  law  of  legitimation,  159;  asks 
legate  to  provide  fitting  bishop  for 
Winchester,  180  ;  urges  St.  Edmund 
to  secure  free  episcopal  elections, 
182  ;  said  to  have  been  ordered  to 
present  Romans  to  livings,  185  ; 
advises  Nicholas  de  Farnham  to 
accept  see  of  Durham,  190 ;  quarrels 
with  Henry  over  a  presentation,  196; 
refuses  to  induct  Mansel  to  Thame, 

198  ;  at  meeting  of  bishops  at  Oxford, 

199  ;  difference  between,  and  monks 
of  Christ  Church,  Canterbury,  205  ; 
dispute  with  abbey  of  Bardney,  205  ; 
writes  to  Otho  about  dispute  with 
monks  of  Canterbury,  206;  appeals 
to  pope  about  dispute,  206  ;  defends 


Wm,  de  Raleigh,  210 ;  confronts 
Henry  about  Winchester  scandal, 
211  ;  dealings  with  papal  clerk, 
Martin,  215  ;  urges  prelates  and 
barons  to  stand  together  against 
king's  demands,  217  ;  examines  and 
rejects  Robt.  Passelew  for  bishopric, 
222 ;  visits  pope  at  Lyons,  222  ;  gives 
account  of  his  visit  to  Lyons,  223 ; 
leaves  Lyons,  242  ;  farewell  interview 
with  pope,  243  ;  urges  employment  of 
Franciscans  as  advisers  by  abp.  of 
Canterbury,  243  ;  tells  pope  about 
loyalty  of  Henry  and  the  English, 
244 ;  justifies  his  action  as  to  papal 
subsidy,  252  ;  views  of,  on  liminations 
of  kingly  powers  in  matters  ecclesias- 
tical, 254  ;  king  angry  with,  for  refus- 
ing a  presentation,  255  ;  urges  abp. 
of  Canterbury  to  correct  abuses,  255 ; 
assists  in  consecration  of  Abp.  Boniface, 
258  ;  ordered  by  pope  to  collect  first- 
fruits  for  Abp.  Boniface,  259  ;  pope's 
English  business  done  through,  262  ; 
refuses  demands  of  papal  collectors, 
271  ;  urged  by  pope  to  collect 
aids,  276 ;  quarrels  with  religious 
of  his  diocese,  287 ;  empowered  by 
pope  to  take  possessions  from  relig- 
ious, 287;  religious  appeal  to  pope 
against,  287 ;  goes  to  Lyons  to  uphold 
case  against  religious,  287 ;  forbidden 
by  pope  to  summon  royal  bailiffs  be- 
fore ecclesiastical  courts,  288 ;  returns 
from  Lyons,  288,  294;  thinks  of  re- 
signing; reasons  for  not  doing  so, 
288 ;  recommended  to  support  Abp. 
Boniface  in  visitation  disputes,  292; 
opposes  king's  demand  for  money 
from  church,  308 ;  opposed  by  abbot 
of  St.  Alban's  as  to  visitation,  334; 
refuses  institution  to  Italian,  335 ; 
suspended  for  opposing  pope,  335 ; 
ordered  by  pope  to  collect  money 
from  non-exempt  churches,  336;  se- 
cures fixed  salaries  for  vicars,  336 ; 
quarrel  with  pope  about  papal  pre- 


INDEX 


429 


sentations,  337;  orders  papal  letters 
for  money  collections  to  be  published, 
337  5  opposes  papal "  provisions  "  in 
parliament,  339;  taken  ill  at  Buck- 
den,  340 ;  death  of;  demand  for  canon- 
isation of;  estimates  of,  341. 

Gualo,  the  papal  legate;  sent  to  France 
to  prohibit  expedition  to  England, 
24;  lands  in  England,  26;  work  of, 
in  England,  27 ;  energy  of,  27 ; 
crowns  Henry  III,  29 ;  presides 
over  council  at  Bristol,  30;  places 
Wales  under  interdict,  30 ;  excom- 
municates barons  siding  with  Louis 
of  France,  30 ;  ordered  by  pope  to 
protect  Henry's  interests,  31;  given 
special  powers  by  pope,  32,  33;  ex- 
communicates supporters  of  Louis  of 
France,  32 ;  announces  Henry's  coro- 
nation to  "Justice  of  Ireland,"  34; 
real  source  of  government  in  England, 
35  ?  governs  for  Henry,  36 ;  harangues 
army,  36;  excommunicates  Louis  of 
France,  36 ;  absolves  Louis  of  France, 
37;  signs  terms  of  peace  before  Henry, 
37 ;  sees  to  pacification  of  country,  37 ; 
distributes  livings  amongst  his  follow- 
ers, 38 ;  gathers  fines,  38 ;  returns  to 
Rome,  38 ;  replaced  as  legate  by  Pan- 
dulph,  40 ;  writes  to  earl  of  Pembroke 
about  imprisoned  barons  of  Cinque 
Ports,  40 ;  recalled  to  Rome,  43 ;  de- 
prived ecclesiastics  of  benefices  and 
imprisoned  them,  44;  rejects  a  claim 
to  present  to  liviog,  71  ;  asked  by 
Henry  to  help  his  messengers  to  the 
Curia,  76 ;  influences  Llewellyn  to 
submit  to  Henry,  73. 

Guy,  son  of  earl  of  March,  to  command 
English  crusaders,  276. 


Haddan  and  Stubbs,  Councils  andEccl. 

Documents,  quoted  168  note. 
Harrow:  Abp.  Boniface  at,  291. 
Hayles:  Grosseteste,  at  consecration  of 

church  at,  335. 


Henry  III :  accession  of,  i,  27 ;  crowned 
at  Gloucester,  29 ;  coronation  oath  of, 
29;  receives  exhortation  from  pope, 
on  his  accession,  29;  does  homage  for 
kingdom  to  pope,  29 ;  swears  to  pay 
tribute  to  Holy  See,  29;  spends  Christ- 
mas at  Bristol,  32;  recommended  by 
pope  to  obey  Gualo,  34;  governed 
through  earl  of  Pembroke,  36 ;  go- 
verned through  Gualo,  36;  thanks 
pope  for  Gualo's  help,  38;  acknow- 
ledges pope's  suzerainty,  39;  pope 
arranges  about  tutors  for,  48 ;  author- 
ises Pandulphto  take  church  revenues, 
52 ;  crowned  at  Westminster,  53 ; 
comes  of  age,  75,  no,  116;  writes  to 
pope  about  his  coming  of  age,  76, 
III,  116;  asks  Gualo  to  help  him  in 
Rome,  76 ;  replies  to  pope  about  de 
Breaute  and  bp.  of  Winchester,  82; 
remonstrated  with  on  his  difficulties 
with  his  nobility,  85;  advised  by  pope 
not  to  exact  too  heavy  taxes,  86 ; 
writes  to  Chapter  of  Salisbury  about 
collection  of  subsidy,  87  ;  in  need  ; 
pope  suggests  bishops  should  help 
him  with  subsidy,  87;  applies  to  pope 
to  compel  clergy  to  give  subsidy,  88; 
Henry  refuses  Otho's  intercession  for 
de  Breaute,  92 ;  summons  meeting  at 
Westminster  to  discuss  nuncio's  de- 
mand, 92 ;  refuses  Otho's  demands 
for  money,  92 ;  spends  Christmas  at 
Winchester,  93,  131 ;  taken  ill  at 
Marlborough,  93 ;  forbids  prelates 
holding  baronies  to  pledge  lay  fees  to 
Roman  church,  95 ;  rejects  proposal 
to  grant  pope  English  prebends  as 
revenue,  101;  desists  from  invading 
France  at  pope's  orders,  104;  in  need 
of  money,  109 ;  summons  council  at 
Oxford,  1 10 ;  repudiates  all  charters ; 
orders  new  ones  to  be  taken  out,  no; 
asks  pope  to  let  Simon  Langton  re- 
turn to  England,  112;  intervenes  in 
quarrel  between  pope  and  emperor, 
115,  119;  sends  ambassadors  to  Louis 


430 


HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 


Henry  III — continued. 

of  France  about  quarrel  of  pope  and 
emperor,  117;  asks  pope  to  allow 
K.  John's  body  to  be  moved  from 
Worcester  to  Beaulieu,  119;  asks 
pope  to  confirm  election  to  See  of 
Salisbury,  120;  calls  parliament  at 
Westminster,  125;  vacillates  between 
de  Rupibus  and  de  Burgh,  129;  begs 
pope  to  forbid  encroachments  of  Irish 
bishops  on  royal  prerogatives,  129 ; 
surrounded  by  foreigners,  131;  begs 
pope  to  give  hearing  to  Robt. 
Twenge,  135;  writes  to  prior  of 
Canterbury  about  election  of  abp., 
138;  forbids  monks  of  Canterbury  to 
hold  election,  138;  requests  pope  not 
to  summon  nobles  to  plead  out  of 
England,  156;  depends  upon  St. 
Edmund,  155 ;  seeks  in  marriage  Joan 
of  Poitou,  157 ;  transfers  affections  to 
Eleanor  of  Provence,  157;  asks  pope 
to  compel  count  of  Brittany  to  return 
to  his  allegiance,  1 57 ;  writes  to  pope 
about  marriage  of  his  sister,  158; 
marries  Eleanor  of  Provence,  158, 
256;  chooses  twelve  foreign  counsel- 
lors, 159;  retires  to  Tower  for  safety 
against  barons,  1 60;  asks  pope  to 
send  legate  to  England,  160-161; 
promises  reforms,  161 ;  receives  abso- 
lution from  censures,  162 ;  asks  for 
aid  of  a  thirtieth,  166 ;  meets  Otho 
and  Alexander  II  of  Scotland,  168 ; 
forbids  statutes  repugnant  to  Crown 
to  be  passed  in  synod,  169;  seizes 
rioters  at  Abingdon,  176 ;  refuses  to 
ratify  choice  for  See  of  Winchester, 
176;  asks  pope  for  retention  of  legate, 
177  ;  intrudes  foreign  prior  into  Win- 
chester, 179,  193  ;  visits  Winchester 
to  influence  election,  180;  urges  pope 
to  appoint  his  nominee  to  Winchester, 
181 ;  bishops  and  nobles  complain  of, 
to  legate,  182 ;  writes  to  pope  on  be- 
half of  emperor,  183 ;  advises  Otho 
to  leave  England,  183;  spends  Christ- 


