THE CHURCH AND THE NATION.

In the reign of Edward I. the relations between the Church and the Crown were defined and settled on a constitutional basis, and the clergy were assigned their own place in the national system. The king was a great lawgiver, and out of a chaotic mass of customs and institutions chose those best adapted to create an orderly polity, in which every class of men fitted for political purposes had its own share both of rights and duties. At the same time, he had no intention of giving up any of the prerogatives of the Crown, for he both loved power for its own sake and was in constant need of money. His reign was, therefore, full of struggles with those to whom he was giving ascertained rights to share in the government. He met with considerable opposition from the clergy, for the influence of the mendicant revival was directed to uphold the papal pretensions, and as far as possible to render the Church independent of the State. The main history of his struggles with the clergy assumes two distinct phases during the periods of the archiepiscopates of Peckham and Winchelsey. Peckham contended chiefly for the privileges of the National Church; and the king, who still remained in accord with Rome, got the better of him, and prevented clerical privilege from hindering his scheme of national government. Fortunately for the Church and the nation, the hold of the Pope upon the country was loosened by the breach of the accord between the papacy and the Crown which had existed ever since the submission of John. This breach was brought about by the extravagant pretensions of Rome. During the latter part of the reign, Winchelsey endeavoured to uphold these pretensions, as he was to some extent bound to do by his office. He did not, however, confine himself, as Peckham had done, simply to an ecclesiastical policy; for he took a leading part in various attempts to diminish the power of the Crown, and sought to secure a separate position for the Church, with the Pope instead of the king as her ruler, by allying himself with the party of opposition. Edward was forced to yield to the political demands made upon him; but he successfully maintained the rights of the Crown over the Church, and punished the archbishop for the part he had taken against him. The clergy equally with the laity had to bear their share of the national burdens; the claims of Rome were defeated, and the parliament set out on the course of resistance to the papal usurpations which found its completion in the sixteenth century.

During the early years of Edward’s reign matters went on smoothly between the Church and the Crown. Gregory X. was the king’s friend, and had accompanied him on his crusade; and his chief adviser and chancellor was Robert Burnell, a churchman of great ability and wisdom, who thoroughly understood how to forward his master’s ecclesiastical policy. Before Edward became king he had endeavoured to prevail on the monks of Christ Church to elect Burnell to succeed Archbishop Boniface. Archbishop Kilwardby, 1273; res. 1278.Nevertheless they chose another as archbishop; the king refused his assent to the election, and Gregory, to put an end to the vacancy, appointed Robert Kilwardby, a Dominican friar. Kilwardby, however, was by no means sufficiently vigorous in asserting the rights of the Church to satisfy Nicolas III., and allowed the privileges of the clergy in matters of jurisdiction to be curtailed by statute. Nicolas accordingly raised him to the cardinalate in 1278, called him to Rome, and thus forced him to resign the archbishopric. Edward secured the election of his friend and minister, Burnell, then bishop of Bath and Wells, and urged the Pope to confirm it. Archbishop Peckham, 1279-1292.He was again foiled; for Nicolas, after causing inquiries to be made as to the fitness of the archbishop-elect, informed the king that he could not assent to his request, and appointed John Peckham, the provincial of the English Franciscans, laying down the rule that, as the death of a prelate at Rome had long been held to give the Pope the right of appointing a successor, a resignation, which was, he declared, an analogous event, had the same effect.

Robert Burnell and the new archbishop were extreme types of two opposite sorts of churchmen. The chancellor, who was wholly devoted to the king’s service, was a statesman of high order. He was magnificent in his tastes and expenditure, held many rich preferments, and took care that his relations also should be enriched out of the wealth of the Church. His mode of life was secular, and the grand matches that he arranged for his daughters created no small scandal. Peckham, on the other hand, was a model friar, pious and learned, with exalted ideas of the rights of the papacy and the privileges of the clergy. He was fearless and conscientious, unwise and impracticable. Between him and Bishop Robert and the other clerical advisers of the king there was, of course, no sympathy. He was anxious that the dignities and benefices of the Church should be worthily bestowed, and laboured to carry out the injunctions of Nicolas III. against the prevalent abuse of pluralities. On this matter Peckham wrote plainly to Edward that he would oblige him as far as he might without offending God, but could go no further, and that he was already sneered at for “conniving at the damnable multitude of benefices held by his clerks.” Nicolas strove to check the promotion of secular-minded bishops, and when Edward procured the election of Burnell to the see of Winchester, ordered the chapter to proceed to another election. Peckham was blamed for this, and it was also alleged that he had used his influence at Rome against another of the king’s ministers, Anthony Bek, afterwards the warlike bishop of Durham. However, he denied that he had said anything to hinder the promotion of either.

