_THE CHURCH AND THE NATION._
CHARACTER OF THE REIGN OF EDWARD I.--ARCHBISHOP PECKHAM--STATUTE OF
MORTMAIN--CONQUEST OF WALES--CIRCUMSPECTE AGATIS--EXPULSION OF THE
JEWS--CLERICAL TAXATION AND REPRESENTATION IN PARLIAMENT--BREACH
BETWEEN THE CROWN AND THE PAPACY--CONFIRMATION OF THE
CHARTERS--ARCHBISHOP WINCHELSEY AND THE RIGHTS OF THE CROWN--THE
ENGLISH PARLIAMENT AND PAPAL EXACTIONS--CHURCH AND STATE DURING THE
REIGN OF EDWARD II.--PAPAL PROVISIONS TO BISHOPRICS--THE BISHOPS AND
SECULAR POLITICS--THE PROVINCE OF YORK--PARLIAMENT AND CONVOCATION.
[Sidenote: Edward I., 1272-1307.]
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.
[Sidenote: Archbishop Kilwardby, 1273; res. 1278.]
[Sidenote: Archbishop Peckham, 1279-1292.]
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. 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. 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.
[Sidenote: Statute of Mortmain, 1279.]
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.
[Sidenote: Conquest of Wales, 1282.]
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.
[Sidenote: Limits of spiritual jurisdiction defined.]
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.
[Sidenote: Expulsion of the Jews, 1290.]
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.
[Sidenote: Clerical taxation.]
[Sidenote: Archbishop Winchelsey, 1294-1313.]
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. 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.
[Sidenote: Parliamentary representation.]
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 "_praemunientes_" 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.
[Sidenote: Breach between the Crown and the Papacy.]
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.
[Sidenote: Winchelsey and the Charters.]
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.
[Sidenote: Winchelsey's policy of opposition.]
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.
[Sidenote: Clement V., 1305-1316.]
[Sidenote: Winchelsey suspended.]
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. 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.
[Sidenote: Remonstrance of parliament against papal exactions, 1307.]
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. 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.
[Sidenote: Edward II., 1307-1327.]
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.
[Sidenote: Bishops appointed by provision.]
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
Provencal, 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.
[Sidenote: The Bishops and secular politics.]
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.
[Sidenote: The Battle of Myton, 1319.]
[Sidenote: The Sherburn Parliament, 1321.]
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 L1000 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 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.
[Sidenote: Parliament and convocation.]
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 "praemunientes" 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 "praemunientes" 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.