mas at  Westminster,  189 ;  makes 
Otho's  nephew  a  knight,  189;  makes 
Nich.  de  Farnham  his  confessor  and 
physician,  190 ;  writes  to  pope  in 
favour  of  Boniface  of  Savoy,  191 ; 
objects  toWm.  de  Raleigh  for  See  of 
Winchester,  192;  asks  pope  for  bene- 
fice for  Mansel,  197 ;  prohibits  bishops 
from  legislating  against  his  Crown 
and  dignity,  200 ;  prepares  for  war 
with  France,  201 ;  refused  a  subsidy 
for  war  with  France,  201  ;  crosses  to 
Poitou,  202  ;  asks  bishops  for  prayers 
for  blessing  on  his  arms,  202 ;  pre- 
vents Cistercian  abbots  attending 
their  general  Chapter,  204;  sends 
agents  to  Cistercian  general  Chapter, 
204 ;  opposes  entrance  of  Wm.  de 
Raleigh  to  Winchester,  210 ;  writes 
to  pope  about  "provisions,"  215; 
asks  barons  for  subsidy,  216 ;  renews 
peace  with  Scotland,  220 ;  confirmed 
by  pope  in  rights  of  presentation, 
242 ;  inquires  as  to  amount  of  revenues 
held  by  Romans,  225 ;  protests  to 
Council  of  Lyons  against  large  papal 
exactions,  225 ;  protests  against  K. 
John's  tribute,  225 ;  confiscates  pro- 
perty of  Sees  of  Chichester  and  Lich- 
field,  227 ;  urges  prelates  at  Council 
of  Lyons  to  watch  over  English  in- 
terests, 230;  vows  not  to  pay  annual 
papal  tribute,  242 ;  his  loyalty  to 
Holy  See,  244-245  ;  summons  parlia- 
ment in  London,  246,  265  ;  asks  pope 
to  consider  English  grievances,  246  ; 
forbids  collection  of  papal  subsidy, 
251 ;  expresses  astonishment  that 
Grosseteste  has  collected  papal  sub- 
sidy, 252 ;  angry  with  Grosseteste  for 
refusing  a  presentation  to  a  living, 
255  ;  asks  pope  to  protect  his  rights 
in  Provence,  257  ;  orders  bishops  not 
to  obey  Bull  of  "  provisions,"  260 ; 
annoyed  at  pope's  disposing  of  first 
fruits  for  See  of  Canterbury,  260 ; 
suspected  to  be  working  in  Curia  for 


INDEX 


his  own  ends,  270 ;  asks  parliament 
for  subsidy ;  refused,  274 ;  sells  plate 
and  jewels  to  City  of  London,  275  ; 
refuses  to  be  bound  by  any  conditions, 
275  ;  gets  from  pope  English  subsidy 
towards  crusade,  276;  appeals  to 
barons  individually  for  money,  279 ; 
grants  a  market  at  Westminster,  279  ; 
exacts  New  Year's  gifts  from  London 
citizens,  279  ;  demands  subsidy  from 
religious  houses  of  Essex  and  Herts, 
280;  gives  false  reasons  for  needing 
money,  280-281;  asks  pope  to  force 
clergy  to  grant  him  subsidy,  283 ; 
protects  privileges  of  royal  chapels, 
289;  supports  Abp.  Boniface  in  visita- 
tion disputes,  291;  pope  anxious  for, 
to  go  to  Holy  Land,  298 ;  tries  to 
raise  money  in  Ireland  for  crusade, 
299,  300 ;  determines  to  secure  See  of 
Winchester  for  Aylmer  de  Valence, 
302  ;  goes  to  Winchester  to  support 
election  of  Aylmer,  303  ;  infatuation 
for  Aylmer,  305  ;  contemplates  jour- 
ney to  Lyons,  306  ;  convokes  meeting 
of  prelates  in  London,  308  ;  incensed 
with  Aylmer's  opposition,  309  ;  tries 
to  coax  bishops  to  grant  him  money, 
310 ;  loses  his  temper  with  Aylmer, 
311;  replies  to  bishops  on  freedom  of 
elections,  314-315  ;  endorses  sentence 
of  excommunication  against  infringers 
of  Church  liberties,  316 ;  rebukes 
Aylmer  for  ill-treating  monks  of  Win- 
chester, 318  ;  conditionally  assents  to 
election  of  Henry  de  Wengham  to 
Winchester,  320 ;  keeps  property  of 
vacant  sees  •  and  abbeys,  328 ;  tho' 
in  need,  munificent,  329 ;  replies  to 
pope's  invitation  for  earl  of  Cornwall 
to  be  king  of  Sicily,  351;  sends  pope 
money  for  Sicilian  expedition,  352 ; 
to  pay  expenses  of  Sicilian  expedition, 
354 ;  asks  earl  of  Cornwall  to  help 
him  in  Sicilian  business,  355 ;  in 
straits  for  money,  355  ;  requires  West- 
minster abbey  to  guarantee  tribute  to 


papal  collector,  358  ;  orders  abbot  of 
Westminster  to  pay  large  sum  for 
Sicilian  business,  361;  explains  his 
critical  situation  to  pope,  361 ;  has  to 
pay  large  sums  to  Italian  merchants, 
362  ;  summons  meeting  of  prelates  in 
London,  363;  threatened  with  excom- 
munication for  delays  about  Sicily, 
368  ;  urged  by  pope  to  be  reconciled 
with  prelates,  369;  warned  by  pope 
of  danger  of  neglecting  sentence  of 
excommunication,  370;  asks  for  modi- 
fication of  conditions  regarding  Sicily, 
372  ;  lays  before  pope  account  of  what 
he  has  done  regarding  Sicily,  372  ; 
assents  to  fifty  articles  drawn  up  by 
bishops,  374 ;  takes  oath  to  govern  by 
advice  of  council,  377  ;  asks  pope  for 
legate,  380 ;  protests  against  action 
of  Roman  official  about  Winchester, 
381;  impatient  at  restraints  of  "  Pro- 
visions of  Oxford,"  386 ;  seeks  absolu- 
tion from  oath,  of  Rome,  386;  pub- 
lishes pope's  absolution  from  oaths, 
388 ;  informs  pope  of  his  difficulties, 
389 ;  asks  Ottoboni  to  use  his  influ- 
ence against  barons,  389;  breaks  away 
from  council  of  barons ;  seizes  Tower 
of  London,  392;  makes  peace  with 
barons,  393  ;  denied  admittance  to 
Dover  Castle,  394 ;  goes  to  Amiens 
to  meet  arbitrators,  395;  tells  pope 
of  award  of  Amiens,  396 ;  taken 
prisoner  at  battle  of  Lewes,  397 ; 
helped  to  freedom  by  Gilbert,  earl  of 
Gloucester,  407 ;  congratulated  by 
pope  on  his  liberation  from  captivity, 
407 ;  counselled  to  moderation  in 
victory  by  pope,  408 ;  asks  respite 
for  payment  of  papal  tribute,  412 ; 
receives  grant  of  tenth  from  pope ; 
asks  more  from  Convocation,  412 ; 
death  of,  418. 

Henry  of  Cornhill,  dean  of  St.  Paul's, 
294. 

Hereford  :  escape  of  Prince  Edward  at, 
403- 


432 


HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 


Hereford,  bp.  of  (Aquablanca) :  con- 
fronts Henry  about  Winchester  scan- 
dal, 211 ;  goes  to  Lyons,  223  :  assists 
in  consecration  of  Abp.  Boniface,  258 ; 
pope's  agent  for  English  business, 
262 ;  ordered  to  collect  tithe  for 
crusade,  285-286 ;  tries  to  collect 
money  for  pope  from  monasteries, 
357 ;  favours  Rustand's  exactions, 
358 ;  borrows  in  pope's  name,  364. 

Hereford,  dean  of,  commissioned  by 
pope  to  raise  money  for  Abp.  Boni- 
face, 298. 

Herlot :  papal  nuncio,  sent  to  settle 
Sicilian  business,  371  ;  seeks  reply  as 
to  England's  intentions  about  Sicily, 
376 ;  meets  parliament  at  Oxford  ; 
demands  third  part  of  goods,  377 ; 
retirement  of  from  England,  375,377; 
reports  on  political  situation  in  Eng- 
land and  France,  379;  nephew  of, 
gets  English  benefice,  381. 

Honorius  III :  accession  of,  26;  watches 
over  Henry's  interests,  28 ;  writes 
exhortation  to  Henry  on  his  accession, 
29 ;  appeals  to  barons  to  submit  to 
Henry,  30;  orders  Gualo  to  protect 
Henry,  31 ;  claims  England  as  fief  of 
Holy  See,  31;  condemns  barons' 
oath  to  Louis  of  France,  31;  orders 
earl  of  Pembroke  to  guard  kingdom, 
32 ;  gives  Gualo  special  powers,  32 ; 
writes  to  Henry,  34 ;  attitude  of,  to- 
wards England,  unquestioned,  35 ; 
real  source  of  government  in  England, 
i  35  ;  orders  tax  to  be  levied  to  help 
Henry,  36 ;  instructs  Gualo  about 
appointment  of  coadjutor  regent  of 
kingdom,  36-37 ;  suzerainty  of,  ac- 
knowledged, 39 ;  announces  Pan- 
dulph's  appointment  as  legate  to  Eng- 
lish bishops,  44 ;  instructs  Pandulph 
as  to  Henry's  tutors,  48 ;  writes  to 
legate  on  lay  matters,  48 ;  orders 
king's  castles  to  be  restored,  49 ; 
writes  to  Pandulph  to  protect  king's 
interests,  49;  orders  to  Pandulph 


about  king's  castles,  50 ;  writes  to 
Poitevin  bishops  about  Henry's  in- 
terests, 50 ;  grants  privileges  to  Lang- 
ton,  54 ;  makes  Pandulph  bishop  of 
Norwich,  55 ;  acts  through  English 
episcopate,  56 ;  urges  bishops  to  put 
down  abuses,  56 ;  proceeds  against 
priory  of  Worcester  for  forged  docu- 
ments, 63  ;  appoints  abbot  of  Read- 
ing to  inquire  into  Worcester  dispute, 
63 ;  inquires  into  alleged  forged 
documents  of  Tewkesbury  abbey,  64 ; 
inquires  into  Durham  dispute,  65 ; 
sends  Durham  appeal  to  be  decided 
in  England,  66 ;  inquires  into  dis- 
pute between  bp.  of  London  and 
Westminster  abbey,  66 ;  inquires 
into  dispute  between  St.  Mary's  ab- 
bey, York,  and  abp. ,  67 ;  inquires 
into  forgeries  of  papal  documents, 
68 ;  acknowledged  as  suzerain  by 
Reginald,  king  of  Isle  of  Man,  70 ; 
exercises  authority  over  Henry's  Coun- 
cil, 71',  condemns  infringements  of 
ecclesiastical  liberties,  71;  admon- 
ishes Reginald,  king  of  Isle  of  Man, 
71;  orders  earl  of  March  to  submit 
to  Henry,  72  ;  blames  abp.  of  Poitou 
for  opposing  Henry,  72 ;  intervenes 
in  dispute  between  Henry  and  Lle- 
wellyn, 73  ;  decides  about  guardian- 
ship of  royal  castles,  74;  declares 
Henry  of  age,  and  chief  ruler,  75  ; 
appealed  to  by  English  barons,  76 ; 
upbraids  Henry  for  forgetting  benefits, 
78  ;  condemns  Henry  for  prohibiting 
bishops  from  going  to  Rome,  79  >  in- 
tervenes on  behalf  of  de  Breaute',  80 ; 
writes  to  Stephen  Langton  about  de 
Breaute,  81,  105  ;  thinks  of  sending 
nuncio  to  England,  82 ;  determines 
to  send  nuncio  to  England,  83  ;  tries 
to  obtain  Henry's  consent  about  it, 
83 ;  remonstrates  with  Henry  about 
barons,  85  ;  advises  bishops  to  give 
Henry  a  subsidy,  86  ;  advises  Henry 
not  to  exact  too  heavy  taxes,  86  ;  ap- 