Almost immediately on his arrival in England in 1279, the archbishop came into collision with the king. He held a provincial council at Reading, in which, besides publishing the canons of the Council of Lyons against pluralities, he decreed that excommunication should be pronounced against all who obtained the king’s writ to stop proceedings in ecclesiastical suits against any royal officer who refused to carry out the sentence of a spiritual court, and against all who impugned the Great Charter; and further ordered that the clergy should expound these decrees to their parishioners, and affix copies of the Charter to the doors of cathedral and collegiate churches. These decrees were a direct challenge to the king, and Edward treated them as such; for in his next parliament he compelled Peckham to revoke them, and to declare that nothing that had been done at the council should be held to prejudice the rights of the Crown or the kingdom.

Edward further rebuffed the archbishop by publishing the statute “De Religiosis” or “of Mortmain.” This statute, though, as regards the date of its promulgation part of Edward’s answer to Peckham’s assumption, was directed against an abuse of long standing, and was in strict accordance with the king’s general policy. It forbade, on pain of forfeiture, the alienation of land to religious bodies which were incapable of performing the services due from it. Land so conveyed was said to be in mortmain, or in a dead hand, because it no longer yielded profit to the lord, who was thus defrauded of his right of service, escheat, and other feudal incidents. Besides the vast amount of land that was held by the Church, estates were often fraudulently conveyed to ecclesiastical bodies, to be received again free of services by the alienor as tenant; and thus the superior lord, and the king as capital lord, were cheated, and the means for the defence of the realm were diminished. These evils were partially checked by Henry II., who levied scutage on the knights’ fees held by the clergy, and the practice of conveying lands in mortmain was prohibited by one of the Provisions of Westminster in 1259. Edward’s statute gave force to this provision by rendering it lawful, in case the immediate lord neglected to avail himself of the forfeiture, for the next chief lord to do so. Moreover, the king still further showed his discontent at the attitude of the clergy by demanding an aid from them. In spite of these rebuffs, Peckham pursued his policy of attempting to enlarge the sphere of spiritual jurisdiction at the cost of the jurisdiction of the Crown, and proposals were made in a council which he held at Lambeth in 1281 to remove suits concerning patronage and the goods of the clergy from the royal to the ecclesiastical courts. Here, however, the king interfered, and peremptorily forbade the council to meddle in matters affecting the Crown. Peckham was forced to give way, and shortly afterwards sent Edward a letter asserting in the strongest terms the liberties of the Church as agreeable to Scripture and the history of England, pointing out that it was his duty to order his conduct by the decrees of the Popes and the rules of the Church, referring the oppressions under which, he said, the clergy were suffering to the policy of Henry I. and Henry II., and reminding the king of the martyrdom of St. Thomas of Canterbury for the Church’s sake.

When Edward invaded Wales in 1282, Peckham, moved with a desire for peace and with compassion for the Welsh, endeavoured to persuade Llewelyn to submit to the English king, and, contrary to Edward’s will, went alone to Llewelyn’s fortress of Aber, and tried to arrange terms. When his efforts proved in vain, he wrote an angry and irritating letter to the Welsh prince. Nevertheless he exerted himself on behalf of the Welsh clergy, prayed Edward to allow the clerks in Snowdon to leave the country with their goods, wrote indignantly to Burnell to complain that some clerks had been hanged at Rhuddlan, “to the reproach of the clergy and the contempt of the Church,” and exhorted the king to restore the churches that had been destroyed in the war. The backward and disorderly condition of the Welsh Church caused him much concern, and he urged the bishops of Bangor and St. Asaph’s to put a stop to the concubinage or marriage of the clergy, their unseemly dress, and their neglect of their duties, to insist on the observance of the decrees of Otho and Ottoboni, and to do all in their power to overcome the angry feelings of their flocks towards the English, so that the very word “foreignry” might no more be used among them. Moreover, he was anxious to see the Welsh become civilized, and wrote to Edward advising him to encourage them to settle in towns and follow industries, and, as there were no means of education in Wales, to make the Welsh boys come to England and be taught there, instead of entering the household of a native prince, where they learnt nothing but robbery. Indeed, it would have been well for Wales had Peckham’s wishes on these and other matters been carried out. The war taxed the king’s resources severely, and, towards the end of it, Edward ordered the seizure of the money that, in accordance with a decree of the Council of Lyons, had been collected for a crusade, and stored in various great churches in England. This brought an indignant letter from Pope Martin IV. Before its arrival, however, the king had promised that the money should be refunded. Not content with a promise, the archbishop went off to meet Edward at Acton Burnell, and prevailed on him to make immediate restitution.

Undismayed by his previous failures, Peckham, in 1285, made another attempt to secure the independence of the Church in matters of jurisdiction; and a series of articles was drawn up by the bishops of his province in convocation, and presented to the king. The most important of these urged that a check should be put on the issue of prohibitions from the king’s court staying proceedings in ecclesiastical courts. The articles were answered by the chancellor; some concessions were made which failed to satisfy the bishops, and a reply was sent criticizing the chancellor’s answers. Edward was determined to settle the relations of the Church and the Crown in these matters. He had, perhaps before receiving the articles, caused an inquisition to be made into suits brought by the clergy against laymen, had imprisoned all the judges and officers of the ecclesiastical courts who were convicted of having fined laymen too heavily, and had declared that these courts could not claim as of right the cognizance of any save matrimonial and testamentary causes. This violent curtailment of the rights of the Church was maintained during the dispute with the prelates. It was modified shortly afterwards by a writ, addressed to the bishops by the king in parliament, and called “Circumspecte agatis.” By this writ, which had the force of a statute, ecclesiastical jurisdiction was defined as extending to cases of deadly sin which were visited by penance or fine, and offences as regards things spiritual, such as neglect of churches, to suits about tithes and offerings, assaults on clerks, defamation, and perjury which did not involve a question of money. This writ, then, ascertained the limits between the areas proper to the secular and the ecclesiastical courts, settled the relations between Church and State in England as far as jurisdiction was concerned, and declared the triumph of the principles which Henry II. had laid down in the Constitutions of Clarendon. The punishments inflicted by spiritual judges for the correction of the soul put a salutary check on violence and debauchery; and if sometimes the clergy used their spiritual power to defend their temporal rights, they executed justice on offenders against morality without respect of persons. Peckham gave a signal instance of this by condemning Sir Osbert Giffard, who had carried off two nuns from Wilton, to nine public floggings, to fasting, and to put off the dress and accoutrements of a knight and a gentleman until he had made a three years’ pilgrimage to the Holy Land. And as an ecclesiastical judge had a right to a writ committing any excommunicated person to prison until satisfaction was given to the Church, an offender was forced to submit to the penance imposed on him.

Although the expulsion of the Jews is chiefly a matter of economic and constitutional importance, it has also an ecclesiastical bearing. In spite of Edward’s policy in Church matters, he was a religious man. When he was in trouble or danger he made vows which he always performed: he often passed Lent to some extent in retirement, and he seems to have been pleased to attend religious ceremonies. Apart, therefore, from worldly reasons, he must have felt—for such was the general feeling of the day—that the protection afforded to the Jews by the Crown and the profit they brought to the Exchequer were alike ungodly. Besides, as a crusader he was bound to hate the enemies of the cross. The Jews were wealthy, and did no small harm by their usurious practices. Although Edward forbade them to carry on usury, the law does not seem to have been enforced; and the rich, and among them even the excellent Queen Eleanor, profited by their extortions. While the king treated them with much severity, he seems to have been anxious for their conversion, though the means adopted to bring this about were not always judicious. They were compelled to attend and listen diligently to sermons preached against their faith; the Converts’ House in London was re-endowed, and Peckham was careful to prevent them from building any new synagogues in the city. Edward, who, soon after he had taken a second crusading vow in 1287, had ordered the Jews to leave his continental dominions, at last, in 1290, greatly to the delight of all classes, expelled them from England. Both clergy and laity testified their approval of the measure by making him a grant.

During the early part of Edward’s reign, the clergy had no reason to complain of excessive taxation. Some discontent was, indeed, felt at the new and more stringent valuation of clerical property which was made after Nicolas IV. had, in 1288, granted the king a tenth for six years for the purpose of a new crusade. This valuation, called the “Taxation of Pope Nicolas,” took cognizance of both the temporalities and the spiritualities of the clergy, and was used as the basis for ecclesiastical taxation until the sixteenth century. In 1294, however, Edward was in great straits for money, for he was forced into a war with France. Robert Burnell was dead, and the measures Edward adopted to raise money probably show how much he lost by his minister’s death. Among other unconstitutional acts, he seized the money and treasure stored in the cathedrals and abbeys. He called an assembly of the clergy of both provinces and demanded a grant. Archbishop Winchelsey, 1294-1313.The clergy had no head; for Peckham died in 1292, and Robert Winchelsey, who had been elected as his successor, was still at Rome, whither he had gone for consecration. They failed to appreciate the urgency of the crisis, and offered a single grant of two-tenths. Edward was indignant, and declared that they should give him one-half of their revenues, or he would outlaw them. The dean of St. Paul’s, who went to court hoping to pacify him, was so frightened at his anger that he fell down dead. Finally, Edward sent a knight to the assembled clergy; his messenger bluntly stated the king’s demand, and added, “Whoever of you will say him nay, let him stand up that he may be known.” They tried to make conditions, and prayed for the abrogation of the Statute of Mortmain. To this the king would not consent, and they were forced to yield to his grievous demand.