INDEX 


433 


peals  for  money  for  work  in  Curia, 
94 ;  plan  to  raise  money  for  Curia, 
94  ;  aware  of  stigma  of  avarice  rest- 
ing on  Roman  Curia,  94 ;  recalls 
Otho,  95  ;  orders  Stephen  Langton 
to  summon  meetings  to  give  reply  to 
Otho,  96  ;  writes  to  English  prelates 
about  help,  96 ;  reproaches  Guy  de 
Lusignan  for  opposing  Henry,  102  ; 
tries  to  get  money  for  Henry,  103 ; 
protects  Henry  from  French  king, 
103  ;  warns  Henry  not  to  help  Louis' 
enemies,  103 ;  labours  to  preserve 
peace  between  England  and  France, 
104 ;  forbids  Richard  of  Cornwall  to 
attack  Louis,  104 ;  writes  to  abp.  of 
York  about  election  to  See  of  Dur- 
ham, 107 ;  refuses  to  ratify  election 
of  Simon  Langton  to  See  of  York, 
112 ;  orders  collection  for  Holy  Land, 
HO;  Laws  about  profession  of 
novices,  173;  legislation  of,  for  Bene- 
dictines, 177  ;  effects  truces  between 
England  and  France,  201 ;  bestowed 
many  livings  at  pleasure,  237  ;  death 

Of,  HO. 

Hugh,  bishop  of  Lincoln,  fined,  38. 
Hugo,  Cardinal,  investigates  debts  of 

Abp.  Boniface,  297. 
Hugh,  St.,  of  Lincoln,  70. 
Hungary,  in  power  of  Turks,  268. 

lacobi,  R. ,  Sienese  merchant,  388. 

Indulgences :  promised :  to  contributors 
to  crusade,  285;  to  those  helping 
Henry  against  rebels,  402. 

Innocent  I II:  Mr.  Brewer's  estimate  of, 
2 ;  victory  over  K.  John,  2  ;  absolves 
K.  John,  3 ;  receives  John's  oath  of 
fealty  a  second  time,  5 ;  accepts  John's 
repeated  submission,  6  ;  takes  John 
under  protection  of  Holy  See,  7 ;  be- 
stows England  and  Ireland  on  K. 
John,  7 ;  misunderstands  attitude  of 
English  bishops  and  barons,  8 ;  re- 
proves bishops'  opposition  to  K.  John, 
8 ;  reproves  barons  for  opposing  K. 


John,  9  ;  misinformed  as  to  real  state 
of  affairs,   9-10;    defends   K.  John 
against    barons,     13-14;     threatens 
barons  with   excommunication,    14 ; 
writes  to  Stephen  Langton,  17  ;  an- 
nuls Magna  Charta,   17,  19 ;    sends 
brief  to  English  barons,   19  ;  forbids 
Simon  Langton  ever  to  return  to  Eng- 
land, 20 ;  writes  to  Pandulph  and  bp. 
of  Winchester,  20 ;  excommunicates 
barons,  20-21 ;  confirms  excommuni- 
cation, 23  ;  protects  K.  John,  as  his 
vassal,  24  ;  suspects  John's  sincerity, 
26 ;  appoints  Pandulph  as  nuncio,  42 ; 
his  confirmation  of  Magna  Charta, 
182 ;  first  to  claim  to  give  benefices 
at  will,  237  ;  death  of,  26. 
Innocent  IV :  Cardinal  Sinibald  elected 
pope  as,  205 ;    confirms  election   of 
Boniface  of  Savoy,  192,  209 ;  settles 
Winchester    dispute     in    favour    of 
monks,    193 ;    intervenes  in   dispute 
between  Grosseteste   and   monks  of 
Canterbury,  206 ;  work  of,  as  pope, 
208  ;  remonstrates  with  Henry  about 
Winchester  scandal,  211;  tries  to  ob- 
tain money  from  England,  214  ;  urges 
barons  to  grant  Henry  a  subsidy,  216 ; 
supports  money  demands  of  collector, 
218;    receives  treaty  between  Eng- 
land and  Scotland  for  confirmation, 
220 ;  confirms  the  will  of  king  of  Eng- 
land, 221 ;  confirmation  of,  frequently 
sought,  221 ;   escapes  from  Italy  to 
Lyons,  221 ;  invited  to  pay  a  visit  to 
England,  223 ;  defends  papal  exac- 
tions, 225  ;  consecrates  abp.  of  Can- 
terbury,   227,    258 ;    arrival    of,   at 
Lyons,  228 ;  commands  presence  of 
abp.  of  York  at  Lyons,  230  ;  brings 
charges  against  emperor,  230 ;  con- 
siders English  complaints,  233 ;  re- 
ceives grievances  of  French  nation 
against  papal  exactions,  234 ;    puts 
aside  complaints  against  Holy  See, 
240 ;     farewell    interview    of,    with 
Grosseteste,  243 ;  asked  to  consider 


F  F 


434 


HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 


Innocent  IV — continued. 

English  grievances,  246,  247  ;  makes 
further  demands,  wants  embroidery, 
250;  claims  property  of  intestate 
clerks,  250 ;  justifies  action  about 
subsidies,  to  Henry,  253 ;  indisposed 
to  abate  calls  on  English  clergy,  253 ; 
defends  "provisions,"  254;  orders 
recipients  of  Henry's  gifts  to  return 
them,  258  ;  orders  bp.  of  Hereford  to 
collect  first  fruits  for  abp.  of  Canter- 
bury, 259  ;  absolves  suspended  bis- 
hops, 260 ;  grants  Abp.  Boniface  dis- 
charge from  debts,  261  ;  urges  on 
crusade,  in  England,  262 ;  asks 
twentieth  from  clergy  for  crusade, 
263  ;  purposes  to  extract  money  from 
England  under  pain  of  interdict,  268 ; 
borrows  in  advance  on  expectation  of 
money  from  England,  269  ;  promises 
about  English  benefices,  269 ;  makes 
Vriar  John  collector  in  England,  270; 
sends  Marinus  to  collect  money,  273 ; 
reminds  Henry  of  overdue  tribute, 
275  5  urges  bishops  to  collect  aids, 
276 ;  asks  St.  Louis  for  concessions 
about  English  crusade,  276;  tries  to 
secure  English  benefice  for  Robert, 
son  of  duke  of  Burgundy,  277;  insists 
on  right  to  present  to  English  bene- 
fices, 278 ;  intervenes  in  election  to 
See  of  St.  Asaph,  278 ;  authorises 
Henry  to  resume  crown  lands,  281 ; 
writes  to  English  bishops  on  needs  of 
Holy  See,  283  ;  grants  Henry  a  tenth 
towards  Crusade,  283-284,  285;  urges 
bishops  and  friars  to  help  Crusade, 
285  ;  decretal  of,  giving  Abp.  Boni- 
face ample  powers  of  visitation,  293 ; 
decides  against  Abp.  Boniface,  on  ap- 
peal, 295  ;  intervenes  in  dispute  be- 
tween Abp.  Boniface  and  suffragans, 
297 ;  at  Perugia,  297 ;  issues  com- 
mission to  raise  money  for  Abp.  Boni- 
face, 298  ;  decides  in  favour  of  Abp. 
Boniface,  298  ;  anxious  for  Henry  to 
go  to  Holy  Land,  298  j  tries  to  raise 


money  for  Henry  in  Scotland,  299 ; 
writes  to  collectors  about  money  for 
Henry's  Crusade,  301 ;  dissuades 
Henry  from  going  to  Lyons,  306 ;  the 
prior  of  Winchester,  319 ;  papal  "pro- 
visions "  in  France,  326 ;  commends 
charitable  loan  society,  331 ;  orders 
Benedictines  to  observe  statutes  of 
Gregory  IX,  333;  confers  Lincoln 
canonry  on  Italian,  337  ;  angry  with 
Grosseteste  for  opposition,  338  ;  pre- 
sentation by,  of  foreigners  to  Eng- 
lish benefices,  339 ;  defends  "  pro- 
visions," 341;  opens  negotiations 
with  England  and  with  France  about 
Sicily,  347 ;  writes  to  Henry  about 
Sicily,  348,  352  ;  promised  money  to 
secure  Sicily  for  P.  Edmund,  353  ; 
death  of,  320,  325. 

Innocent,  Master,  papal  notary  in  Eng- 
land, 337. 

Instruction  of  people,  orders  about,  37 
61. 

Isaac,  the  Jew  of  Norwich,  46. 

Isabella,  widow  of  K.  John,  302  note. 

Joan,  daughter  of  C.  of  Poitou,  sought 
in  marriage  by  Henry,  157. 

Jocelin,  bp.  of  Bath  administers  corona- 
tion oath  to  Henry,  29. 

John,  archdeacon  of  Bedford,  sent  to 
Rome  by  Henry  to  oppose  Canter- 
bury election,  122. 

John,  friar,  Franciscan,  made  papal 
collector  in  England,  270  ;  summons 
abbot  of  St.  Alban's  to  pay,  272,  273. 