Edward’s need of money led him to perfect the organization of parliament as an assembly of estates competent to speak and act for the nation. In this assembly the estate of the clergy was to have its place. National councils of the Church, though held on the occasion of legatine visits, consisted only of bishops, and had fallen into disuse; and the clerical grants were made by the convocations of the two provinces separately. Besides these provincial convocations, the clergy met in diocesan synods, and also in assemblies of archdeaconries or other districts. The diocesan synods, the cathedral chapters, and sometimes the smaller clerical assemblies, were consulted as to proposed grants, and acted independently of each other. In the last reign, for example, the rectors of Berkshire drew up a remonstrance against a grant to help the Pope in his war with the Emperor. Inconvenient as it was, the practice of seeking the assent of local synods to taxation was necessary so long as the whole body of the beneficed clergy was not systematically represented in convocation. The principle of clerical representation had gained ground during the reign of Henry III., and in 1283 Peckham confirmed it by fixing the manner in which it was to be carried out. Two proctors were to be chosen by the clergy of each diocese of the southern province, and one for each cathedral and collegiate chapter. In the northern province the custom of choosing two proctors for each archdeaconry appears to have obtained somewhat earlier. Edward, when settling the representation of the clergy in Parliament, adopted Peckham’s system, and in summoning the bishops to the parliament of 1295, which has served as a model for all future parliaments, caused a clause, called the “prÆmunientes” clause, to be inserted in the writs, directing each bishop to order the election of two proctors for the clergy of his diocese and one for his cathedral chapter, who should attend parliament with full power to “discuss, ordain, and act.” Thus the clergy became one of the parliamentary estates, and, like the other estates, made their grants independently, and possibly deliberated apart. As, however, their tendency was at this time towards the assertion of a separate position in the State, they did not value this change, and, as we shall see, soon succeeded in establishing the custom of making their grants in their own convocations.

The submission of John to Innocent III. had established an accord between the Crown and the papacy that had in the last reign been fraught with evil to the Church. It came to an end because Edward, who was determined that the Church should be national in the fullest sense, and should take its place in the national system with clearly defined rights and with a liability to public burdens, found his plans opposed by a Pope who would recognize no limit to his authority, or to the immunities of the clergy. This Pope was Boniface VIII. Forgetful alike of the spirit of resistance to papal interference that had lately been exhibited in England, of the increase of independent thought that had arisen from the influence of the universities, and of the effect of the doctrines of the civil lawyers in magnifying the authority of the king, and equally forgetful of the rapid advance of the power of the French monarchy, Boniface attempted to usurp the rights of the Crown in both countries. In February 1296 he published the bull “Clercis laicos,” forbidding, on pain of excommunication, the clergy to grant, or the secular power to take, any taxes from the revenues of churches or the goods of clerks. In the October parliament the laity made their grants; but the clergy, after a debate led by Winchelsey, which lasted several days, informed the king that they could grant him nothing. Edward would not accept this answer, and ordered Winchelsey to let him know their final determination the following January. The archbishop accordingly held a convocation at St. Paul’s on St. Hilary’s Day, to decide whether there was any middle way between disobeying the Pope and disobeying the king. Hugh Despenser and a clerk, who attended as the king’s proctors, set forth the dangers of foreign invasion that threatened the kingdom. By way of reply, Winchelsey caused the Pope’s bull to be read. Despenser then plainly told the clergy that unless they granted the sum needed for the defence of the country the king and the lords would treat their revenues as might seem good to them. They persevered in their refusal; and on the 12th of February the king, who was in urgent need of supplies for the war against France, outlawed the whole of the clergy of the southern province, took their lay fees into his own hand, and allowed any one who would to seize their horses. Meanwhile Winchelsey excommunicated all who should contravene the papal decree. The clergy of the northern province, however, submitted, and received letters of protection. Edward’s difficulties were increased by the refusal of his lords, led by the Constable and Marshal, the Earls Bohun and Bigod, to make an expedition to Flanders whilst he went to the army in Gascony. Winchelsey, though not wavering himself, was unwilling to expose any of his clergy to further danger, if they could find a way of escape, and held another convocation, in which he bade each “save his own soul.” Many of them accordingly compounded with the commissioners whom the king had appointed for that purpose.

In spite of the threatening attitude of the malcontent lords, Edward could not refuse to fulfil his engagements to his allies. He raised supplies and a force by means which, though unconstitutional, were justified by necessity, was reconciled to the archbishop, and took a solemn leave of his people from a platform in front of Westminster Hall, telling them that he knew that he had not reigned as well as he ought, but that all the money that had been taken from them had been spent in their defence, and requesting them, if he did not return from Flanders, to crown his son Edward. Winchelsey wept at the king’s words, and all the people shouted assent. Nevertheless, the barons remained rebellious, demanded that the king should confirm the Great Charter and the Forest Charter, and presented a petition of grievances. Nor was the ecclesiastical matter settled, though the clergy offered to ask the Pope’s leave to make a grant. Before Edward left he taxed the temporalities of the clergy, for he evidently suspected them of acting with the malcontents. Soon after he had set sail, the barons came up armed to a council at London, which was attended by the bishops, though not by the inferior clergy. Winchelsey seems to have presided at this council; and apparently by his advice the young Edward, whom his father had left as regent, was required to confirm the charters with certain additions. He assented, and sent the charters to his father, who confirmed them along with the new articles. These articles may be said to have declared it illegal for the Crown to levy any taxes or imposts, save those anciently pertaining to it, without the consent of parliament.

In November the ecclesiastical dispute was brought to an end. Early in the year Boniface, to satisfy Philip of France, declared that he did not forbid the clergy to contribute to national defence or to make voluntary grants; and Winchelsey took advantage of a Scottish invasion to recommend the clergy to tax themselves. The dispute had been independent of the rebellious behaviour of the Constable and Marshal, who had taken advantage of it to put pressure on the king. Winchelsey’s conduct with regard to the proceedings of the earls seems to prove that he had an enlightened desire for constitutional freedom; and the Church in his person again appeared, as she had appeared so often before, as the assertor of national rights. Nor did the Church fail to gain much by the issue of the ecclesiastical dispute. The victory lay with the Crown; the national character of the Church was established, and it was saved from the danger of sinking into a handmaid of Rome, which would probably have come to pass if the papacy and the Crown had remained at one. From henceforth the Church generally found the State ready to protect her liberties from papal invasion.

After Edward’s return fresh demands were made upon him, and a long struggle ensued between him and the parliament on the subject of disafforestation, or the reduction of the royal forests to their ancient boundaries. Winchelsey evidently continued in opposition, partly with the view of increasing the papal authority by embarrassing the king. His desire to uphold the Pope’s authority led him at last to commit the fatal error of opposing a cause of national concern. Edward’s claim to the crown of Scotland was alternately admitted and rejected by the Scottish lords, who submitted to him when he overawed them by appearing in Scotland at the head of his forces, and rebelled when he returned to England. Finding themselves unable to resist him, they appealed to Boniface to help them. Accordingly, in 1299, Boniface published a bull asserting that the kingdom of Scotland was a fief of the Holy See, and ordering Edward to submit his claim to the decision of Rome. On receiving this bull Winchelsey journeyed to Galloway, where Edward then was, and in August 1300 appeared before him, in company with a papal envoy, presented the bull, and added, it is said, an exhortation of his own on the duty of obedience and the happiness of those who were as the people of Jerusalem and as Mount Zion. “By God’s blood!” shouted the indignant king, “I will not hold my peace for Zion, nor keep silence for Jerusalem, but will defend my right that is known to all the world with all my might.” The archbishop was bidden to inform the Pope that the king would send him an answer after he had consulted with his lords, for “it was the custom of England that in matters touching the state of the realm all those who were affected by the business should be consulted.”

Acting on this principle, Edward, early the next year, laid the bull before his barons at a parliament held at Lincoln, and bade them proceed in the matter. Accordingly they wrote to the Pope, on behalf of themselves and the whole community of the realm, briefly informing him that the feudal superiority over Scotland belonged to the English Crown; that the kings of England ought not to answer before any judge, ecclesiastical or secular, concerning their rights in that kingdom; that they had determined that their king should not answer concerning them or any other of his temporal rights before the Pope, or accept his judgment, or send proctors to his court; and that, even if he were willing to obey the bull, they would not allow him to do so. This letter was signed by the lay baronage only, not by the bishops. At this parliament the barons requested the king to dismiss his treasurer, Walter Langton, bishop of Lichfield, and presented certain petitions for reform. Most of these petitions were granted, and among them the demand for disafforestation; the last, that the goods of the clergy should not be taxed against the will of the Pope, evidently bears witness to the terms of the alliance between Winchelsey and the barons. This article was rejected by the king, who thus further separated the baronial from the clerical interest. Nor did he dismiss Langton, who was soon afterwards suspended from his bishopric on charges of adultery, simony, homicide, and dealings with the devil; he was acquitted by the Pope, and probably owed his suspension to Winchelsey’s enmity.