John,  King :  asks  Rome  to  nullify 
Great  Charter,  I ;  puts  off  crown  and 
receives  it  from  legate,  2;  absolved 
by  pope,  3 ;  surrenders  kingdom  to 
Holy  See ;  nation  never  consented, 
4 ;  what  surrender  by,  to  Holy  See, 
meant,  5 ;  submission  of  to  pope,  re- 
newed, 5,42;  taken  under  protection 
of  Holy  See,  7 ;  grant  to  by  pope,  of 
England  and  Ireland,  7  ;  sends  for 
Langton  to  earn  barons'  demands, 


INDEX 


435 


IO;  takes  the  Crusader's  cross,  n; 
appeals  to  pope  against  barons,  12 ; 
appeals  to  pope  against  Magna 
Charta,  15 ;  opposes  election  to  See 
of  York,  20 ;  complains  of  barons  to 
pope,  20 ;  goes  to  St.  Alban's,  23 ; 
makes  known  pope's  determination 
to  put  down  opposition,  23 ;  said  to 
have  ceased  to  be  king,  25 ;  sincerity 
of,  suspected  by  pope,  26 ;  commits 
guardianship  of  heir  and  kingdom  to 
pope,  28,  33 ;  repudiates  pope's 
authority  in  temporals,  41 ;  threatens 
to  hang  Steph.  Langton,  41 ;  meets 
Pandulph  at  Dover,  42 ;  excommuni- 
cated by  Pandulph,  42  ;  dealings  of, 
with  De  Breaute,  105;  death  of,  I, 
27;  buried  at  Worcester,  28;  burial 
place  to  be  changed,  119. 

John  of  St.  Giles,  friar,  Dominican,  at- 
tends Grosseteste  in  last  illness,  340. 

John  of  Hough  ton,  archdeacon  of  North- 
ampton, 250. 

John  of  Kent,  Franciscan:  papal  col- 
lector, 389,  393  ;  presses  for  payment 
of  tribute,  393. 

John  of  Stamford,  friar,  accompanies 
Grosseteste  from  Lyons,  242. 

Joinville,  William  de,  abp.  of  Rheims, 
at  Translation  of  St.  Thomas,  53. 

Juvenal,  quoted,  201. 

Kirkham,  Walter  de,  bp.  of  Durham, 
constitutions  of,  346. 

Langton:  Simon,  8;  archdeacon  of 
Canterbury,  170;  selected  as  abp.  of 
York,  19;  forbidden  by  pope  to  re- 
turn to  England,  20;  represents  his 
brother's  interests  in  Rome,  43  ;  ex- 
cluded from  general  absolutions,  37 ; 
pope's  adviser  on  English  matters, 
137 ;  advised  pope  against  R.  Nevile 
as  abp.  of  Canterbury,  137;  allowed 
by  Gregory  IX  to  return  to  England, 
112. 


Langton,  Cardinal  Stephen:  dislikes 
surrender  of  England  to  Holy  See, 
4;  attests  John's  submission,  5; 
summons  meeting  at  Dunstable,  7  ; 
charges  papal  legate  with  acting 
against  the  Church  in  England,  7  ; 
prejudiced  at  Rome,  8;  misunder- 
stood by  Innocent  III,  8 ;  refuses  to 
promulgate  pope's  excommunication 
of  barons,  22;  is  suspended,  22; 
charged  at  General  Council  with 
rebellion,  22;  refuses  to  justify  him- 
self at  Council  of  Lateran,  22  ;  is  ab- 
solved from  suspension,  23 ;  King 
John  threatens  to  hang,  41 ;  appeals 
against  legate's  appointment  to  bene- 
fices, 42 ;  is  dissatisfied  with  Pan- 
dulph's  influence,  52 ;  is  present  at 
translation  of  body  of  St.  Thomas, 
53  >  goes  to  Rome,  54 ;  his  disciplin- 
ary decrees,  57  ;  holds  Synod  at  Ox- 
ford, 59;  settles  Worcester  dispute, 
63,  64;  urges  Llewellyn  to  submis- 
sion, 73 ;  advises  discussion  of  Otho's 
demands,  92;  procures  Otho's  recall, 
95  ;  ordered  by  pope  to  call  meeting 
to  reply  to  Otho's  demands,  96; 
appointed  to  inquire  into  disputes, 
66;  translates  relics  of  St.  Birinus,  70; 
written  to  by  pope  as  to  de  Breaute, 
8 1 ;  resists  growth  of  exactions  of 
Curia,  83;  urges  diocese  to  make  a 
subsidy,  88 ;  summons  delegates  from 
dioceses,  89;  opposes  granting  pre- 
bends to  pope,  98 ;  considers  divorce 
of  Countess  of  Albemarle,  105 ; 
opposed  to  king  about  privileges  of 
Cant.,  118  ;  his  cordial  relations  with 
Henry  III,  112;  death  of,  118. 

Lateran  Council:  the  fourth,  22,  57,  61, 
120;  on  pluralities,  170,  171,  196; 
as  to  contracting  debts,  357. 

Lavagna,  Frederick  de,  granted  by  pope 
a  canonry  at  Lincoln,  337. 

Lawrence  of  St.  Martin,  royal  proctor 
at  Council  of  Lyons,  224. 

Legates :  not  to  be  sent  to  England 


436 


HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 


Legates — continued. 

during  Langton's  life,  54;  difference 

in  functions  to  nuncios,  91 ;  privileges 

of,  determined  in  Council  of  Lyons, 

240. 

Legitimation,  law  of,  discussion  on,  159. 
Lenton,  prior  of,  sent  to  Rome  as  royal 

agent,  107. 
Leonard,  Master,  clerk  of  Bp.  Grosse- 

teste,  287. 
Leonard  of  Messina :  papal  collector  in 

England,  388,  390;  recalled  by  pope, 

393- 

Lesnes,  abbot  of,  deputed  to  settle  dis- 
putes of  Cant,  monks  and  St.  Ed- 
mund, 148. 

Letters,  papal;  abuse  and  forgery  of,  62. 

Lewes,  battle  of,  397. 

Lichfield,  Bishop,  William  de  Raleigh: 
140,  177;  consecrated4  at  Lyons,  227, 
229. 

Lichfield  Chapter,  dispute  between 
canons  and  monks  of  Coventry,  204. 

Lincoln,  bp.  of :  at  Council  of  Lyons, 
229 ;  ordered  by  pope  to  collect 
subsidy,  251 ;  to  be  absolved  by  Otto- 
boni,  407,  409. 

Lincoln,  dean  of,  at  Council  of  Lyons, 
229. 

Lincoln  diocese,  religious  appeal  to 
pope  against  Bp.  Grosseteste,  287. 

Lismore  to  be  united  with  Waterford, 
119. 

Llandaff,  bp.  of,  not  at  Council  of 
Lyons,  229. 

Llewellyn:  submission  of,  47,  70,  73; 
induced  by  Gualo  to  submit,  73; 
king  appeals  to  pope  to  put  down  the 
rebellion  of,  73. 

Loan  Society :  commended  by  pope, 
331 ;  existence  of,  332  note. 

London,  bishop  of:  54;  excommuni- 
cates rioters,  133,  155 ;  litigation  of 
with  St.  Edmund,  155;  ordered  by 
pope  to  collect  subsidy,  251;  goes  to 
Boulogne  to  meet  legate,  398;  dis- 
pute with  Archb.  Boniface,  293-295 ; 


is  absolved  by  Ottoboni,  407-409 ; 
appeals  to  Rome  against  Ottoboni, 
410;  is  cited  to  Rome,  411. 

London,  city  of:  excommunication  of 
citizens,  398-400,  403;  interdict  of 
churches  of,  400,  414 ;  disturbances 
about  the  legate,  414. 

London,  parliament  in,  161,  246,  265, 

274,  376,  391- 

London:  Synod  of,  166,  173,216-217; 
meeting  with  legates  in,  181,  308, 
3T4»  357,  359,  364;  Ottoboni  holds 
Council  in,  414. 

London,  Tower  of,  king  seizes,  392. 

Louis  of  France,  Prince :  invited  over  to 
England,  24 ;  determines  to  prosecute 
his  invasion,  25  ;  lands  in  England, 
26 ;  is  excommunicated  by  Gualo,  36 ; 
makes  peace,  37 ;  is  absolved  from 
excommunication,  37 ;  keeps  barons 
of  Cinque  Ports  in  prison,  40. 

Louis,  St. ,  king  of  France :  resists  claim 
of  pope  to  bestow  prebends,  99; 
urged  by  pope  not  to  attack  Henry, 
103  ;  unable  to  make  peace  because 
of  oath,  1 18;  makes  truce  with  Henry, 
203 ;  protests  to  pope  against  money- 
lenders, 272-273  ;  the  crusade  tithes, 
286 ;  on  French  grievances  as  to 
papal  exactions,  234 ;  on  papal  claims, 
236-238 ;  drives  out  usurers,  330 ; 
asked  to  urge  Charles  of  Anjou  to 
accept  crown  of  Sicily,  347  ;  to  arbi- 
trate between  Henry  and  barons, 
395,  Cardinal  Ottoboni  describes, 
405. 

Loyalty  to  Holy  See,  consistent  with 
complaints,  238. 

Ludham  Godfrey,  abp.  of  York,  death 
of,  409. 

Luke,  chaplain  to  king,  proposed  for 
Durham,  106. 

Lusignan,  Guy  de :  reproached  by  pope 
for  his  opposition  to  Henry,  102 ;  his 
position,  302  note. 

Lyons,  abp.  of,  at  Council  of  Bourges, 
99- 


INDEX 


437 


Lyons,  Council  of,  constitution  of,  229, 
240 ;  fire  during,  225  ;  settled  amount 
of  papal  tax,  254. 


Magna  Charta,  assent  to,  I,  12,  1$ ; 
John  seeks  nullification  at  Rome,  I, 
15 ;  annulled  by  Innocent  III,  1 7, 19; 
is  confirmed,  182. 

Malclerc,  Walter,  collector  of  taxes,  46. 

Manfred,  son  of  Emperor  Frederick : 
rebellion  of,  354  ;  preached  against 
by  Rustand  in  London,  356. 

Mansel,  John,  is  "  provided  "  by  Thame 
prebend,  1 96 ;  resigns  claim  toThame, 
199 ;  forbids  clergy  to  pay  subsidy  to 
pope,  220 ;  accused  of  making  strife 
between  king  and  barons,  390. 

Mansuetus,  papal  nuncio  on  Sicilian 
business,  376. 

March,  earl  of,  disputes  with  English 
king,  72. 

Marche,  Count  de  la,  118;  urges  war 
with  France,  201  ;  marries  widow  of 
King  John,  302  note. 