The overthrow of Boniface by the French king, Philip IV., involved the failure of his attempt to establish the dominion of the papacy over national churches. Clement V., the next Pope but one, was a Gascon, and settled the papal court at Avignon, where it remained for seventy years, a period called the “Babylonish captivity.” During this period the papal court became a French institution. This caused Englishmen to be very jealous of the Pope’s interference; and when the king was at one with his people the Popes were not allowed to exercise much authority here, and the national character of the Church was effectually defended. Clement was anxious to oblige Edward. As a Gascon noble, and as archbishop of Bordeaux, he had been his subject, and as Pope he was not willing to become the tool of the French king. Edward took advantage of his goodwill. He considered that his people had dealt hardly with him, and had forced him to give up his just rights, and he obtained a bull from the Pope absolving him from the oaths which he had taken. In doing so he simply acted in accordance with the ideas of his time, and this is the one excuse that can be made for him. Nor was he content with thus providing for the repair of his royal dignity; he took vengeance on the man who had done as much as any one to lessen it. Winchelsey suspended.In 1305, when the old baronial opposition had wholly ceased, he accused Winchelsey of having engaged in treason in 1301, and added other causes of complaint against him. Edward submitted the charges against him to the Pope, who suspended him, and summoned him to Rome. He did not return to England until after the king’s death. Although the Pope took the administration of the see of Canterbury into his own hands, the king, of course, seized the temporalities. Clement complained of this; and Edward, in order to ensure the continuance of his triumph over the archbishop, allowed the Pope’s agents to receive the profits arising from them.

While, however, the king and the Pope were thus obliging one another, the papacy had nevertheless lost ground in England. For full eighty years its power here had depended mainly on its alliance with the Crown; and now that Boniface had shown that this power, if unchecked, would destroy the rights of the Crown over the Church, the king was prepared to join with his people in resisting it. Remonstrance of parliament against papal exactions, 1307.Winchelsey’s absence afforded an opportunity. In a parliament held at Carlisle in 1307, statutes were published prohibiting the taxation of English monasteries by their foreign superiors; and while much debate was being held on the oppression of Rome, a letter was found, written under an assumed name and addressed to the “Noble Church of England, now in mire and servitude,” which set forth in terms of bitter sarcasm the evils she suffered from her “pretended father” the Pope. This letter was read before the king, a cardinal-legate who was visiting England to arrange the marriage of the Prince of Wales, and the whole parliament. A document was then drawn up enumerating the encroachments of Rome which were carried out by the papal agents and collectors. These were the appointment of foreigners to English benefices by provisions; the application of monastic revenues to the maintenance of cardinals; the reservation of first-fruits, then a novel claim; the increase in the amount demanded as Peter’s pence, and other oppressions. The cause of complaint with reference to Peter’s pence arose from an attempt of William de Testa, the Pope’s collector, to demand a penny for each household, instead of the fixed sum hitherto paid. The articles were accepted and forwarded to the Pope, and Testa was examined before parliament, and ordered to abstain from further exactions. Edward, however, was hampered by his need of Clement’s co-operation. After the parliament was dissolved, he was persuaded by the cardinal to allow Testa to proceed with the collection of first-fruits; and when the papal agents appeared before the council to answer the charges made against them in parliament, they took up an aggressive position, and complained that they had been hindered in the execution of their duty. Before these matters were brought to a conclusion the king died.

Immediately on his accession, Edward II. recalled Winchelsey, and imprisoned his father’s minister, Walter Langton. The resistance to papal exactions was renewed in a parliament held at Stamford in 1309, where the king gave his consent to a petition presented by the lay estates for the reformation of civil abuses. At this parliament the barons sent a letter of complaint to the Pope of much the same character as the document drawn up at Carlisle. Clement, by way of answer, complained that his collectors were impeded, that his briefs and citations were not respected, that laymen exercised jurisdiction over spiritual persons, and that the tribute granted by John to the See of Rome had not been paid for some fifteen years. Here the matter seems to have ended, and the chief features of our Church history during this wretched reign are closely connected with the quarrels and general disorganization that prevailed in the kingdom. For a time Winchelsey acted with the king, but Edward’s carelessness and evil government drove him into opposition. While the country at large had much to complain of, the Church had her special grievances. In 1309 the archbishop held a provincial council to decide on proceedings against the Templars; for the king had promised the Pope that the English Church should take part in attacking the Order. At this council gravamina were adopted which show that constant encroachments were made on the sphere of ecclesiastical jurisdiction. The next year the archbishop and six of his suffragans were chosen as “Ordainers,” the name given to a commission appointed by a council of magnates, lay and spiritual, to carry out a system of reform. Winchelsey and the bishops of his province pronounced excommunication against all who hindered the ordinances, or revealed the secrets of the Ordainers. First among the objects which the Ordainers swore to promote was the increase of the honour and welfare of the Church; and the interference with the spiritual courts which had been complained of the year before was forbidden by one of their ordinances. As Winchelsey thus joined the party of opposition, the king, in 1312, released Langton, and appointed him treasurer; for, in spite of all that had passed, the old servant of Edward I. upheld the cause of the Crown. The earl of Lancaster, the head of the opposition, seems to have been regarded as favourable to the claims of the Church; for in 1316, when he had virtually obtained the complete control of the kingdom, the estate of the clergy presented, in a parliament held at Lincoln, a series of complaints called “Articuli Cleri.” The royal assent was given, and the “articles” became a statute. By these articles the rules laid down in the writ “Circumspecte agatis” were re-enacted, and various rights and liberties, touching matters of jurisdiction and sanctuary, were acknowledged. Among these, it was allowed that it pertained to a spiritual, and not to any temporal judge, to examine into the fitness of a parson presented to a benefice, and that elections to dignities should be free from lay interference.

Throughout the whole reign elections by capitular bodies were constantly set at nought. Sometimes the Pope appointed to a bishopric on the king’s recommendation, and sometimes in spite of his wishes. From the time of Stephen Langton onwards, the Popes had so often interfered with the appointment to the primacy, either, as in the case of Peckham, acting in opposition to the Crown, or, as in that of Winchelsey, in unison with it, that their claim was now tacitly admitted. As regards suffragan bishoprics, their interference was often exercised owing either to the death of a bishop at Rome, or to appeals. Besides, it seems to have been laid down in this reign that the right of appointing to a see vacant by translation belonged to the Pope, who alone had the power to sanction the divorce between a bishop and his diocese. The embarrassments of Edward II. encouraged a still greater encroachment on the rights of the Church and of the Crown; and Clement simply appointed bishops by reservation and provision, declaring that he had during the lifetime of the last bishop reserved the appointment for himself, and that as a vacancy had occurred, he had found a fit man, and provided him accordingly. In some cases the bishop thus provided had been nominated by the Crown and elected by the chapter; in others the wishes of both were set aside out of the fulness of the Pope’s power.

The bishops of this reign were as a body, though with some exceptions, worldly and self-seeking. On the death of Winchelsey, in 1313, the monks of Christ Church chose a new archbishop of high repute for learning and character. At the king’s request, Clement set aside their election and appointed Edward’s old tutor, Walter Reynolds, bishop of Worcester, the son of a baker, and a man in all respects unworthy of such an office. Before he came to the throne Edward had found him useful to him, and when he became king he made him treasurer and chancellor. During the troubles of the reign, Reynolds adhered to the king until he began to suspect that it was no longer his interest to do so. An election made by the chapter of Durham was set aside by John XXII., who provided Lewis Beaumont, an ignorant man, and lame in both his feet, so that it was said in England, that the Pope would never have appointed him if he had seen him. Beaumont, however, was a connexion of Edward’s queen, Isabella; and John, who was a ProvenÇal, was willing to do anything to oblige the French court. The same year the Pope disregarded both the choice of the chapter of Hereford and the earnest request of the king, and appointed Adam Orlton to the see. Utterly unscrupulous, and at once bold and subtle, Orlton was the worst of all the bad bishops of his time. About two years later, Edward tried to obtain the appointment of Henry Burghersh, the nephew of Lord Badlesmere, who was at that time useful to him, to the see of Winchester. Pope John reserved the see, and appointed an Italian. However, in 1320, the Lincoln chapter elected Burghersh in order to please the king; and Badlesmere, who was then at Avignon, is said to have spent a vast sum of the king’s money in procuring the papal assent, for Burghersh was under the canonical age.

When the barons formed a league against the king’s favourites, the Despensers, in 1321, they were joined by Burghersh, who followed his kinsman Badlesmere, by Orlton, and John of Drokensford, bishop of Bath. The victory of Boroughbridge gave the king supreme power, and he caused Orlton to be arrested, and charged with treason before the peers. Orlton declared that his metropolitan was, under the Pope, his immediate judge, and refused to plead without the consent of the archbishop and his suffragans. The primate and his suffragans then rose and prayed the king to have mercy on the bishop. Edward refused, and they then pleaded the privilege of the Church, and claimed him as a clerk. He was accordingly delivered over to the custody of the archbishop. Nevertheless the king caused a jury to try him in his absence, and obtained a verdict against him. But the archbishop would not give him up. Edward sent to Avignon to complain of the conduct of the three bishops who had sided with the barons against him, and requested the Pope to deprive them of their English sees. He did not turn his victory to good account. In 1325 two of the bishops who had obtained their sees from the Pope against the king’s will, John Stratford of Winchester and William Ayermin of Norwich, while on an embassy to France, entered into a plot against the Despensers. By their advice the queen was sent into France, and there Mortimer joined her. The king in vain urged her to return, and the bishops, at his request, sent a letter to the same effect. She came back at last with an armed force, and Orlton, Burghersh, and Ayermin raised money for her from their fellow-bishops. When she came to Oxford, Orlton expounded the reason of her rebellion to the university in a sermon, taking as his text the words, “Caput meum doleo” (2 Kings iv. 19). Reynolds and some of the bishops remained for a while in London, trying to quiet matters. While they were there, Bishop Stapleton of Exeter, who had been one of the king’s ministers, and remained faithful to him, was slain by the citizens. His murder caused them to flee, and Stratford, and at last Reynolds, joined the queen’s party. The king was now a prisoner, and Reynolds, who owed everything to his favour, Stratford, whom he had forgiven and trusted in spite of his having deceived him, and Orlton, his avowed enemy, took active part in his deposition.