Margaret,  countess  of  Albemarle,  105. 

Marlborough,  Henry  III  taken  ill  at,  93. 

Marlborough  Castle  fortified,  47. 

Marinus,  papal  chaplain,  sent  to  collect 
money,  273  ;  M.  Paris  remarks  on, 
274. 

Marsh,  Friar  Adam,  223  ;  journey  with 
Grosseteste  from  Lyons,  242 ;  supports 
refusal  of  livings  to  unfit  clerks,  256 ; 
affirms  England's  loyalty  to  Holy  See, 
239 ;  his  tract  on  the  papacy,  239 ; 
appointed  by  pope  to  determine  Win- 
chester quarrel,  319 ;  upholds  Abp. 
Boniface  in  visitation  disputes,  292. 

Marsh,  Rich.,  bp.  of  Durham,  discip- 
linary .decrees  of,  57,  58  ;  disagree- 
ment with  monks,  65 ;    appeals  to 
Rome,  66  ;  death  of,  106. 
Marshall,  Gilbert,  pardoned  by  Henry, 

155- 

MarshaU,*William,  Earl  of  Pembroke, 
10,  n,  12  ;  is  governor  of  kingdom, 


32,  32  note ;  announces  king's  corona- 
tion, 34  ;  death  of,  45. 
Martin,  papal  clerk,  sent  to  collect 
money,  214 ;  claims  an  aid  from 
clergy,  217-218,  219,  246,  252 ;  op- 
posed in  England,  215  ;  his  exactions 
for  his  own  expenses,  220;  summons 
a  meeting  of  clergy,  220  ;  takes  pos- 
session of  certain  benefices,  222  ; 
complaints  of,  at  Council  of  Lyons, 
232  ;  is  forced  to  leave  England,  226. 
Memorial  of  French  grievances,  238 

note. 

Mercenaries  ravage  England,  23. 
Mere,"  Henry  de  la,  returns  from  em- 
bassy to  Lyons,  253. 
Merton  abbey,  Council  at,  159,  378. 
Messina,  abp.  of:  comes   to   England 
for  pope,   363,   368 ;    is  given  full 
powers,  369  ;  discusses  Sicilian  ques- 
tion, 370. 

Mise  of  Amiens,  the,  395. 
Monasteries  and  bishops,  64. 
Monastic  Chapters,  64. 
Monastic   observance,  regulations  for, 

61. 

Montfort,  Simon  de :  marries  king's 
sister,  174 ;  returns  to  England,  391 ; 
Henry  places  himself  in  the  hands  of, 
392  ;  begins  civil  war,  396 ;  is  ex- 
communicated, 400;  orders  collection 
of  tithe  for  rebels,  405  ;  his  death, 
403  ;  his  movement  popular,  416. 
Montpelier,  William  de,  elected  to 

Coventry,  204. 

"  Morals  "  of  St.  Gregory,  223. 
Mumelino,  papal  collector,  188. 
Muratori,  inventory  of  papal  archives 
by,  348. 

Naples,  cardinals  imprisoned  at,  199. 
New  Year's  gifts,  Henry  exacts  from 

London  citizens,  279. 
Nevile,  Geoffrey,  seneschal  of  Poitou, 

52- 

Nevile,  Ralph :   ordered   not   to  leave 
exchequer,   47 ;   bp.   of  Chichester, 


438 


HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 


Nevile,  Ralph — continued. 

122 ;  elected  to  Winchester,  176 ; 
elected  to  Canterbury,  137  ;  refuses 
expenses  of  confirmation,  137;  elec- 
tion quashed  by  pope,  138;  is  vice- 
chancellor,  47. 

Nicholas  of  Ely,  elected  bp.  of  Wor- 
cester, 410. 

Nicholas  of  Tusculum,  mission  to  recon- 
cile John  to  Holy  See,  7-10, 42 ;  sends 
Pandulph  to  Rome,  7. 

Nobles  refuse  subsidy  for  French  war, 
201. 

Non-obstante  clause  in  papal  letters,  233. 

Norfolk,  earl  of:  excommunicated,  400; 
royal  representative  at  Council  of 
Lyons,  230. 

Northampton :  meetings,  at  41,  96, 186 ; 
royal  Christmas  at,  409;  parliament 
at,  409  ;  presentation  to,  denied  to 
Passelew,  254,  256. 

Northwold,  Hugh,  bp.  of  Ely,  opposes 
Henry,  310. 

Norwich:  Pandulph  made  bp.  of,  43, 
55 ;  bp.  of,  threatened  for  refusing 
presentation  to  a  royal  nominee,  306 ; 
William  de  Raleigh,  bp.  of,  177, 
192  ;  transferred  to  Winchester,  209  ; 
ordered  to  raise  subsidy,  251. 

Norwich,  Isaac  the  Jew  of,  46. 

Novices,  law  as  to  profession  of,  173. 

Nuncio :  object  of  sending  of,  83 ;  powers 
compared  with  those  of  a  legate,  91. 

Octavian,  Cardinal,  receives  Henry's 
promise  to  find  money  for  Sicily,  374. 

Oils,  Holy,  orders  as  to  preservation 
58. 

Omers,  St.,  Nuncio  Otho  at,  89. 

Osney  Abbey,  riot  at,  175. 

Otho,  the  nuncio:  orders  inspection 
and  verification  of  documents,  68; 
proposed  as  nuncio,  89 ;  receives 
English  delegates  in  Rome,  121 ;  to 
be  hindered  on  his  journey  to  Eng- 
land, 90;  object  of  his  mission,  91; 
reports  to  Rome  on  de  Breaute  case, 


105 ;  is  met  by  royal  agents,  91 ; 
arrival  in  England,  92;  intercedes 
with  king  for  de  Breaute,  92 ;  de- 
mands "procurations"  of  English 
clergy,  92;  opens  meeting  of  clergy 
at  Westminster,  93 ;  propounds  pope's 
plan  for  pecuniary  aid,  94 ;  travels  to 
the  north  of  England,  95 ;  unsuccess- 
fully tries  to  convene  a  second  meet- 
ing of  clergy,  95 ;  is  recalled  to  Rome, 
95 ;  visits  England  with  St.  Edmund, 
151;  tries  to  mediate  in  Canter- 
bury disputes,  152;  promised  to  Eng- 
land as  legate,  161;  authorised  to 
absolve  Henry  from  oaths,  163; 
second  arrival  in  England,  164;  ac- 
cepts presents  on  his  arrival,  165; 
reconciles  nobles  at  variance,  166; 
summons  Synod  at  London,  166 ; 
appointed  legate  to  Scotland;  tries 
to  reconcile  Henry  and  Scotch  king, 
167;  makes  Alexander  of  Scotland 
renew  fealty  to  Henry,  168;  refused 
entry  as  legate  to  Scotland,  168; 
settles  precedence  between  Canter- 
bury and  York,  169;  convenes  Synod 
at  St.  Paul's,  169-172;  constitutions 
of,  170 ;  his  legative  legislation  per- 
manent, 171;  promises  grants  of  land 
in  England,  174;  urges  king  to  listen 
to  popular  grievances,  175;  visits 
Oxford,  riot  at  Osney,  175;  recalled 
by  Gregory  IX,  175;  places  Oxford 
University  under  interdict,  176  ;  pre- 
sides over  Chapter  of  Benedictines, 
177;  reasons  for  his  recall,  177; 
summons  a  meeting  of  bishops,  177  ; 
Henry  tries  to  detain  him  in  England, 
177 ;  proposes  to  levy  procuration, 
178;  is  denied  admittance  to  Scot- 
land, 178;  excommunicates  emperor 
at  St.  Alban's,  178;  meets  bishops 
and  nobles  in  London,  181 ;  advised 
by  Henry  to  leave  England,  183 ; 
demands  money  in  pope's  name,  183  ; 
meets  bishops  at  Northampton  about 
papal  taxes,  186;  finally  recalled  to 


INDEX 


439 


Rome,  187;  summons  meeting  of 
clergy  in  London,  188 ;  Henry  ac- 
companies him  to  coast,  1 89 ;  is  taken 
prisoner  by  Emperor  Frederick,  194- 
195 ;  is  released  to  attend  conclave, 
returns  to  prison  at  Naples,  199. 

Ottoboni,  Cardinal :  asked  by  Henry  to 
use  his  influence  against  barons,  389 ; 
appointed  legate  to  England;  his 
powers,  401 ;  may  grant  English 
benefices  to  his  suite,  402 ;  his  special 
powers,  402-403;  arrives  at  Boulogne, 
403 ;  asks  English  bishops  to  aid  in 
pacification,  404 ;  writes  to  encourage 
Henry,  404 ;  his  letters  to  cardinals 
on  France  and  St.  Louis,  405;  or- 
dered to  excommunicate  de  Montfort 
and  his  followers,  406 ;  his  powers  to 
absolve  bishops,  407;  reaches  Eng- 
land with  the  queen,  408 ;  meets  the 
English  clergy,  409 ;  suspends  bishops 
opposed  to  Henry,  409;  describes 
affairs  in  England  to  pope,  410;  re- 
bukes monks  for  opposing  king,  411 ; 
authorised  to  tax  Scotch  Church  for 
Henry,  412;  his  praise  of  England, 
413;  directs  collectors  to  send  in  the 
tenth,  413 ;  preaches  crusade  at  St. 
Paul's,  414;  takes  refuge  in  Tower  of 
London,  414;  holds  a  Synod  in 
London — his  Constitutions,  415; 
summons  Scotch  bishops  to  council, 
415;  leaves  England,  415. 

Ordination,  regulations  about,  344. 

Oxford :  provincial  Synod  at,  59 ; 
council  summoned  at,  no;  council 
at,  136;  meeting  of  bishops  at,  to 
discuss  the  state  of  the  Church  in 
England,  199;  Synod  at,  289;  pre- 
lates meet  at,  to  discuss  the  attitude 
of  barons  to  king,  378 ;  Herlot  meets 
parliament  at,  376. 

Pallium,  sent  by  Gregory  IX  to  archbp. 

of  Canterbury,  125. 
Pandulph  :  2,  40,  71;  charges  English 

barons  to  serve  king  faithfully,   4; 


orders  king  of  France  not  to  attack 
John,  4 ;  sent  to  Rome  by  the  legate 
Nicholas ;  deceived  by  King  John, 
10;  goes  to  Rome  to  appeal  against 
MagnaCharta,  15-17 ;  urges  Langton 
to  promulgate  excommunication,  22 ; 
suspends  Langton,  22;  publishes 
papal  excommunication  of  barons, 
22 ;  replaces  Gualo  as  legate,  40,  43- 
44 ;  meets  King  John  at  Northamp- 
ton, 41 ;  excommunicates  John  for 
refusing  to  receive  Langton,  42; 
claims  obedience  to  pope  in  temporals 
as  well  as  in  spirituals,  42;  meets 
John  at  Dover,  42;  appointed  to 
gather  fees  for  pope,  42;  goes  to 
Rome  to  oppose  Langton,  42 ;  elected 
bishop  of  Norwich,  43 ;  returns  to 
Rome,  43;  lands  in  England  as  legate, 
44 ;  as  bishop  of  Norwich  is  exempt 
from  jurisdiction  of  archbishop,  44  ; 
sets  at  liberty  imprisoned  clerics,  44 ; 
examines  relations  between  England 
and  Scotland,  44;  renews  truce  be- 
tween England  and  France,  44 ;  be- 
comes regent,  45  note ;  his  power  in 
England,  46 ;  orders  secret  mission 
to  France,  47;  orders  de  Burgh  to 
meet  Llewellyn,  47;  his  supreme 
position  in  England  admitted,  48  ; 
his  work  for  England,  51 ;  authorised 
Henry  to  take  Church  revenues,  52 ; 
forbids  tournaments,  50;  ordered  by 
pope  to  prevent  anyone  holding  more 
than  two  castles,  50;  allowed  to 
reward  his  servants  with  benefices, 
53;  is  present  at  Henry  Ill's  corona- 
tion, 53;  resigns  his  legateship,  54; 
leaves  England,  55 ;  sent  on  a  mis- 
sion to  Poitou,  55;  buried  at  Nor- 
wich, 55 ;  debt  of  gratitude  of  Eng- 
lish to,  77. 

Paris,  Chapter  of,  protest  against  papal 
presentations  to  benefices,  1 14. 

Paris,  Matthew,  the  historian,  on  sur- 
render of  England  to  Holy  See,  4  ; 
on  exactions  of  Gualo  the  legate,  38 ; 


440 


HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 


Paris,  Matthew — continued. 

on  aids,  84 ;  his  estimate  of  R.  Marsh, 
bp.  of  Durham,  106 ;  on  appointment 
of  chancellor  of  Lincoln  as  abp.  of 
Canterbury,  1 24 ;  on  the  grant  of  a 
tenth  to  the  pope,  126;  on  papal 
confirmation  of  rights  of  patrons, 
136 ;  on  the  Canterbury  elections, 
X39  5  against  papal  collectors  and 
"  procurations,"  143,  188 ;  on  Otho's 
second  coming  to  England,  164 ; 
reflections  on  the  Synod  of  London 
under  Otho,  1 72 ;  explains  quarrel 
between  pope  and  emperor,  1 79 ; 
remarks  on  election  of  Boniface  of 
Savoy,  191 ;  on  the  papal  clerk, 
Martin,  217;  on  the  prelates  at 
Council  of  Lyons,  229,  240 ;  on  the 
Winchester  quarrel  between  Aylmer 
and  the  monks,  317  ;  on  papal  extor- 
tions, 329  ;  remarks  on  usurers,  330  ; 
remarks  on  Benedictine  observance, 
333  ;  on  election  of  Aylmer  to  Win- 
chester, 302 ;  his  account  of  conse- 
cration of  Hayles  received  from 
Richard  of  Cornwall,  335 ;  his  in- 
formation on  Sicilian  business  from 
same,  349 ;  remarks  on  Henry's  lavish- 
ness  to  foreign  friends,  356. 

Parliament  at  London,  84,  140,  161, 
246,  265,  274,  314,  376,  391. 

Parliament  at  Northampton,  409. 

Parliament  at  Oxford,  376. 

Parliament  at  Winchester,  253. 

Parliament  refuses  Henry  money  with- 
out reforms,  275. 

Passelew,  Robert,  a  creature  of  de  Ru- 
pibus,  132  ;  Grosseteste  s  objection  to 
his  presentation  to  a  living,  254-256  ; 
elected  bp.  of  Chichester,  222  ;  is  re- 
jected by  pope-  -  -the  king's  anger,  227. 

Passelew,  Simon,  sent  to  collect  money, 
281. 

Paste,  Fern,  marshal  of  France,  am- 
bassador to  the  pope,  327. 

Patteshull,  Hugh  de,  bp.  of  Coventry, 
death  of,  204. 


Paul's,  St.,  visitation  dispute  with  Abp. 
Boniface,  290,  296 ;  dispute  as  to  a 

prebend  in,  385  ;  Crusade  preached 

in,  414  ;  synod  at,  169. 
Pecorari,  Giacomo,  bp.  of  Palestrina, 

requires  "procurations,"  236. 
Pecoraria,     Cardinal,     released     from 

prison  by  emperor,  199. 
Pembroke,  earl  of  (W.  Marshall),  thanks 

pope  for  Gualo's  help,  38. 
Penance,  teaching  about  the  sacrament 

of,  344. 
Percy,  Rich,  de,  sues  abp.  of  York  in  a 

secular  court,  71. 
Perugia,  Innocent  IV  at,  297  ;  Clement 

IV  at,  407. 

Pesce,  Bartholomew,  25  T. 
Peterborough,  abbot  of,  refuses  money 

to  king,  280. 

Peter  of  Savoy,  brother  of  Abp.  Boni- 
face, 327. 

Peter  of  Tewkesbury,  friar,  242. 
Philip,  abp.  elect  of  Lyons,  297. 
Philip,  king  of  France,  24-25. 
Pickering  Castle,   to  be    surrendered, 

388. 
Pinchbeck,  dispute  over  presentation  to 

living  at,  215. 
Plurality  of  benefices  denounced  by  abp. 

of  Canterbury  to  pope,  131 ;  forbidden 

by  Council  of  Lateran,  170;  defended 

by  Cantelupe,  bp.  of  Worcester,  171 ; 

instances  of,  367. 

Poitevins,  deprived  of  public  posts,  142. 
Poitiers,  count  of,  employed  to  induce 

Charles  of  Anjou  to  accept  crown  of 

Sicily,  347. 
Poitou,  abp.   of,  blamed   by  pope  for 

opposition  to  Henry  III.,  72. 
Poore,  Richard,  bp.  of  Salisbury,  his 

decrees,  57;  regulations  of,  61 ;  asked 

by  nuncio  to  collect  "procurations," 

92 ;   translated  to  Durham,  108 ;  is 

unwilling  to  leave  Salisbury,    109  ; 

election  of  successor,  120  ;  death  and 

dispute  as  to  election  of  successor, 

190. 


INDEX 


441 


Pope :  promises  benefices  in  England  to 
Romans,  184 ;  grants  concessions  as 
to  papal  appointments,  123. 

Powick,  William  de,  king's  orator  at 
Council  of  Lyons,  230  ;  is  spokesman 
of  English  grievances,  231-249  ; 
returns  from  Lyons,  253. 

Praeneste,  bp.  of,  imposes  "procura- 
tions," 328. 

Preaching  enjoined  on  clergy,  57-61. 

Prebends  :  reserved  to  pope  as  revenue, 
97 ;  proposal  to  grant  two  to  pope, 
rejected,  100. 

Prelates  :  forbidden  to  pledge  lay  fees  to 
pope,  95  ;  resist  demands  of  collector 
Martin,  218 ;  grant  aid  to  king,  219; 
meet  at  Oxford  to  discuss  attitude  of 
barons  to  king,  378. 

Presentations,  papal,  opposition  of 
Grosseteste  to,  337. 

Priests,  duties  of  parish,  57. 

Privileges,  duty  of  protecting,  147. 

"Procurations":  legate  Otho  demands 
from  clergy,  92,  96,  143,  178  ;  de- 
manded by  Otho  on  his  departure, 
183 ;  extracted  by  Franciscan  papal 
collectors,  271  ;  imposed  by  bp.  of 
Praeneste,  328  ;  in  France,  236. 

Profession,  religious,  laws  as  to,  173. 

Provence,  Henry  seeks  pope's  protection 
for  rights  in,  256. 

"  Provisions":  papal,  cause  discontent, 
325;  objections  to  in  Council  of 
Lyons,  234  ;  pope's  defence  of,  254, 
341 ;  king  writes  to  pope  about,  215  ; 
requests  for,  came  from  England, 
196-197 ;  instances  of,  214. 

"Provisions  of  Oxford":  king,  etc., 
absolved  from  oaths  to,  387,  391 ; 
barons  to  be  absolved,  387 ;  disap- 
proved of  by  pope,  391-413. 

Rabanus  Maurus,  de  Nat.  Rerum,  223. 

Raleigh,  Wm.  de :  demands  aid  for 
Henry,  161;  elect  of  Lichfield,  and 
after  of  Norwich,  1 77 ;  chosen  by 
monks  for  Winchester,  and  rejected 


by  King  Henry,  176,  192;  king's 
proctor  in  London  Synod,  169;  con- 
secrated bp.  of  Norwich,  192 ;  at 
bishops'  meeting  at  Oxford,  200 ; 
pope  asked  by  Winchester  monks  to 
confirm  election,  194;  translated  to 
Winchester,  by  pope,  193,  209 ; 
enters  Winchester,  210,  213,  214; 
death  at  Tours,  302. 

Ralph,  Brother,  a  Trinitarian,  257- 

Ralph,  earl  of  Chester,  74. 

Ranulph,  abbot  of  Ramsey,  royal  de- 
mands on  for  money,  280. 

Raymund,  of  Provence,  1 58. 

Reading  abbey :  proposed  for  consecra- 
tion of  Grosseteste,  146-148;  monks 
of  Winchester  seek  shelter  at,  318. 

Reading,  abbot  of,  appointed  papal 
collector,  63. 

Reginald,  king  of  Isle  of  Man,  70-71. 

Revenue:  papal,  from  English  prebends, 
97 ;  from  French  prebends  refused, 
98. 