Meanwhile the province of York had been exposed to the ravages of the Scots. Edward prevailed on John XXII. to command a truce and send over legates with authority to excommunicate Bruce. The legates’ envoys were robbed and ill-treated, and the sentence was accordingly pronounced. It had no effect on the war, and in 1318 the Scots broke into Yorkshire. They made a savage raid, and did much damage to churches and ecclesiastical property. Ripon paid them £1000 for its safety. A new archbishop, William Melton, had lately been consecrated. He had served the king and his father well, and Edward, after some trouble, had obtained the Pope’s confirmation for him. He was made one of the wardens of the marches, and at once arrayed his tenants for military service. There was little help to be obtained from the king, and when the Scots came down the next year most of the fighting men of the north had been called away to Edward’s army at Berwick. Melton, however, raised what local force he could, and led a large and undisciplined host to meet the Scottish army at Myton. The archbishop’s army was routed, and so many clerks were slain in the battle that it was called the “chapter of Myton.” The absence of any united and vigorous action for the defence of the country was largely due to the disloyalty and selfishness of Thomas, earl of Lancaster. The Sherburn Parliament, 1321.The earl was powerful in Yorkshire, and after making a league for mutual support with the lords of the north, he summoned a meeting of the estates at Sherburn, near Pomfret, in 1321. To this northern parliament he called the archbishop and prelates of the province, and Melton and the clergy obeyed his summons, evidently with the hope of making peace. Lancaster’s parliament met in the parish church, and after the schedule of grievances and the lords’ bond of association had been read, the earl bade the prelates consult apart, and give him their answer; for all was done as though in a legal and national parliament. The clergy debated in the rectory, and sent a reply in to the earl that was wise and worthy of their profession. They petitioned for a cessation of hostile movements, and for concord in the next parliament, so that, by God’s favour, parliament might find remedies for the grievances expressed in the articles. In other words, they exhorted the earl to abandon his isolated position, and seek the good of the country by peaceful and constitutional means. Their answer was received graciously, but their advice was not followed. The archbishop took no part in the disloyal conduct of the majority of the bishops; he and his suffragan of Carlisle, and two bishops of the southern province, protested against the deposition of Edward II., and he abstained from attending the coronation of the young king.

During the reign of Edward II. the clergy showed their unwillingness to attend parliament, and their decided preference for voting their grants in convocation. When, for example, they were summoned to the parliament in which the work of the Ordainers was published in 1311, they sent no proctors. Before the meeting in the autumn the king wrote to the archbishops, calling on them to urge the attendance of the clergy. Winchelsey objected to the writ, and the king issued another, promising that if it contained any cause of offence it should be remedied. Again, in 1314 Edward ordered the archbishops to summon the convocations of their provinces to treat about an aid. The clergy, however, declared that this was an infringement of the rights of the Church, and departed without further discussion. Before the next parliament, besides the regular writ with the “prÆmunientes” clause, he sent a special letter to the archbishops, urging them to press the attendance of the clergy; and this double summons was thenceforth sent regularly until 1340. Nevertheless in 1318 the clerical estate in parliament refused to make a grant without convocation. When the matter was referred to the convocation of Canterbury, the answer was returned that the grant must depend on the Pope’s consent, and a messenger was sent to Avignon to obtain it. The position of the clerical estate in Parliament was peculiar, for it is certain that its consent was not necessary to legislation. At the same time, when, as in 1316, a petition of the clergy touching spiritual matters received the royal assent, it was with that assent accepted as a statute. In convocation the action of the clergy was perfectly free; they made what grant they would without lay interference, though they had no means of appropriating the supplies they voted. While they withdrew as far as possible from parliament, they did not do so altogether, and in critical times their attendance was specially insisted on, in order that the consent of parliament might be general. Even at the present day they are summoned to every parliament by the “prÆmunientes” clause, and it is by their own act, by their preference for taxing themselves in their own assembly, that they have lost the right of obeying the summons. Convocations were summoned by the archbishops for other purposes besides taxation, and the ordinary legislative business of the Church was carried on in them. When a convocation met for self-taxation, it did so in consequence of a royal request for money, though it was summoned, as on other occasions, by the archbishop, not by the king. As the king made a like request to the lay estates at the same time, it naturally came to pass that convocation and parliament met about the same date. Nevertheless it would be easy to give many instances which show that meetings of convocation for purposes of taxation were not necessarily concurrent with, nor in any way dependent upon, the parliamentary session, as they became at a later period.