Rheims,  abp.  of,  at  Council  of  Bourges, 

99- 

Rich,  St.  Edmund,  treasurer  of  Salis- 
bury: chosen  abp.  of  Cant.,  139; 
personal  sanctity  of,  145  ;  episcopate 
of,  a  series  of  troubles,  144 ;  conse- 
crated abp.,  141;  urged  to  prudence 
and  tact  by  pope,  141 ;  details  griev- 
ances against  Henry,  142 ;  remon- 
strates with  Henry,  140 ;  is  con- 
sulted on  law  of  legitimation,  159 ; 
becomes  Henry's  counsellor,  155 ; 
loses  his  case  against  Rochester 
monks,  154;  litigation  with  West- 
minster and  bp.  of  London,  155 ; 
his  exhortation  to  peace,  155;  dis- 
pute with  St.  Augustine's,  Canter- 
bury, 153 ;  litigation  with  Christ 
Church  monks,  148-152 ;  proposes 
to  substitute  secular  canons  for 
monks,  152 ;  claims  to  consecrate 
suffragans  where  he  pleased,  152  ; 
wishes  to  establish  prebendal  church 
for  canons,  152;  refuses  to  appear 


442 


HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 


Rich,  St.  Edmund — continued. 
when  cited  by  papal  commissioners, 
148-149  ;  his  claim  to  appoint  Christ 
Church  officials,  149 ;  dispute  as  to 
expenses  of  elections,  146 ;  annoyed 
at  legate  Otho's  coming,  165 ;  ab- 
solves king  from  censures,  162 ;  de- 
clares to  pope  the  English  dislike  of 
foreigners,  175 ;  appeals  to  Rome 
against  the  legate  Otho,  174;  sets 
out  for  Rome,  174 ;  endeavours  to 
get  the  pope  to  redress  the  grievances 
of  nation  against  king,  184;  goes  into 
exile,  185;  death  of,  191;  canonised 
by  popular  voice,  145 ;  petition  for 
his  canonisation,  230. 

Richard,  chancellor  of  Lincoln,  ap- 
pointed abp.  of  Cant.,  by  pope,  124. 

Richard,  earl  marshal,  opposes  de 
Rupibus,  136;  is  declared  a  traitor, 
136. 

Richard  I,  King,  24. 

Richard  of  Cornwall:  upbraids  Henry 
for  alienating  affections  of  people, 
167 ;  tells  legate  he  cannot  grant 
lands  in  England,  174 ;  annoyed  at 
marriage  of  his  sister  to  de  Montfort, 
174;  letter  to,  from  pope,  about  elec- 
tion to  See  of  Winchester,  181;  for- 
bidden by  pope  to  attack  Louis  of 
France,  104;  refuses  crown  of  Sicily, 
348-349 ;  his  vow  to  found  Hayles 
abbey,  335 ;  elected  king  of  the 
Romans,  363,  394;  refuses  a  loan  to 
the  pope,  357 ;  refuses  to  help  Henry 
in  Sicilian  business,  355  ;  takes  oath 
to  support  the  barons'  demands,  380 ; 
is  taken  prisoner  at  the  battle  of 
Lewes,  397 ;  alienated  from  barons 
after  award  of  Amiens,  396  ;  secures 
an  Englishman  as  papal  collector,  393. 

Rievaulx  abbey,  impropriation  of 
churches  to,  209. 

Rievaulx,  Peter  de :  nephew  of  de 
Rupibus,  131-140;  becomes  treasurer, 
132  ;  is  ordered  to  give  an  account, 
and  dismissed,  142. 


Rights,  duty  of  protecting,  147. 

Robert,  son  of  duke  of  Burgundy,  to 
be  provided  with  English  benefice, 
277. 

Rochester,  bishop  of,  ordered  by  pope 
to  check  St.  Edmund,  141 ;  assures 
earl  marshal  of  royal  favour,  142 ; 
says  English  Church  is  ground  down 
by  Rustand,  369;  goes  to  Rome  to 
appeal  against  Rustand,  364;  king's 
agent  in  Rome  to  oppose  Canterbury 
election,  122. 

Rochester  priory :  visitation  by  Abp. 
Boniface,  290 ;  appeal  against  St. 
Edmund,  154,  174. 

Roger,  earl  of  Essex,  investigation  of 
bis  marriage,  132. 

Romans  in  England  deprived  of  their 
livings,  157. 

Romanus :  papal  legate  in  France,  to 
safeguard  English  interests,  84;  to 
hinder  Otho's  journey  to  England, 
90-91;  as  legate,  convokes  Council  of 
Bourges,  99 ;  urges  Louis  not  to  attack 
Henry,  103 ;  releases  Louis  from  his 
oath,  118. 

Romanus,  John,  canon  of  York,  com- 
missioner to  excommunicate  the  riot- 
ers, 134. 

Rome,  tribute  to,  payable  from  Eng- 
land, 3. 

Rosso,  Peter  de:  collector,  185;  his 
methods,  186,  195;  collects  money  in 
Scotland,  188;  is  captured  by  Em- 
peror Frederick,  196. 

Rouen,  abp.  of,  at  Council  of  Bourges, 

99- 

Royan,  Brittany,  Henry  lands  at,  202. 

Ruffinus,  collector  of  papal  taxes,  Scot- 
land, 188. 

Rupibus,  Peter  de:  bp.  of  Winchester, 
52;  relations  with  H.  de  Burgh,  45 
note,  78 ;  instigator  of  rebellion,  78 ; 
loses  his  hold  over  Henry,  116;  de- 
parture for  Holy  Land,  129  ;  sup- 
plants de  Burgh  as  king's  adviser, 
131;  his  return  to  power  not  popular, 


INDEX 


443 


136;  threatened  by  bishops  with  ex- 
communication, 136;  supports  John 
le  Blund  as  candidate  for  See  of 
Canterbury,  139 ;  threatens  excom- 
munication of  rioters,  134;  is  sum- 
moned to  Rome,  143 ;  allowed  by 
Henry  to  return  to  Winchester,  160; 
presses  gifts  on  legate  Otho,  166 ; 
urges  Henry  to  listen  to  popular  com- 
plaints, 175;  death  of,  176. 
Rustand :  papal  nuncio  in  England, 
364;  preaches  crusade  against  Man- 
fred in  London,  356;  tries  to  collect 
money  from  monasteries,  357;  sum- 
mons prelates  to  London,  357-359; 
certifies  large  sums  due  for  Sicily, 
361;  receives  enlarged  powers,  363; 
summons  a  third  meeting  in  London, 
364;  ordered  to  compel  Scotch  pre- 
lates to  help  Henry  in  Sicilian  busi- 
ness, 367 ;  is  recalled  and  sent  to 
Gascony,  368 ;  accused  of  grinding 
down  English  Church,  369 ;  leaves 
money  behind  him  in  England,  388 ; 
receives  a  prebend  in  St.  Paul's,  384 ; 
pledges  king's  credit  in  Rome,  374; 
leaves  England,  371. 

Sacraments:  regulations  for  administra- 
tion of,  6l;  instructions  on,  58-59; 
abuses  in  administration  of,  173; 
teaching  on,  343. 

Salisbury,  bp.  of,  47,  54 ;  ordered  to 
present  Romans  to  livings,  185 ;  dele- 
gated to  inquire  into  Durham  dispute, 
65;  demands  from  king  freedom  of 
election,  314;  royal  agent  in  Rome, 

369- 
Salisbury,  Chapter  of,  refuses  to   pay 

royal  aid,  89. 
Saracens,  pope   obliged   to  break  the 

power  of,  262. 

Savoy,  Ottoboni  the  legate  in,  404. 
Scarborough  Castle,  surrender  of,  388. 
Scotland,  Church  of:  taxed  for  Henry 

III,  412}  to  help  pope  in  Sicilian 

business,  363. 


Seal,  the  great,  to  be  deposited  in  the 

Temple,  47. 
Segrave,   Stephen,   the  justiciar,  126, 

IS'- 
Sempringham,   papal    documents    for, 

70;  credit  of,  pledged,  332. 
Seneca,  quoted,  166. 
Sens,  abp.  of,  at  Council  of  Bourges, 

99- 

Shirley,  Mr. ,  preface  to  Royal  Letters, 
44  note ;  on  Pandulph's  work  in  Eng- 
land, 51. 

Sicily  :  kingdom  of,  Conrad  IV  tries  to 
recover,  347  ;  pope's  difficulties  in, 
347,  seqq.  ;  Herlot  sent  to  England 
to  settle  affair  of,  371 ;  conditions  on 
which  it  was  granted  to  Edmund, 
353  ;  Henry  asks  for  modification  of 
conditions  of  grant,  372 ;  English 
bishops  promise  money  for,  373 ; 
Prince  Edmund  cited  to  prove  his 
right  to,  375  ;  Prince  Edmund  re- 
nounces crown  of,  375  ;  king  obliges 
abbot  of  Westminster  to  contribute 
to,  361 ;  Richard  of  Cornwall  refuses 
his  help,  355 ;  Henry's  crusading 
oath  changed  for,  354 ;  bishops  and 
barons  refuse  to  be  bound  to  condi- 
tions, 361 ;  becomes  interest  of  Eng- 
land rather  than  of  the  Holy  See, 
363  ;  abp.  of  Messina  pleads  cause 
of,  363. 

Sick,  visiting  of,  regulations  about, 
60. 

Siena,  money  lenders  of,  354. 

Simon  of  London,  rival  presentee  to 
Thame,  198. 

Simon,  prior  of  Worcester,  62-64. 

Simon  the  Norman,  a  lawyer,  Henry's 
messenger  to  Rome,  177. 

Sinebald,  Cardinal,  elected  as  Innocent 
IV,  205. 

Sinecius,   papal  collector,  412,  414. 

Sittingbourne,  John  de,  elected  abp. 
of  Canterbury,  138. 

Slindon,  death  of  Stephen  Langton  at, 
118. 


444 


HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 


Smithfield,  St.  Bartholomew's,  visita- 
tion dispute  at,  291 ;  canons  gain  their 
cause  on  appeal  to  Rome,  295. 

Soissons,  bp.  of,  on  embassy  to  pope, 

327. 

Southwark,  Hospital  of  St.  Thomas 
at,  dispute  as  to  presentation  to,  312. 

Spain,  rebelling  against  clergy,  268. 

Spalding  priory,  215. 

Spiritual  supremacy,  not  impugned  by 
resistance  to  papal  exactions,  238. 

Stamford,  barons  meet  at,  10. 

Stamford,  Henry  de,  bp.  of  Rochester, 
death  of,  1 54. 

Stechil,  de,  elect  of  Durham,  refused 
by  king,  107. 

Stephen  of  Anagni :  papal  clerk  sent 
to  England  to  collect  money,  115, 
125,  127  ;  threatens  Henry  with  cen- 
sure, 1 1 8. 

Stubbs,  bp.  of  Oxford,  32,  note. 

Subsidy  :  king  demands  of  barons,  216 ; 
demanded  by  the  pope,  251  ;  cause 
of  discontent  in  France,  235. 

Supino :  Pietro  de,  papal  collector  in 
Ireland,  195  ;  capture  by  Emperor 
Frederick,  196. 

Suzerainty  of  Honorius  III  acknow- 
ledged by  Henry  III,  39. 

Synod  at  Oxford,  59,  289. 

Synod  of  London  at  St.  Paul's,  166, 169, 
173- 

Tax,  papal,  exemption  from,  for  some 
religious  houses,  128. 

Templars,  70. 

Temple,  the,  Great  Seal  deposited  in, 
47- 

Tenth,  papal,  collected  in  oppressive 
way,  126. 

Terra  Laboris,  Monte  Cassino  known 
as,  356. 

Tewkesbury  Abbey,  disputes  as  to  privi- 
leges, 64. 

Thame,  prebend  of,  causes  quarrel  be- 
tween King  Henry  and  Grosseteste, 
196. 


Thibaud,  archd.  of  Liege,  after  Gregory 
X,  414;  elected  pope,  416. 

Thomas  of  York,  friar,  223. 

Thomas,  St.,  body  of,  "translated," 
S3- 

Thorney  abbey,  tax  on,  366. 

Tithe  for  crusade  ordered,  285  ;  objected 
to  in  England  and  France,  286. 

Tolet,  John,  English  cardinal,  expostu- 
lates with  pope,  268. 

Torres,  Giles  de,  cardinal,  upholds 
Grosseteste,  338. 

Toulouse,  Raymund  of,  not  to  have 
English  support,  103. 

Tournaments  in  England  forbidden  by 
Gregory  IX,  116. 

Tours  :  death  of  W.  de  Raleigh  at,  302; 
archbp.  of,  at  Council  of  Bourges, 
99- 

Tower  of  London,  Henry  seizes,  392. 

"  Translation  "  of  body  of  St.  Thomas 
at  Canterbury,  53. 

Tribute  to  Holy  See:  rejected  by  Eng- 
lish proctors,  242 ;  objected  to  at 
Council  of  Lyons,  231. 

Troyes,   bp.  of,  on  embassy  to  pope, 

327- 

Tunbridge  Castle,  dispute  as  to  posses- 
sion of,  130. 

Turner,  G.  I.,  The  Minority  of  Henry 
III,  32  note. 

Twenge  Robert  (alias  W.  Wither): 
heads  riot,  133  ;  surrenders  to  king, 
135  ;  is  sent  to  Rome,  135. 

Tyssyngton,  estimate  of  Grosseteste, 
341- 

Urban  IV:  successor  of  Alexander  IV, 
375>  388;  seeks  money  from  Eng- 
land, 388;  reminds  Henry  of  over- 
due tribute,  388 ;  claims  money  pro 
mised  by  late  Bp.  Aylmer,  374 ;  con- 
demns Provisions  of  Oxford,  392 ; 
writes  to  many  in  England  for  money, 
390 ;  absolves  Henry  from  oath  to 
"  Provisions,"  391;  presses  for  pay- 
ment of  tribute,  393-394;  desires 


INDEX 


445 


question  of  Sicilian  crown  to  be 
settled,  393 ;  enlists  help  for  Henry, 
394;  proclaims  oaths  against  Henry 
unlawful,  394;  sends  legate  to  Eng- 
land, 395;  ratifies  St.  Louis'  award, 
396 ;  condemns  rising  of  barons,  397 ; 
death  of,  399. 

Ursarola,  John,  bp.  of  Cervia,  pope 
wants  support  for,  in  England,  243. 

Usurers :  accompany  collector  of  papal 
tax,  126 ;  practises  of  collector  of 
papal  tax,  329;  secure  finest  palace 
in  London,  330. 

Valence,  Aylmer,  bishop-elect  of,  158, 
176,  304,  307,  398;  see  Aylmer. 

Velascus,  friar,  papal  agent,  threatens 
penalties  for  refusal  to  settle  Win- 
chester dispute,  382. 

Vicars:  residence  of,  regulated  for,  60; 
proper  provision  for,  6l. 

Wales  placed  under  an  interdict,  30. 

Walter,  the  sacrist  of  St.  Alban's,  53. 

Waltham  abbey:  not  represented  at 
Council  of  Lyons,  229. 

Waltham,  abbot  of:  deputed  by  pope 
to  inquire  into  election  expenses, 
146  ;  to  declare  Christ  Church,  Can- 
terbury, free  of  interdict,  191. 

Warren,  Earl,  12. 

Waterford,  See  of,  royal  agents  ask  for 
its  union  with  Lismore,  119. 

Wearmouth,  benefice  at,  granted  by 
monks  of  Durham  at  king's  demand, 
306. 

Wells,  dean  of:  ordered  by  pope  to 
find  a  living  for  a  Roman  ecclesiastic, 
278  ;  commissioned  by  pope  to  raise 
money  for  Abp.  Boniface,  298. 

Wendover,  Roger  de,  35,  37  ;  describes 
Qtho's  business,  92 ;  on  the  dispute  be- 
tween bishop  and  monks  of  Durham, 
65 ;  records  appointment  of  chancellor 
of  Lincoln  to  See  of  Canterbury,  124. 

Wengham,  Henry  de,  elected  bp.  of 
Winchester,  320,  323. 


Westminster,  abbey  of:  dispute  with  bp. 
of  London,  66  ;  declared  independent 
of  See  of  London,  67  ;  its  privileges, 
67  ;  litigation  with  St.  Edmund,  155. 

Westminster,  abbot  of:  deputed  by  pope 
to  inquire  into  election  expenses,  146 ; 
privileges  of,  67  ;  has  custody  of  king- 
dom in  king's  absence,  229 ;  is  sent 
as  royal  agent  to  Rome,  367,  369. 

Westminster,  parliament  at,  84,  125, 
140 ;  meeting  at,  about  taxation  for 
Sicily,  377 ;  meeting  of  clergy  at, 
under  Otho,  93  ;  royal  Christmas  at, 
189 ;  Henry  III  crowned  at,  53  ; 
grants  a  market  to,  279  ;  renewal  of 
excommunication  at,  316. 

Whitsand,  Henry  lands  at,  396. 

William,  archdeacon  of  Paris,  a  papal 
nuncio  in  England,  394. 

William,  king  of  Scotland,  168  note, 

William  the  Norman,  appointed  prior 
of  Worcester,  63. 

William  of  Nottingham,  minister  of 
Minorites  in  England,  242. 

William  of  Valence,  158,  177,  302  note; 
proposed  by  Henry  for  Winchester, 
176,  179 ;  election  refused  by  the 
monks,  303  ;  remains  in  England  and 
acquires  influence  over  Henry,  1 58  ; 
becomes  president  of  Henry's  foreign 
councillors,  I59;diesofpoisonabroad, 
1 80. 

William,  St.,  of  York,  70. 

Winchester,  bp.  of,  52,  54 ;  publishes 
pope's  excommunication  of  barons, 
22  ;  suspends  Stephen  Langton,  22  ; 
elect  of  Valence  proposed  as,  176  ; 
meets  Henry  with  terms  of  peace, 
393  ;  appeals  to  Rome  against  Otto- 
boni,  410 ;  election  of  Aylmer,  M. 
Paris  on,  304 ;  entry  of  Aylmer  as, 
307  ;  goes  to  meet  papal  legate  at 
Boulogne,  398. 

Winchester,  priory  of :  king  intrudes 
foreign  prior  on,  179;  king  at,  trying 
to  influence  election  to  See,  180;  W. 
de  Taunton  quarrels  with  Bp.  Aylmer, 


446 


HENRY  III  AND  THE  CHURCH 


Winchester,  priory  of— continued. 
317;  appeals  to  Rome,  318;  privi- 
leges granted  to  monks,  209 ;  monks 
quarrel  as  to  election  of  Aylmer,  302, 
304,  317 ;  some  monks  seek  shelter 
elsewhere,  318 ;  monks  appeal  to 
pope  against  king,  192;  election 
said  to  have  lapsed  to  pope,  193. 

Winchester,  royal  Christmas  at,  93,  306; 
parliament  at,  253- 

Winchester,  See  of :  bishop  ordered  to 
raise  a  subsidy,  251  ;  translation  of 
bp.  of  Norwich  to,  209  ;  Gregory  IX 
writes  about  election,  181  ;  Adam 
Marsh  to  settle  disputes  about  election 
to,  319;  attempts  of  Roman  official 
to  settle  matters,  381 ;  election  of  H. 
de  Wengham  to,  323. 

Windsor,  Pandulph  meets  de  Burgh  at, 

47- 
Wingham,  barns  of  foreigners  pillaged 

at,  133- 
Wingrave,  living  of,  demanded  for  pope's 

nephew,  325. 
Worcester,   bp.   of:   confronts  Henry 

about  Winchester  scandal,  211 ;  goes 

to    Council    of    Lyons,    223,    229 ; 

Nicholas   of   Ely  elected    as,   410 ; 

ordered  by  pope  to  collect  a  subsidy, 

251,  276 ;  to  be  absolved,  407,  409. 


Worcester,  King  John  buried  at,  28  ; 
Henry  wants  to  remove  King  John's 
body  to  Beaulieu,  119;  Pandulph 
orders  de  Burgh  to  meet  Llewellyn 
at,  47. 

Worcester  priory :  privileges  of,  62 ; 
forged  privileges,  62 ;  Norman  ap- 
pointed prior,  63 ;  sequestered  by 
Langton,  63 ;  dispute  with  bishop, 
62 ;  credit  of  monks  pledged,  332. 

Wych,  or  Wiz,  Rich,  de  la,  bp.  of 
Chichester,  Constitutions  of,  222, 

343- 
Wykes,  Chronicle  of,  416. 

York,  abp.  of:  sued  in  secular  courts, 
71  ;  Honorius  III  sends  orders  to, 
32 ;  absent  from  Henry  Ill's  coro- 
nation, 53  ;  absent  from  parliament, 
314 ;  ordered  to  collect  crusade  tithe, 
285-286  ;  ordered  by  pope  to  excom- 
municate Llewellyn,  74 ;  commis- 
sioned to  excommunicate  rioters,  134. 

York,  Chapter  of,  sets  aside  king's 
candidate  for  the  See,  19 ;  selects 
Simon  Langton  as  archbishop,  19. 

York,  St.  Mary's  Abbey,  dispute  be- 
tween the  monks  and  the  archbishop, 
67. 

York,  See  of,  vacant,  19. 


CHISWICK  PRESS  :   CHARLES  WHITTINGHAM  AND  CO. 
TOOKS  COURT,   CHANCERY   LANE,   LONDON. 


BR  750  .84  1910  SMC 
Gasquet,  Francis  Aidan, 
Henry  the  Third  and  the 
church  47092755